* 

Auen Cd heh 
eee NEN EEE wen He 

vo h HOME ere ty ὧν RN, 

. δὰ 

th 


ems 


1 bony 
ahs etree 
Pilea HL TREE a re εἰ 4, yb Ped 
Nb Meh CEU VENA KL NAEAS Nek sr bea tage 
KU ER ER BEREIT oe 
ΡΜ ain ane 
νὴ 
Pe aioli 


: \ h Winkanıg, 

Y i ͵ " N . | Hatin anaes 
u yeh ἢ , } taint ; MEER 

δια Φ 2) hansedun Sangh, inks 

Harve N NE sae vis hc MaEn: 
46050 mu des Awan re 

ord 

jr tard 
ΠΝ PEs μα 

a Shey ora TG 4 τον νὰν δὶ betes 
orten 1 4 τῷ boten eu pedas 

Meteo 
ΕΝ 
: ΡΩΝ 

ter ἜΝ αὐ} δε 
rd 


| tte ἐἰ εν εν ᾽ν 
re 
Da 


Ἵ ΝΣ 


i 
4 
* 
I 
i 
» 


. datvic 
He RI PR 


ΟΣ 
wer ἀρ. νος 


reif 


Waseca 
Wl ris js 


Ὁ} 


rit, 
Η 


᾿ 


εἶτ τευ ς 


τυ 
deta, 
ἐν 


sr 


ὡς 


war 
Da te 
N 


uns 


3 ghee οὐ ier ee itt ys 
+ pier |, nn a 
ate tae -«» “εἴ, 
ΤΕΥ 4 FR Rhee 
th abe nn ten nn Lye a _. 


RE 


un. Sm 
ἢ ee: 
t ‘ ee 
2 ol ee PL 5 
Am mn . 


ἐγεϑέφενν ον 
aren IC: 
Pr 
ee 
a sseaute 


Ben s 
9 HAAS, vr 


EN eine je 
Mt Died Mk ne AA 
bee 


are 


ind ἀεὶ ὁ ὦ ὁ 
ΠΡ 


7 
Ὁ 
wl 
a 
μὴ 


INTRODUCTION 


NEW TESTAMENT 
otk En ZAHN ABER 


PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS, ERLANGEN UNIVERSITY d 


TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION 


BY 


JOHN MOORE TROUT, WILLIAM ARNOT MATHER, LOUIS 
HODOUS, EDWARD STRONG WORCESTER, WILLIAM 
HOYT WORRELL, anD ROWLAND BACKUS DODGE 


FELLOWS AND SCHOLARS OF HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


UNDER THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF 


MELANCTHON WILLIAMS JACOBUS 


HOSMER PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS 
AND DEAN OF THE FACULTY 


ASSISTED BY 


CHARLES SNOW THAYER 


DIRECTOR OF THE CASE MEMORIAL LIBRARY 
THREE VOLUMES IN ONE 


SECOND EDITION 
REVISED 


NEW YORK 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
1917 


\ pa 


ol Fi 


Ya 


„Riuo. Ὁ SLE Re Ἢ roman ΠΝ AUGET. 100% 
ΜΆΠΙΙΝ (α [ΟἿ᾽ MONTE ἘΔ) ΤῊ 8 
dda ἃ phased AMAIVIOR un ata ον Te 

Aa RON TIAN BY Bias Un. ayuda | 


Ὗ ΤῊΝ τ 
EN 


ea eu ‘ava mir Mae and 


Bevioday’ era vortouniam ἢ # 
‘ Park Katy Fler ἄν, ὁ EEE. 
ST : pen? Sie aang rated 


Pa. ΤῊΝ ἘΠ 


AUTHORS PREFACE, TO THE ENGLISH 
EDITION 


en 


I wave been asked by Professor Jacobus, who first 
suggested the plan for the translation into English of 
my Introduction to the New Testament, and to’ whose 
praiseworthy energy the carrying out of the plan is due, 
to prepare an Introduction for the English edition. This: 
affords me a welcome opportunity to express my hearty 
thanks, first of all to Professor Jacobus himself, and also 
to Dr. Thayer, his fellow Professor in the Hartford 
Theological Seminary, who has seen the entire work 
through the press, and to the younger theologians, by 
whom the first draft of the translation has been prepared, 
for the great sacrifice of time and labour required in:order 
to present this work to the English-speaking public in a 
form as complete as possible, and at the same time con- 
venient for use. What these difficulties are no one is in 
better position to appreciate than the author himself, who 
is responsible for the plan and the style which: render his 
work difficult’ to read—especially for foreigners—and to 
translate. Of these difficulties: 1 was very early reminded. 
I still recall, often with very mingled. feelings, the words 
with which E. Renan* once described my book on Ignatius 
of Antioch (1873): “ Quiconque aura le courage de lire 
ces 650 pages, écrites d’un style obscur et embarassé, 
possédera réellement les éléments pour résoudre la ques- 
1 Journal des Savants (1874), p. 34. 


vi PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION 


tion; mais tout le travail du raisonnement et de la 
critique restera bien ἃ sa charge.” For this criticism, 
certainly not flattering, I have found a twofold consola- 
tion. Whoever attempts to answer definitely a question 
complex in character and long discussed without satis- 
factory results, and to prove in as thorough a manner 
as possible that his is the only possible answer, will 
certainly not succeed in writing an elegant romance such 
as the brilliant Frenchman’s Vie de Jesus. If, with a 
fair degree of completeness and accuracy, he succeeds in 
supplying the reader with the elements from which a 
correct judgment can be formed, he may reasonably crave 
some’ indulgence for “the obscure and confused style” 
which reflects the great variety of the material handled, 
and of the observations to be made. As regards criticism 
itself, this very Ignatian question is an instructive illus- 
tration of the fact that the wide currency of a critical 
view is no guarantee that this view will be permanently 
held. Even Renan admitted that my “ uncritical mono- 
graph” definitely disposed (définitivement écarté) of the 
hypothesis of W. Cureton, which was a favourite one in 
Germany also, that the genuine portion of the Ignatian 
literature consisted of the brief recension of only three 
Hpistles edited by Cureton himself from a Syriac transla- 
tion. Renan’s judgment on this point has proved correct. 
At the same time, his own new hypothesis, that’ only 
Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans and some sentences in 
the other Epistles are genuine, found scarcely any accept- 
ance; whereas to-day the genuineness of the seven 
Epistles, the attempt to prove which in 1875 was re- 
garded by the majority of critics as a youthful venture, 
and as evidence of a lack of critical judgment, is almost 
universally accepted. Such experiences are a plea for 
patience; they also strengthen the hope that patient 
work in the realm of early Christian literature will not 
be done in vain. 


PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION vii 


Likewise, in the literary criticism of the New Testa- 
ment the last forty years have witnessed at least the 
beginnings of a trend toward betterment. Unhealthy 
eccentricities in criticism have appeared, especially in 
the criticism of the Pauline Epistles, but at the same 
time sound tendencies have made themselves felt. One 
of these sounder tendencies I hold to be the greater 
appreciation of the tradition, without which it is impos- 
sible for any criticism to make an historical presentation. 
To be noted also is a modest realisation of the gaps in our 
knowledge which forbids us regarding all that seems 
strange to us, and especially what is unintelligible, as 
evidence against the genuineness of the documeni.:in 
question. To be noted further is an increasing distrust 
of a prior constructions of every kind, and more attention 
to material and personal details, which were inserted quite 
unconsciously on the part of the New Testament writers, 
but which are of inestimable value to us, because frequently 
they afford us a better insight than do leading ideas, into 
the connection between literary remains and the circum- 
stances and conditions under which they were produced. 

This development of the historical sense among 
theologians has redounded to the benefit of my Intro- 
duction. In one of the reviews of the first volume of 
the first edition (1897), the reviewer made the conjecture 
that owing to the great bulk of the work the circulation 
would not be wide. The conjecture has not proved true. 
The English translation of the third German edition now 
completed is to me an encouraging confirmation of the 
hope with which I ventured to dedicate the first edition 
to the University of Cambridge. I can only hope that 
the great and self-denying efforts which the translators 
have made may be rewarded by a corresponding influence 
of the work in the wide English-speaking world. 


THEODOR ZAHN. 
ERLANGEN, March 1909. 


fy "yon prac, HRRTOKE ACE Off: TORTE a ἢ 

͵ weal wall οὐδ tor ατοϊοί τὸ serohtl, add Hr 

Jolt, ϑορϑί δα. hoveontin ms AIGOY, vr: dels 

FA klasdal. - inomıstied | hiswod. haan, ato 
Poon vileisögas, bomagqqane vad. ἐρτρίο δεν Ir 
Ana) odt je ac, og re alison 
X nt) ‚at cowloats dips hautyevied 16 sort 

 Pueiiany ont scho lod .} cesindgbrgty: obnwor: if 

τ τἀριητί Bi diy doidiy.driogtinnyaoittbend, Hr fits 

f Montstreeotg, Inoigotecdhise ailam od Auerskhine wu 10h, ld 

we age edie. oitg2iloosmedbomye. #ivoale balom« act 

ὃ ateraaı ‚die Baileys eg ‚ahidsokndaide,, ay belie 

£ Fe" ‚ldigillataias i dala WUsinag aa busen ,,8 

iso 5641:.}0, Beh: SHR Ophir dagegen, fi 
ἀρ μαβ αἰ gyi coat bi oe ec, Cy fo 

Meile har. bevel yaar oe ἀν 
ep, hotsoaning ow, ΓΤ edisdoly jisnozaog hasulsiund ww 

rap Gores 207 WOR addyto, Aisch aildgte,s Rabin re 

N ἘΠ᾿ ἀϑύρουν aausoad ver 0} plensldgreitaski, to oped 

τ ΦΗ͂Ι ‚ash autbeslıoh. fal alien noted ia, eur 
{ jr Fo ld. seurhuugerso srl, a We ng THO 

ae boothong ptowygods dois vevtpboyeois il 
\ A ἂν Ihaikodend,n sultinto aansıg: agaloy sly δὶ 
tote ogo, Aovditonedy ait. oe beweberim ects ex Aig 
“ee suzloy sd, va) lo oe life Ist Popowo sa wn. MO 
ο βαμθοί πον il ahaa A Wera % 

IE aa How otis lovwi liad, φησί pul in 
Bi ‚bovorpsotuznd,aspionis | RUM \ohäwm 
ost; ΤΥ EEE ern τ | 

Far ais τὸ ν αὐ bing oa 


nee οὐδ i er  νοδὰ ΜῊΝ oda wir a | 
ee a. Ze Powe. at stabs ἃ 


5 ‚A ROT, porate 


EDITOR’S PREFACE 
ἢ 


Ever since the appearance of Dr. Zahn’s great work on 
New Testament Introduction, it has been evident that 
sooner or later its stores of critical investigation would 
have to be placed at the disposal of the English-reading 
world. The problems of New Testament study are too 
important to allow the results which this ‘renowned 
scholar’s years of scientific study have gathered into the 
two large volumes of his great book permanently to be 
locked up in a foreign language. 

To release this scholarship, however, was no easy 
undertaking. A thousand pages of closely printed matter, 
written in a style often most difficult to follow even in 
the text, and with notes too constantly abbreviated in the 
spirit of a scholar’s abundant knowledge of the facts, 
and too frequently confused with indistinct allusions to 
unfamiliar literature, presented a formidable task of 
translation, which any set of men might hesitate to 
attempt, and which was practically impossible for any 
individual. Notwithstanding, in the spring of 1900 a 
formal request was made of the author that certain 
Fellows of Hartford Theological Seminary, Mr. John M. 
Trout, Mr. Louis Hodous, and Mr. William A. Mather, 
should be allowed to take the work in hand. Permission 
was cordially granted them, and being then engaged in 
study abroad they entered upon the beginning of their 
work in the summer of that year. During the year 


1X 


x EDITOR’S PREFACE 


several conferences were held with Professor Zahn, to 
whose helpful suggestions the translators are greatly 
indebted. 

It was fully expected that the larger part of the text 
would be translated before return to this country would 
necessitate such engagements in the active ministry as to 
restrict the time possible to be devoted to the task. Τὸ ἃ 
large extent this hope was realised; but the early de- 
parture to Foreign Mission service of Mr. Hodous and 
Mr. Mather, who had undertaken the preparation of the 
notes, left the burden of completing what had been begun 
practically with Mr. Trout. Upon his shoulders it has 
rested since that time, and to his faithful and patient 
efforts, carried on in the midst of pressing pulpit and 
pastoral cares, is due largely the successful accomplish- 
ment of the undertaking. 

To his aid in the translation of the notes there came at 
different times Mr. Rowland B. Dodge, Hartranft Prize 
Scholar of Hartford in 1905, Mr. Edward $. Worcester, 
William Thompson Fellow of Hartford for 1901-1903, 
and Mr. William H. Worrell, John 5. Welles Fellow of 
Hartford for 1906-1908, all of whom laboured with will- 
ing sacrifice of time in rendering service to the work. 
Along with them in translating, but particularly in the 
extra service of assisting the editor in his supervision of 
the translation and in the especially laborious care of the 
proofs, the aid of Professor Charles 8. Thayer of the Case 
Memorial Library of the Seminary has been invaluable. 
If, in spite of the necessarily scattered and interrupted 
character of the work which has been carried on through 
these years, the results are marked with accuracy and 
completeness, it has been due largely to him. From him 
has come also the General Index, which places the widely 
extended details of notice and of reference in the book at 
the immediate service of the reader. Associated with 
Professor Thayer in this work for one summer was Mr 


EDITOR’S PREFACE xi 


Worrell, and with Mr. Mather before his departure to his 
foreign field was Mr. Frederick B. Hartranft of the In- 
struction Corps of the Seminary ; while at various times 
the editor has had the help in reading proof of Mr. John 
J. Moment of the Class of 1906 and Mr. Alvin ©. Bacon 
and Mr. Watson Woodruff of the Class of 1907 of Hart- 
ford Seminary. 

It has been a long task, delayed by many and un- 
expected interruptions, not the least among which was the 
appearance of the third German edition after the first 
English volume was practically in print. The labour of 
correcting the whole translation to the details of all the 
changes and alterations which the tireless scholarship of 
the author had wrought into his book seemed beyond 
accomplishment; but it has been effected, and the work 
goes out in every detail a reproduction of the last German 
edition. 

The Editor cannot hope to have escaped altogether the 
faults rendered likely by such a diversified translating, 
carried on in such a broken way; but he has appreciated 
the fidelity and the enthusiasm of those who have worked 
with him, and he has believed that it would be no small 
service that could be rendered to the English-reading 
scholarship of his day if he could place at its command 
what this book has to offer of the masterly results of 
scientific research in a field the treasures of which are ever 
open to those whose work is patient and whose vision is 
clear. 

M. W. JACOBUS. 


HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, 
April 1909. 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION 


— 


THE reception given to the English translation of Zahn’s 
monumental work has seemed to justify a second printing 
of it, particularly as in this re-presentation of its material 
opportunity would be afforded to correct typographical 
errors and faults in translation which reviewers of the 
First Edition had noticed and which had become evident 
to the Editor and his collaborators, 

Accordingly, with the help of Professor Thayer and 
Professor Worrell, now on the Faculty of the Seminary 
Foundation, the entire work has been gone over with 
patient care, for the elimination of all mistakes which in 
any way detracted from the usefulness of the First 
Edition. 

At the same time, through the use of selected paper 
the three volumes in which the work first appeared have 
been reduced to one, without change in paging or altera- 
tion in form. ΑἹ] references to the First Edition are 
therefore good for the Second Edition. 

Doubtless, perfection in typographical accuracy and 
fidelity of translation have not yet been fully attained ; 
but it is hoped that by this reviewing and compacting 
a greater serviceableness will be given this work, which 
must ever remain a storehouse of scientific research in the 


field of New Testament scholarship. 
M. W. JACOBUS. 
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, 

June 1917\ 


CONTENTS OF VOL. 1. 


iene 


{. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS CONCERNING THE LANGUAGE AND ITS 
History 


es 


The Original Language of the Gospel 


§ 2. The Greek Language among the Jews 


II. ΤῊΝ EPISTLE OF JAMES 


Mm un Um Um Um won 
DIAM pw 


. The Destination of the Letter indicated by the a: 
. The Cireumstances of the Readers 


The Personality of James 


. The Author’s Training and Habits of BRenehe 
. The External Evidence 
. Divergent Views . ; : ᾿ 


Ill. Toe TureE OLDest EPrIsTLEs or PAUL. 


NE 


$ 10. 


§ 11 
§ 12 


§ 13. 


§ 14. 
§ 15. 
§ 16. 


Preliminary Critical Remarks h 
The Historical Presuppositions and the on of the 
Epistle to the Galatians 


. Galatia and the Galatians 
. Time and Place of the Composition of the Epistle to 


the Galatians 

The Origin of the Church in ee and the 
En of its History until the Composition of Paul’s 
First Epistle to the Church there- 

The First Epistle to the Thessalonians . 

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 

The Genuineness of the First Three Epistles 


IV. ΤῊΝ CoRRESPONDENCE OF PAUL WITH THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 


SIR 
§ 18. 


§ 19. 


The Early History of the Church 

The Cendition of the Corinthian Church at re ame 
when First Corinthians was written 

Survey of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 


§ 20. Occasion, Purpose, and Effect of the Second Epistle to 


‘the: Gorin thians 


xiii - 


PAGR 


101 
110 
123 
136 


152 
152 


164 
173 


193 


203 
215 
224 
242 


256 
256 


273 
307 


32] 


xiv CONTENTS OF VOL. II. 


V. THE ErisTtLE ΤῸ THE RoMANS : 3 A A ὃ 


$ 21. Contents of the Letter and the Progress of its Thought 
$ 22. The Integrity of the Epistle to the Romans 

§ 23. Constituency and Origin of the Roman Church 

8 24. The Occasion of the Letter E 


VI. Tue LETTERS oF THE First RoMAN IMPRISONMENT 


§ 25. Time and Place of the Composition of the Epistles to 
Philemon, the Colossians, and “ the Ephesians ” 

§ 26. The Epistle to Philemon 

§ 27. The Epistle to the Colossians : : 

ὃ 28, The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians ” 

§ 29. The Genuineness of the Epistles to the Ephesians and 
Colossians ; ἢ ΕἾΔΑ TE : + 

8 80. The Historical Presuppositions and the Occasion of the 
Epistle to the Philippians 5 ὃ - 

831. Paul’s Situation at the Time when Philippians was 
written > 5 : ς 3 

8 32. The Genuineness of the Epistle to the Philippians 


CONTENTS OF VOL. I. 


— 
VII. Tar Last ΤΉΒΕΕ Eristues or Paun . . . . 
§ 33. The Facts presupposed in the Second Epistle to 
Timothy E : ἔ : g ς 
§ 34. The Facts attested by the First Epistle to Timothy . 
§ 35. The Facts presupposed in the Epistle to Titus . 5 


8 36. The End of Paul’s Life . . : 
§ 37. The Genuineness of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus 


VIII. ΤῊΝ EristLes or Perer AND JUDE, AND THE EPISTLE ΤῸ 
THE HEBREWS : . . 
§ 38. The Readers and the Author of the First Epistle of 
Peter—the Internal Evidence . 
§ 39. Time and Place of the First Epistle of Peter 
§ 40. The Genuineness of the First Epistle of Peter . 


PAGE 


352 


352 
378 
421 
434 


439 


439 
452 
459 
479 


491 


522 


539 
556 


§ 41. 


§ 42. 
§ 43. 
§ 44. 


CONTENTS OF VOL. II. 


The Author and Readers of the Second Epistle of Peter 


according to the Letter’s own Testimony - - 


The Occasion of the Second Epistle of Peter 

Epistle of Jude 

The Genuineness of J ifs und’ the Two Hpistles of 
Peter - 

The Tradition concerning the Epistle 66 the ebremn : 


8 45. 
8 46. The Literary Form and the Historical Presuppositions 
: of the Epistle to the Hebrews . ; : 
8 47. Readers, Date, and Author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews 
IX. ΤῊΝ First THREE GosSPELS AND Acts. : : 
§ 48. The Unwritten Gospel : 
§ 49. The Common Tradition in the Church contort tite 
Origin of the Gospels . : : 
8 50. History of the “Synoptic Problem”. . 
§ 51. The Tradition regarding Mark and his Scunalss 
§ 52. Title, Plan, and Conclusion of Mark’s Gospel . . 
$ 53. Comparison of Mark’s Gospel with the Tradition 
$ 54. The Tradition regarding Matthew and his Gospel 
8 55. Contents, Plan and Purpose of Matthew’s Gospel 
$ 56. Comparison of the Gospel of Matthew with the Tradi- 
tion regarding it Ἶ ; ; : 
557. The Relation of Mark’s Gospel to the Gospel of 
Matthew b : : 
ADDENDUM . Ξ . . - : 2 


XV 


FE 


CONTENTS OF VOL. TIL 


eee 


IX. Continued—Tue Writinas or LUKE 


§ 58. The Tradition concerning Luke and hie \ Work. N 

§ 59. The Twofold Recension of the Text of Acts 

§ 60. Preface, Plan, and Purpose. of Luke’s Historical Work 

§ 61. The Sources used by Luke : 

§ 62. The Author of the Work attributed to ΠΗ one the 
Time of its Composition 

§ 63. Retrospect and Forecast 

X: THE Wairrnas or JoHN .. ὁ . ‘ . 

8 64. The Tradition 

§ 65. The Testimony of the Fourth Gospel to its Author 

§ 66. The Supplementary Chapter 

8 67. The Relation of the Fourth Gospel ἴο the earlier 
Gospels 

§ 68. Purpose and Method, GiMindtor and Readors of the 
Fourth Gospel 

§ 69. Integrity, Date of Composition, and Ganuinéness of the 
Fourth Gospel 

§ 70. The First Epistle of J obn. 

§ 71. The Lesser Epistles of John 

§ 72. The Nature, Structure, and Unity of Revelation 

« 73. The Condition of Affairs in the Church according to 
Revelation 1.-- 111. : : : : 

$ 74. The Author of Revelation : 

8 75. Contemporary-Historical or Futurist Interpretation 

XI. CHRONOLOGICAL Survey . : = . . . 


= 4 
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 


INDEX 


‘ 


PAGE 


487 


ABBREVIATIONS FOR REVIEW TITLES | 


JbfPTh . 
JbPK 
JHSt. 
JPh 
JQR . 
JRAS 
IThSt 
LCBI . 
τᾶς. 
MBBA . 
MDPV . 


MGWJ 


MVG. 


NGWG . 


NHJb 
NJbfDTh 
NKZ. 
OLZ . 


— 


American Journal of Philology. 

American Journal of Semitie Languages and Literatures. 

American Journal of Theology. 

Altorientalische Forschungen. 

Byzantinische Zeitschrift. 

Biblische Zeitschrift. 

Christliche Welt. 

Expositor. 

Expository Times. 

Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. 

Göttingische Gelehrte Nachrichten. 

Journal of Biblical Literature. 

Jahrbücher der Biblischen Wissenschaft. 

Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie. 

Jahrbücher für Klassische Philologie. 

Jahrbücher für Protestantische Theologie. 

Jahrbuch der Kgl. Preussischen Kunstsammlungen. 

Journal of Hellenic Studies. 

Journal of Philology. 

Jewish Quarterly Review. 

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 

Journal of Theological Studies. 

Literarisches Centralblatt. 

Literarische Rundschau. 

Monatschrift der Berliner Akademie. 

Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palästina- 
Vereins. 

Monatschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Juden- 
thums. 

Mittheilungen der Vorder-Asiatischen Gesellschaft. 

Nachrichten der Kéniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 
zu Gottingen. 

Neue Heidelberger Jahrbiicher. 

Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie. 

Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift. 


Orientalische Litteraturzeitung. 
xvii 


xviii ABBREVIATIONS FOR REVIEW TITLES 


PEF . . . Palestine Exploration Fund. 
RB . . . Revue Biblique. 
REJ . . . Revue des Etudes Juives. 


RKZ. . . Reformirte Kirchenzeitung. 

SBAW . . Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften. 
SWAW . . Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften. 
ThJb. . . Theologische Jahrbücher. 

ThLb. . . Theologisches Litteraturblatt. 

ThLz. . . Theologische Literaturzeitung. 

Τῷ, TThQ, or\ Mipingen) Theologisch talschrif 

ThQSc \ g gische Quartalschrift. 

ThR . . . Theologische Rundschau. 

ThStKr . . Theologische Studien und Kritiken. 

ΤΠ = } Theologische Tijdschrift. 

ΤΌ... Texte und Untersuchungen. 

TZfTh . . Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie. 

WZfKM. . Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. 
Zee pr | Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. 
ZfA . . . Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Verwandte (Gebiete. 
ZfATW . . Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 

ZDMG . . Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. 
ZDPV . . Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins. 

ZfATh . . Zeitschrift für Historische Theologie. 

ZIKG . . Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte. 

ZfKTh . . Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie. 

an } Zeitschrift für Kirchliche Wissenschaft und Kirchliches Leben. 


ZiLTh . . Zeitschrift für Lutherische Theologie. 

Z{NTW . . Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 
ZfThuK. . Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche. 

ZfWTh . . Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie. 


ABBREVIATIONS OTHER THAN FOR 


ΒΡ Big 
CIG or ClGr 
CIL:.ı: 
CISem 
Dalman Gr?. 


EB. 


Forsch. i—vii. 1. 


GAP . 

Grundriss 
EIDBISZ. 
HK i.-iv. 


Hoffmann 


Kühner-Blass . 


Kühner-Gerth . 


REVIEW TITLES 


--Ὁ..- --. 


Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine. 

Corpus Inseriptionum Greecarum. 

Corpus Inseriptionum Latinarum. 

Corpus Insceriptionum Semiticarum. 

Dalman, Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäjisch, 
2te Aufl. 1905, 

Encyclopedia Biblica 

Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen 
Kanons und der Altkirchlichen Literatur, 1888-1892. 

Buhl, Geographie des Alten Palästina. 

Zahn, Gr. der Geschichte des Alt. Kanons, 2te Aufl. 1904 

Hastings’ Dietionary of the Bible. 

Handkommentar zum N.T. von Holtzmann, Lipsius, etc., 
2te resp. 3te Aufl. 

Die Hl. Schrift des N.T.’s Zusammenhängend Untersucht 
1,-ἰ|1. 3 (2te Aufl.) ; iii.-xi., 1868-1886. 

Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache, 
1 Teil, Elementar- u. Formenlehre, 3te Aufl. besorgt von 
Fr. Blass. 

Preceding, 2 Teil, Satzlehre, 3te Aufl. besorgt von Bernh, 
Gerth. 

Manuscript. 

New Testament. 

Old Testament. 

Real - Encyclopiidie für Protestantische Theologie und 
Kirche, 3rd ed. 

Real-Eneyelopädie. 

Peshito. 

Philoxeniana (only for the four shorter Catholic Epistles 
and Revelation). 

Syriac Text of 'I'homas of Heraclea. 

Syrus Curetonianus. 

Syrus Hierosolymitanus. 

Syrus Sinaiticus. 


xx ABBREVIATIONS OTHER THAN REVIEW TITLES 


Schiirer . . . Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 
3 Aufl. i.-iii., 1898-1901 [English translation of 2nd ed., 
“The Jewish People in the Time of Christ ”]. 


Skizzen . . . Zahn, Sk. aus dem Leben der Alten Kirche, 2 Aufl. 1898. 
ΞΡ. . . . Memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine. 

TU. . . . . Texte und Untersuchungen. 

ZKom. . . . Kommentar zum N.T. unter Mitwirkung von Bachmann, 


Ewald, Horn, Riggenbach, Seeberg, Wohlenberg, heraus- 
geg. von Th. Zahn, 1903. 

See also the bibliographies on pages 14, 58, vol. 1., and 
bibliographies of commentaries given throughout this 
work in connection with the discussions of the separate 
books of the N.T. 

The editors have attempted to make all other abbreviations full enough 
to be self-explanatory. 


CITATIONS. 


Passages in the O.T. are eited according to the figures of the Hebrew 
Text ; the O.T. Apocrypha, if not otherwise noted, according to the edition 
of Fritzsche, 1871; the witnesses for the N.T. text, except as noted above 
under S, according to Tischendorf-Gregory ; the Church Fathers according 
to the Vienna “Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum,” and “ Die 
griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte,” 
herausgeg. von der Berliner Akademie. 


Ir 


pe 


INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. 


Pe BES 
I. 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS CONCERNING 
THE LANGUAGE AND ITS HISTORY. 


81. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE GOSPEL. 


THE gospel is older than the N.T. Between the time 
when Jesus proclaimed the coming of the rule of God in 
His kingdom and the emergence from His Church of the 
earliest document which has come down to us, possibly 
some two decades elapsed ; and some seventy years passed 
before the appearance of the last of the writings found 
in the N.T. collection. Even if the investigation of this 
oldest Christian literature should result in showing that 
no single part of it originated on the soil of Palestine, or 
within the Jewish Christianity of the first generation, we 
should still be unable, without some knowledge of the 
language in which Jesus taught, and in which the Apostles 
preached the gospel to the Jews in Palestine, to form a 
correct conception of the beginnings of Christian litera- 
ture. For, quite independent of the results of all literary 
eriticism, and especially of the answer to the question 


whether the N.T. writings were composed, as tradition 
VOL, 1. I 


2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


says they were, almost without exception by native Jews, 
and to no small extent by Palestinian Jews, the fact 
remains, that the Christian preaching began from Pales- 
tine, and that Jews who had no idea of giving up their 
nationality carried it beyond the limits of their land and 
nation. This statement, in which Paul (Rom. xv. 27), 
Luke (Acts xi. 19), and Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) agree, does 
not require further proof. It does, however, need to be 
explained why a religious movement, which had its roots 
in the Judaism of Palestine, produced very soon after it 
began a distinctive literature which has come down to us 
only in the Greek language. 

The first question that suggests itself concerns the 
language in which Jesus preached to the people and 
instructed His disciples (n. 1). Fortunately, in answering 
this question, we are not left wholly to our knowledge of 
the linguistic condition in Palestine in Jesus’ time,—a 
knowledge which is still very much in need of clarification 
and confirmation,—nor are we dependent upon inferences 
from examples of a similar character. For the Gospels 
themselves, particularly those which pass under the names 
of Mark and John, preserve for us not only single words 
used by Jesus,and those with whom He mingled, but also 
a number of short sayings of His in their original form. 
There can be no doubt that im introducing these foreign 
words into their Greek writings with Greek transla- 
tions frequently attached (n. 2), the evangelists were 
firmly convinced that they were reproducing what Jesus 
said in its original form, and that it was their duty to 
convey the same also to their readers, though most of 
these were acquainted only with Greek. Nor could they 
very well have been mistaken in this belief; for, leaving 
quite out of consideration the facts to be established later, 
that the second evangelist was a native of Jerusalem, 
and the fourth evangelist one of the twelve apostles, an 
error of this kind would have been possible only if these 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 3 


Greek authors had been removed from Jesus and those 
who heard Him by a period of history during which, and 
by a region of country in which, on the one hand, the 
gospel was no longer preached in its original language, 
while, on the other hand, it had not yet come to be pro- 
pagated by the use of the Greek language. Only in these 
eireumstances could Greek Christians, who were entirely 
uninformed about the previous history of their faith, have 
taken for original what was in fact only a translation. 
But there were no such period and region as those 
suggested intervening between Jesus and our Gospels. A 
few years after Jesus’ death the gospel made its way 
directly from Jerusalem to the Greek population of 
Antioch. 

We possess, therefore, documentary evidence concern- 
ing the language used by Jesus. While no fragments of 
His preaching are preserved, all the utterances recorded 
are important, and were spoken at critical moments. 
Among these utterances are two expressions used by 
Jesus in prayer (Mark xiv. 36, xv. 34), one of which is a 
phrase taken from one of the psalms and used by Jesus in 
supplication during the agony of His death (Matt. xxvii. 
46; Mark xv. 34). From these passages we discover in 
what language Jesus pondered the words of the O.T. and 
communed with His God in prayer. As we learn from 
other passages, He used this same language when He 
healed the sick and called the dead to life among the 
people of Galilee (Mark v. 41, vii. 34). This must, there- 
fore, have been the laneuage in which Jesus preached to 
the people and taught His disciples. But all the sayings 
of Jesus, and of those among whom He moved, which are 
preserved to us in their original form, exhibit the same 
linguistie features. These features are not those of the 
Hebrew language, or of a confused mixture of Hebrew 
and some other language; but, with the exception of a 
few foreign words, more or less modified in form, they are 


4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


those of the Aramaic (n. 3) or Syriac tongue. For the 
use of the latter name there is as much historical justifica- 
tion as for the use of the former; since, during the 
centuries when this language was the dominant one in 
Palestine, it was very commonly called Syriac by the Jews 
and by those Christians who were so situated as to be 
familiar with the linguistic conditions of Palestine and the 
adjoining regions (n. 4). The only advantage in using 
the term Aramaic, instead of Syriac, to designate the 
language spoken by Jesus and by His immediate followers 
in the early Church, is the fact that we have become 
accustomed to employ the term Syriac exclusively with 
reference to the language of the Christian literature of the 
Syrian national Church, which began to be prepared. first 
in Edessa after the close of the second century. 

If we are inclined to the false notion that the language 
of Jesus was an uncultivated vernacular, a Jewish jargon, 
the terms Aramaic and Syriac may serve to remind us 
that we are dealing with a language which, during the 
five hundred years preceding the advent of Christianity, 
had gradually spread until it had become the dominant 
language of western Asia. And in spite of the rivalry 
with Greek that had existed since the time of Alexander, 
it maintained this position over wide regions until it was 
replaced by the Arabic of Islam. It was not without 
some reason that a Syrian of the sixth century A.D. called 
it the queen of languages (n. 5). Its reign was a long 
one. As early as 700 B.c. the Jerusalem court officials 
could propose to an Assyrian general that he carry on his 
negotiations with them in Aramaic, in order that the 
people standing by, who knew only Hebrew, might not 
understand what was said (Isa. xxxvi. 11; 2 Kings xvii. 
26). Aramaic was the native language of neither party, 
but was employed as a medium of intercourse between 
powers speaking different languages, just as French 18 
used now in negotiations between Russians and Italians. 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 5 


At the time of the Persian world-empire, Aramaic had 
already become the official language in which the royal 
government and the satraps of the western provinces main- 
tained communication with their polyglot subordinates, 
including those as far removed as Egypt (n. 6). From 
this time on Aramaic came more and more into use as a 
living vernacular, especially in districts where heretofore 
other Semitic languages had prevailed. Long before the 
time of Christ, the old “language of Canaan,” as the 
Israelites once called their own language (Isa. xix. 18),— 
because of the fact that it did not differ essentially from 
the languages of their nearest heathen neighbours,—had 
ceased to be the spoken language of Palestine and the 
adjoining regions. Phcenician was no longer spoken in 
Tyre and Sidon. While this old language continued to be 
spoken in Carthage, and, after the fall of the Carthaginian 
State, for centuries longer in the Roman provinces of 
North Africa, in its original home it had given place to 
Aramaic or Syriac (n. 7). In the old dwelling-places of 
the Edomites and the Moabites, and im the entire 
Nabatean kingdom, which stretched from the Elamitie 
eulf to the vicinity of Damascus, Aramaic was the 
dominating language, as is evident from numerous inscrip- 
tions (n. 7), in the time of Christ and of king Aretas tv., 
father-in-law of Herod Antipas (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 82), whose 
reign lasted from about 9 B.c. to 40 A.D. 

In the midst of Palestine dwelt the Samaritans, a 
mixed race, who spoke an Aramaic dialect, possibly from 
the beginning of their history. Nor was the little remnant 
of the Jewish nation that resettled in and about Jerusalem 
able to resist permanently this general development. 
Consequently, when the nation freed itself from its 
oppressors, and secured a larger degree of independence 
by the Maccabean revolt, the Jews had ceased to speak 
their own language. Of course, they did possess some- 
thing that the neighbouring peoples did not have, in the 


6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


large body of literature which had come down to them 
from the times of their kings and prophets,—a sacred 
literature, to which they now clung as the charter of their 
national calling, and as the law of worship, of faith, and 
of civil life. This literature was collected, and new pro- 
phetical, historical, and poetical writings were δα δα in 
the old and sacred language. The introduction of 
Aramaic forms and words was more strenuously avoided 
than in the times before and during the Exile, just because 
of opposition to the inroads of the Aramaic spoken by all 
the tribes, in the midst of which the little Jewish com- 
munity had to maintain its existence. The hymns and 
set liturgical forms for use in the temple worship were 
taken from the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible was 
read and expounded to the people in the synagogues, and 
there soon grew up a distinct class of learned men who 
made it the subject of special study. 

In the case of a people whose individuality and con- 
tinued existence depended so much upon their religion, and 
whose religious life was so thoroughly conditioned by its 
hold upon its classical literature as was that of the Jewish 
people at the time of the second temple, the language in 
which this literature was written could not fall entirely 
into disuse. It not only survived in the sacred books and 
in inscriptions upon coins (n. 8), but strenuous efforts 
were also made to keep it in use as a spoken language. 
Jesus the son of Sirach, a resident of Jerusalem, wrote 
his book of proverbs in biblical Hebrew about 180 B.c., 
and his grandson in Egypt translated it into Greek after 
132 2.0. Because it was the sacred language, the scholars 
gave it preference in their disputations, and as a medium 
for the presentation of their traditional lore. In order to 
adapt it to these purposes, by the construction of new forms 
and the introduction of foreign words (n. 9), they modified 
it into a learned language, the Modern Hebrew of the 
Mishnah. Of the uneducated multitude they spoke with 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 7 


contempt (John vi. 49; Acts iv. 13), and called their 
language the ‘speech of the illiterate.” At a time when 
they themselves had to acquire the sacred language of the 
Scriptures artificially, they protested against the use, in 
their own learned circles at least, of the living language of 
daily intercourse (n. 10). But the effort was ineffective, 
since the firmness and authority with which it was made 
came too late. Long before the time of Christ this language 
which the scholars despised, the Sursi, as the Jews of the 
Holy Land were wont to call it (n. 4), had become the 
vernacular of Palestine and the adjoining regions on the 
east and north (n. 11). Like every other Semite who 
srew up in these regions, the Jew learned Aramaic as his 
native tongue before he could learn to read and write and 


to study the Hebrew Bible. The rule laid down by an : 


aged interpreter of the law, that fathers should teach their 
sons the sacred language first, only shows that the reverse 
was the general case. The daughters are expressly ex- 
empted from this requirement; nor did anyone expect 
them to learn Hebrew (n. 10). So that even in 
families which were zealous for the law the wives had no 
knowledge of Hebrew. At the time of Christ, Hebrew 
was, in the strict sense of the word, the native tongue of 
no Jew. ‘The small sections of country where the Jews 
lived together closely and in large numbers, were inter- 
spersed with and surrounded by other Aramaic-speaking 
peoples, Samaritans, Syrians, Hdomites, and Nabatzeans. 
Within these narrow limits, necessarily, the language was 
practically homogeneous. Without the aid of an inter- 
preter Jesus conversed with the Samaritan woman from 
Sychar and with other Samaritans (John iv. 7-43 ; Luke 
xvii. 16), also with the Syriac-speaking Phoenician woman 
(n. 7). Syrians serving in the Roman army understood 
every word of the table-talk engaged in by the Jews, who 
supposed that what they said was not understood by 
them (Jos. Bell. iv. 1. 5). 


Ww 


8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


This community of language, which can be proved, 
and which makes it permissible to speak of a vernacular, 
did not exclude very perceptible differences of dialect. 
These differences were necessarily all the greater since 
Aramaic had been but very little employed for literary 
purposes, and particularly since there was no common 
literature which brought the various Aramaic-speaking 
tribes and religious, communities together. From His 
dialect, the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well is able at 
once to recognise Jesus as a Jew (John iv. 9), and vice 
versd. Especially when spoken by Jews, Aramaic must 
have had a peculiar stamp. The Jewish people were so 
zealous in the practice of their religion, that a, large 
number of Hebrew expressions taken from the language 
of the Bible, from the eultus, and from the rabbis, must 
have been adopted into the language of daily life, and in 
the nature of the case these expressions were only partly 
Aramaieised. Just as the Modern Hebrew of the learned 
classes took on its peculiar form not without being 
strongly influenced by Aramaic, so it was impossible and 
not to be expected that Jews throughout the Orient, 
especially in Palestine, and most particularly in Jerusalem, 
the seat of national worship and the seat of rabbinie 
learning, should speak Aramaic without using some 
Hebraisms. The Jews themselves not infrequently called 
the Aramaic which they spoke Hebrew, at least they did 
so in their intercourse with Greeks and Romans in con- 
trasting their language with Greek (n. 12). It was not 
only their mother tongue, but also their national language, 
and those who retained it were called Hebrews in contrast 
to the Hellenists (§ 2). Inevitably, also, the various 
Aramaic dialects spoken by the non-Jewish part of the 
population in different districts had their influence upon 
the Aramaic spoken by the Jews living in these regions. 
As spoken, in Babylon, the language sounded different 
from what it did in Jerusalem; nor did all the Jews in 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 9 


Palestine speak it in exactly the same way. The Galilean 
was easily recognised in Jerusalem by his pronunciation 
(n. 13). But these differences, which were not greater 
than those existing among the High German dialects still 
spoken (n. 14), must not cause us to overlook the common 
character of the Aramaic spoken by all ‘‘ Hebrews,” 1.6. 
by Oriental Jews who were not Hellenists. 

Especially to be rejected as wholly wrong is the notion , 
that at the time of Christ, Hebrew was spoken in Judea 
and Jerusalem, and Aramaic only in Galilee. According 
to Acts i. 19, the Aramaic name of the “field of blood” 
belonged to the language of Jerusalem Jews; and there 
were other places in and near Jerusalem which had 
Aramaic names, such as Bethesda (n. 15). On the 
occasion of the processions in connection with the feast of 
Tabernacles, and at the triumphal entry of Jesus, the 
Galilean pilgrims and the inhabitants of Jerusalem joined 
in shouting the Hebrew Hoshia-na in its Aramaicised 
form Oshanna (n. 3, p. 21). No difference is to be 
observed between Judea and Galilee in the use of the 
numerous Aramaic proper names which appear in use 
along with the old Hebrew names (n. 16). There were 
many Aramaic expressions, frequently employed and long 
current, that were in use by all ‘“‘ Hebrews,” among these 
some associated with religious thought and life, such as 
the title Messiah and the party name Pharisees (n. 17). 
When Josephus, a native of Jerusalem, and a scion of a 
priestly house, wrote his history of the Jewish War in the 
“language of his fathers,” ze. the language spoken in 
Jerusalem,—a history which was afterwards re-edited in 
Greek,—he did so in the belief that it would be intelligible 
to the Jews on the other side of the Tigris and in Arabia. 
But, as is quite clear from this intention of Josephus, and 
from the combined impression of all the statements which 
he makes relative to the matter, the language which he 
used was not that of the O.T. nor the learned language, of 


10 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the rabbis, but the vernacular of Palestine, which was 
intelligible to all Jews not entirely estranged from the 
national life, regularly spoken by the “ Hebrews” proper, 
and used by them in correspondence. We have three 
official documents (n. 18) dealing with certain questions 
about the calendar and tithes, which were issued between 
the years 80 and 110 by Gamaliel—probably not the 
famous teacher of Paul (Acts v. 34, xxii. 3), but his no less 
distinguished grandson—in his own name and that of his 
colleagues, 2.e. of the highest court of the Jews in Jabne. 
One of these is directed to the brethren in Upper and 
Lower Galilee, a second to those in Upper and Lower 
Daroma, 1.6. Judea and South Palestine, and the third to 
the brethren of the Babylonian diaspora, to those of the 
diaspora in Media, to the Greek diaspora, and all the 
other exiles of Israel. ‘The account in which the three 
documents are incorporated is in Hebrew; the documents 
themselves are written in good Aramaic. In view of this 
fact, there can be no doubt that the document issued by 
the Jerusalem Sanhedrin—which was still in existenee— 
to the man who afterwards became the Apostle Paul, 
introducing him, and giving him authority among the 
Jews in Damascus (Acts xxi. 5), was also written in 
Aramaic. But if the most learned body of the nation 
found it advisable to use this language in its official 
deliverances, and if they made no distinction among their 
countrymen in Judea, in Galilee, and in the diaspora, 
then it necessarily follows that Josephus must have 
written his history of the Jewish War of 63-70 in the 
same language, since it was a work prepared for 
the rapid propagation of certain views. An account 
of this war in Hebrew would have made about 
the same impression on Josephus’ contemporaries, 
especially the Jews of Mesopotamia and Arabia, who 
were included among those whom the book was 
intended to reach (n. 12), that a history of the 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS II 


Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 in the language of the 
Nibelungenlied would make upon modern Germans. In 
his ἘΠῚ before the Sanhedrin, had not the presence of 
the Roman commander necessitated the use of Greek 
(Acts xxii. 30-xxii. 10), Paul might have spoken 
Hebrew, at least with the expectation of being under- 
stood, only he would have created the impression of 
delivering a learned address, rather than of defending his 
life, which was in danger. To have spoken to the excited 
mob, which he addressed from the steps of the Roman 
barracks (Acts xxi, 40—xxii. 21), in the learned language 
of the time, or in the language of an Isaiah, would have 
been largely a waste of energy, if not a direct occasion for 
ridicule. The ἑβραὺς διάλεκτος (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2), of 
which he made use, could have been no other than the 
Aramaic of common daily life. The fact that, in a, 
Hebrew work like the Mishnah, the sayings of those 
introduced as speaking are usually reported in Hebrew, is 
no more proof that these persons spoke Hebrew than our 
Gospels are evidence that Jesus spoke Greek. On the 
contrary, from the fact that this same Mishnah transmits 
in Aramaic single sayings of the Hillel who was born some 
thirty or fifty years earlier than Jesus, and of others 
of his contemporaries, it is natural to conclude that 
Aramaic was widely employed even in rabbinic circles 
(n. 19). 

By Jesus’ time Aramaie had come into use also in 
the synagogue services (n. 20). The story related of 
Gamaliel the elder, the teacher of Paul, how he ordered a 
targum, or Aramaic paraphrase of the Book of Job, to be 
buried, does not, of course, prove the existence at the time 
of such written translations of the law and prophets also, 
and still less does it prove that such translations were 
read in the synagogues in place of the sacred text, or 
along with it. This came later. But the existence of a 
targum of the Book of Job in the year 40 a.p. does 


ı2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


certainly prove that at this time the Hebrew Bible was 
unintelligible even to men who studied other parts of 
the ‚O.T. besides the biblical pericopes, parashas, and 
haphtarahs. Long before the preparation of the written 
targums which in part have come down to us, and which 
were made in order to explain to the people the biblical 
text, understood by them only imperfectly, use was made 
in the synagogues of oral translations into Aramaic. It 
is clear, further, that if it was to accomplish its purpose, 
the exposition and application, %.e. the sermon which 
followed, also must have been in Aramaic. This must 
have been true also of Jesus’ preaching in the synagogues, 
upon the mountains of Galilee, and in the courts of the 
temple at Jerusalem. 

i What we learn from extra-biblical sources concerning 
* linguistie conditions in Palestine at the time simply con- 
firms what we gather from the original testimony of the 
four Gospels. The language in which Jesus prayed and 
talked to the multitudes, and to His disciples, was used 
also in the Church gathered in Jerusalem shortly after His 
resurrection. This fact is so self-evident as hardly to call 
for direct proof. Still it is to be observed that the 
surname which, according to Acts iv. 36, was given by 
the apostles to Joseph of Cyprus very early in the history 
of the Church was Aramaic. Besides, the name assigned 
was not an ordinary one, but was chosen for a particular 
reason (n. 16). Expressions other than Greek, which we 
find employed from the very first in the worship of the 
Greek Churches, such as the Hebrew aunv, which was used 
without modification in prayer by Aramaic-speaking Jews, 
the Aramaicised form wcavva (n. 3, p. 21 f.), to which is to 
be added also aarmAovia (Rev. xix. 1-6, ef. Mark xiv. 26), 
were not adopted by the Gentile Christians from the 
Greek O.T., for not all of them are to be found there. 
Nor were they taken from the Hebrew Bible, which the 
Gentile Christians did not possess: they came rather with 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 13 


the gospel from Jerusalem. The occurrence of the 
Aramaic expression wapavada in the Greek eucharistic 
prayers of the so-called Didache (x. 6) in very close 
connection with an apnv and an wcavva, indicates that 
these liturgical formule originated in a congregation 
which used Aramaic in its worship. This could have been 
none other than the congregation in Jerusalem, the Church 
in Palestine. Paul makes use of the same formula in a 
passage where he expressly excludes from his greeting to 
the Church certain strangers who were disturbing the 
peace of the Church in Corinth, and threatening to destroy 
the cordial relations between the Church and the apostle 
(1 Cor. xvi. 22). As we shall see later, the persons for 
whom this threatening hint was meant were Jewish 
Christians from Palestine (§ 18, n. 12). By using the 
language employed in the Church from which they came, 
the apostle meant to make clear to these men themselves 
and to the Greek-speaking Christians in Corinth whom he 
had in mind. 

The successors and heirs of the Jewish-Christian 
Church in Jerusalem, which ceased to exist after the time 
of Hadrian, were the Nazarites, who lived in the region 
east of the Jordan, and in some localities lying farther 
north in Syria, as Aleppo. As late as the fourth century 
they continued to cling to their national traditions. 
According to Epiphanius (Her. xxix. 7), they were well 
trained in the use of Hebrew, and, like the Jews, read the 
O.T. in the original; they were also familiar with the 
rabbinic traditions as far back as the time of Hadrian. 
But the only Gospel which they used, the so-called Gospel 
of the Hebrews, was an Aramaic book, which is known to 
have been in existence from the middle of the second 
century (GK, ii. 648-672). Aramaic, consequently, was 
the language employed in their religious worship from the 
time of their enforced departure from Jerusalem before 
the middle of the second century. 


14 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


The bearing of these results upon the beginnings of 
Christian literature must be reserved until the separate 
writings are discussed. But before we proceed to that 
discussion, it is necessary to consider another language 
element of predominating importance in the wide field of 
the apostolie missionary labours, and of great importance 
also in Palestine. 


1. (P. 2.) G. De Rosst, Della lingua propria di Cristo ὁ degli Ebrei nazionalt 
della Palestina da’ tempi de’ Maccabei, Parma, 1772. The lines here laid down 
were followed out by PFANNKUCHE in his article on the vernacular of Palestine 
in the time of Christ and the apostles in Eichhorn’s Allg. Bibl. der bibl. Literatur, 
viii. 3 (1798), 8. 365-480. ΟἿ, further, Fr. Deuırzsch, “ Uber die paläst. 
Volkssprache, welche Jesus und seine Jünger geredet haben,” in Saat auf 
Hoffnung, 1874, S. 195-215. With regard to later utterances of this scholar, 
in which he declared Hebrew rather than Aramaic to have been the original 
language of Matthew at least, see below, § 55. A. NEUBAUER, “On the 
dialects spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ,” in Studia Biblica (vol. 1. of 
the Oxford Studia bibl. et ecclesiastica), 1885, pp. 39-74. MARSHALL, ‘ The 
Aramaic Gospel,” a long series of articles in the Haposttor, New Series, 
vols. ii.—viii. (1890-1893). A Meynr, Jesu Muttersprache. Das Galiltische 
Aramäisch in seiner Bedeutung für die Erklärung der Reden Jesu und der 
Evangelien Überhaupt, 1896. E. NESTLE, Philologica Sacra, Bemerkungen 
über die Urgestalt der Evangelien und der Apostelgeschichte, 1896. G. DaLMAN, 
Die Worte Jesu mit Berücksichtigung des nachkanonischen jüdischen Schrifttums 
und der aramäischen Sprache erörtert, Bd. i., Einleitung und wichtige Begriffe. 
Nebst Anhang : Messianische Texte, 1898 (Eng. trans. 1902). Of funda- 
mental importance from a philological standpoint is G. DALMAN, Grammatik 
des jüdisch-palüstinischen Aramäisch, 2te Aufl. 1905. Also by the same author, 
Aramiiische Dialektproben, Lesestücke zur Grammatik, ete., 1896. Lexica : 
J. Buxtorr, Lex. chaldaicum, talmudicum et rabbinicum, 1639; J. Levy, 
Neuhebr. und chald. Wörterbuch, 4 vols. 1876-1889 ; abid. Chalddisches Wörter- 
buch über die Targumim, 2 vols. 1876; M. JasıROWw, Dictionary of the Tar- 
gumim, the Talmud babli and yeruschalmi, 2 vols. 1886-1903. G. DALMAN, 
Aramidisch-neuhebriiisches Wörterbuch zu Taraum, Talmud und Midrasch, 1897- 
1901. Though the rapid development of these studies is very gratifying, 
it is too soon to draw from them far-reaching conclusions as to the history 
and doctrine of the N.T. It is a bypath, and not a very alluring one at 
that, which leads from Wellhausen’s remarks upon the concept “Son of 
man” (Israelit. u. jtid. Geschichte, 1st ed. S. 312), quite correct as many 
of them are, to the development of these by A. Meyer (op. cit. 91 ff.), and from 
thence to Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn (1896), and back to Wellhausen him- 
self (Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten, vi. 187-215). Cf. Dalman, Worte Jesu, 8. 191-219 
(Eng. trans. pp. 234-268); Fiebig, Der Menschensohn, 1901; ZKom. Matt. 
346-356. 

2. (P. 2.) Referring to words of Jesus, Mark v, 41, xv. 34, 6 ἐστιν μεθερμη: 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 15 


νευόμενον (cf. Matt. i. 23; Mark xv. 22; Acts iv. 36, xiii. 8; Mark iii. 17, 
vii. 11, 34, 6 ἐστιν (cf. Matt. xxvii. 46; Acts i. 19); in Mark xiv. 36 there is 
simply a juxtaposition of the Aramaic and Greek expressions (cf. Rom. viii. 
15; Gal. iv. 6). John sometimes uses the same or similar formule, i. 38, 41, 
42, ix. 7, xi. 16, xx. 24, xxi. 2; sometimes he notes that a name used by 
him is Hebrew, without, however, adding a translation, v. 2; sometimes, 
after designating a place by its Greek name, he tells what it is called in 


Hebrew, xix. 13, 17. ν Rat 
3. (P. 4.) Aramaic and Hebrew words and phrases, which Jesus is said 


in the Gospel to have used, are the following :—(1) Mark v. 41, raAıda coup 
(BLy) or coupe (AD, the Latins, S!, Aphraates, p. 65), to be written mp abe ; 
ef, Dalman, Gr.2 150, A. 6; 321, A. 1. The Greek variants make it 
doubtful whether the final 7, which in the Semitic character is to be written 
at any rate, was still audible. The statement of an anonymous onomasticon 
(ed. Lagarde, 199. 78), that coup is mase., κουμι fem., is grammatically correct, 
but is probably mere book-learning without regard to the actual pro- 
nuneiation. (2) Mark vii. 34, εφῴφαθα (so most authorities, εφῴεθα DNeLat., 
effeta Jerome, Onomast., ed. Lagarde, 64. 2), correctly taken by Mark (6 ἐστιν 
διανοίχθητι) and the Syrian translators (Ss Sh S! nnans) as a call in the mase. 
singular addressed to the deaf man, not as a call in the fem. plural—the 
ending being dropped—addressed to the ears, cf. Dalman, @r.? 278, A.1. (3) 
Mark xv. 34= Matt. xxvii. 46, In both passages the text has been trans- 
mitted in many varied forms, partly owing to a regard for the parallel 
passage. The original reading of Mark is perhaps eAwi ἐλωΐ λεμα (NCL, 
Napa BD, λιμα AKM, Acına HFG) σαβαχθανι (EFKL, Eus. Dem. x. 8. 14, 
oaßaxdaveı CGH, oaßarraveı N, ζαφθανει DLat., (aBapdaver B); that of 
Matthew is perhaps 7Acı 7Acı (instead of this Awı N, ελωεὶ B, both drawn 
from Mark) λεμα (NBL, λαμα D, λίμα or Anna most authorities) σαβαχθανι 
(al. -ve, DLat. ζαφθανει). Of the ancient Syrian translators (Se lacks both 
passages, Sh Mark xv. 34), Ss has in Mark ‘snpaw sınb nd πον, ae. exactly like 
the Syriac rendering of Ps, xxii. 1; it has the question in just the same form 
in Matthew also, S! likewise has it similarly in both Gospels, while Sh, on 
the contrary, has in Matt. xxvii. 46, n' npw ns; Ss and Sh have ὃν as the 
form of the address in Matthew (pp. 204, 211, only in the latter passage 
along with it being given the translation nb’s), S' has $x in both Gospels ; 
cf. the writer’s Das Evang. des Petrus, 1893, 8.38, 78. Epiphanius, Her. lxix. 
68, Dindorf, iii. 221, ef. Ixix. 49, p. 196, remarks on Matt. xxvii. 46, that Jesus 
spoke the words ηλι, nc in Hebrew, following the original text of the psalm, 
but that He said what follows in Syriac. Lagarde, Gott. gel. Anz. 1882, 8. 329, 
pointed to this passage as proof of the systematic correction of even our most 
ancient MSS. which is only partially correct. As proof of the historical 
originality of Matthew’s x, a form which, while certainly Hebrew, was 
not unheard of in the Targum, is the fact that through this form the mis- 
understanding of the people (Matt. xxvii. 47-49 ; Mark xv. 35) becomes more 
intelligible ; ef. ZKom. Matt. 705, A. 86 (contrary to view held in first and 
second editions of the Einleitung). Mark, a native of Jerusalem, probably 
substituted ms, to which he was more accustomed, and which in style was 
more suitable in an otherwise Aramaic sentence. The obscure pronunciation 
eai instead of eAai, which was to have been expected, probably arose from 


16 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


dependence on the sound of the Hebrew elohim, elohai (cf. Dalman, @r.? 156, 
A. 1), customary in the living language of the Aramaic speaking Jews, On 
the other hand, the Western reading ¢ap@aver in both Gospels, which had 
found its way also into B in a still more corrupt form (see above), quite 
certainly points to scholarly knowledge and conscious consideration of the 
Hebrew text of the Psalms ; ef. Westcott-Hort, Appendix, 31. For evidently 
an a, which could easily have fallen out after Aewa or Aaya, is to be supplied ; 
so that a¢apdave, an entirely regular transliteration of the Hebrew ‘nary, is 
to be considered the original form of the reading. The fact, moreover, that 
D has Aapa in both Gospels (B only in Mark), discloses the effort to make 
the entire sentence Hebrew,—a result upon which Luther also ventured in 
both Gospels. We are in this matter not to be led astray by the fact that the 
mutilated text Caddaver was traced back to the Aramaic nayı by those ac- 
quainted with Syviae, and was translated, as in D (Mark xv. 34), by ὠνείδισάς pe 
(ef. also Dalman, Worte Jesu, 1. 43, A. 2 [ Eng. trans. 54, n. 1]). (4) Mark vii. 
11, kopBav = δῶρον, in Matt. xv. 5 only the translation. In the eis τὸν κορβανᾶν 
(al, -Bovav, -Bava, -Bav) of Matt. xxvii. 6, where the high priests are speaking, 
and in Jos, Bell. ii. 9. 4, where, however, we should certainly read kopßaras, 
and not, with Niese, kopßovas,—the Aramaic stat, emphat. appears, In \nark 
vii. 11, where the word forms the predicate (ef. Jos. Ant. iv. 4. 4 ; ¢ Apion, i. 22), 
this form was at least not necessary ; hence Ss also in Mark vii. 11, Matt. xv. 5, 
is content with the stat. absol. jayp (Se S! xayp) ; on the other hand, in Matt. 
xxvii. 6, Ss S! have xsanp ma, Sh ssanpa. (5) Mark xiv. 36, d8Ba=6 πατήρ. 
This is its only occurrence in the Gospels, but it is found also in Rom, viii. 
15; Gal. iv. 6, ef. ZKom. Gal. 204, and, with regard to Bar-abba, below, 
n. 16. Instead of this, Ss has here as in Matt. xxvi. 39 (πάτερ) "3ν, a form 
which S! pedantically enough places as a Syriac translation beside the exact 
transcription xax in Mark xiv. 36, and uses elsewhere for mdrep as well as for 
ὁ πατήρ intended as a vocative, Matt. xi, 25, 26, xxxvi. 39; Luke x. 21. The 
East Syrians considered ax better Syriac, while Sh has sax in Matt. xxvi. 39 ; 
Luke x. 21. Of. ZKom. Matt. 436, A. 40; Schlatter, Heimat uw. Sprache des 
4 Evang. 54). (6) Mark iii. 17, Boaunpyes (al. -epyns, -epyes, min. 700 [al. 
604], ed. Hoskier, Bavnpeyel, min. 565 [al. 473], ed, Belsheim, Bavnpeyes)= υἱοὶ 
βροντῆς. Ss wx na, so likewise S! with appended translation anyı na. 
Jerome on Dan. ii. 7, Vall. v. 625, and Onom., ed. Lagarde, 66. 9, demanded 
nothing less than a change of the text, which was alleged to be corrupt, into 
bane (or bene) reem. According to Kautzsch, Gr. des bibl. Aram. 9, the verb is 
not war, but 19% “to be angry” (Ss 8S! Matt. v. 22). The free translation in 
Mark is perhaps to be explained on the ground that viol ὀργῆς would be very 
liable to misunderstanding ; cf. Eph. ii. 3; Dalman, recently, @r.* 144, A. 2 ; 
199, A. 3, prefers vn. The transeription, however, is remarkable. A 
superfluous a in Ἰωαχεβέδη (Jos. Ant. 11. 9. 4, ef. iii. 5. 3—moreover, the 
text here as transmitted is uncertain) will not explain the superfluous o in 
Boanerges. Delitzsch and Nöldeke, @ött. gel. Anz. 1884, 8. 1023, saw in this an 
attempt to reproduce a particular Galilean pronunciation; whereas Dalman, 
Worte Jesu, 39, A. 2 (ling. trans. 49, n. 2), would prefer to have either o or ἃ 
stricken out. (7) John i. 42, Knpas=6 Ilerpos ; inthe other Gospels only the 
translation. With regard to Paul’s usage, see below, ἃ 38, on 1 Pet. i. 1. Jerome, 
Onomast. 66. 14; 77,15, says: Syrum est; and rightly : for it is not 73, which 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 17 


occurs only twice in the O.T. and then in the plural, but the very common 
Syriac word x5x2 (so Ss S' in John 1. 42, and the Syrians generally as the 
regular substitution for ἹΠέτρος, Sh xp). Instead of the translation ὁ Πέτρος 
we should have expected Πέτρος, or at best πέτρα, without the article (ef. 
Acts iv. 36); but John shows by this definite form that he felt the deter- 
minative force of the stat. emphat. Τὺ is established by Matt. xvi. 17 that 
Jesus gave this new name as a contrast to that which had been given ‚Simon at 
birth, as the son of his earthly father. Matthew has preserved the Aramaic 
form mv nz. According to this the father bore the name of the prophet Jonah, 
ef. Matt.:xii. 39-41 ; Luke xi, 29-32, which was common among Palestinian 
Jews even in later times (Levy, Newhebr. Lew. ii. 229, “name of many 
Amorites, especially in the Jerus. Gemara”). According to the correct text 
of John i. 42, xxi. 15-17, and two fragments of the Gospel of the 
Hebrews (GK, ii. 693, 694, 712), his mame was rather John. The latter 
name is written in the OT. jjn\m, or when contracted m, eg. Neh. xii. 
22=Ezra x.6; the former spelling as late as the coins of John Hyreanus 
(a. 135-105 ; Madden, Coins of the Jews, 76-80) and the Targum (e.g. 2 Chron. 
xvii. 15), in which occurs also the shorter form (eg. Jer. xl. 13). The 
ani. ᾿ Hebrew pronunciation is reproduced most exactly in Greek by 
Ἰωανὰν (2 Chron. xvii. 15; Ezra x. 6; Jer. xl. 13, xli. 11, ete,, iin LXX ; 
Luke iii. 27 ; along with which occur also here and there Ivavvav, Ioavva, 
Ιωναν, and in 2 Kings xxv. 23 in Cod. B the altogether incorrect leva) ; the 
next transliteration in the order of precision is Ἰωάνης, the form in the N.T. 
in Cod. B throughout, even where Tischendorf has not noted it, sometimes 
also in X Matt. xvi. 14, xvii. 1, 13; Cod.'L John 1, 32. In the Acts, D, 
which has the sharpened pronunciation everywhere in the Gospels, comes 
over to the side of B: Acts i. 5, 13, 22, ii. 1, 11, x..37, xiii, 24, 25, xix. 3, 4. 
Once, in iii. 4, D alone has this form. This spelling must be attributed to 
the older recension of Acts, and therefore to the author himself. Moreover, 
the corresponding female name is spelled Ἰωάνα by BD in Luke viii. 3, and by 
DL in Luke xxiv. 10. The wide diffusion of the form Ἰωάννης (cf. also um’ 
among the Syrians) cannot be due to a mere error of the Greek copyists, but 
implies that along with the old Hebrew forın there was also a sharpened 
pronunciation current in Palestine ; cf. Dalman, @r.2179, A.5. An analogous 
case is the name of the high priest 777 (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2. 1; Bell. v.12, 2 
correctly Avavos), which we find in the N.T. (Luke iii. 2; John xviii. 13; 
Acts iv. 6) written Avvas almost without variants ; for this form certainly 
cannot be explained as arising froin a confusion of memory with the name 
myo (1 Sam. 1. 2; Luke ii. 86; Virg. Aen. iv. 9). (8) Matt. v. 22 paxa (BE 
and most authorities, paya N*D and the Latins) is classed with the Talmudic 
opprobrious term xp (stat. emph.), and this is explained as an abbreviation 
of ja. This is the view even of Dalman, Gr. 173, A. 2. The Syrians, who, 
without any hint that they were dealing with a foreign word, wrote xp 
(Ss Se Sh 551), seem with better right to have taken it for a Syriac word. 
Corresponding to the Hebrew pr (thin, lean, Gen. xli. 19) the word ‘has 
acquired among the Syrians the meaning “insignificant, despicable,” and 
among the Syriac speaking population about Antioch has been used as a 
derogatory form of addressing the lower classes, which has become almost 
meaningless, See, further, ZKom, Matt. 24. The μωρέ standing near it is Greek, 
VOL. I. 2 


18 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of course. But since this Greek word occurs quite often in the form mn, 
op in the Midrash as an expression for “fool” (Neubauer, Athenwwm, 1881, 
ii. 779 ; Stud. Bibl., Oxford, 1885, p. 55; Krauss, Lehnwörter, i. 50, ii. 328), it 
follows that the Galileans, who otherwise spoke Aramaic, used this, like many 
another Greek word, in common life. (9) The Hebrew jpx, originally an 
adjective, but regularly an exclamation for the solemn confirmation of a 
prayer, a word of God, and the like. Usually in the LXX it is translated by 
γένοιτο, but sometimes (1 Chron. xvi. 36; Neh. v. 13) is transcribed as ἀμήν, 
and in this form was immediately introduced into the liturgical use of the 
Greek Churches, 1 Cor. xiv. 16; 2 Cor. i. 20. Even in the mouth of Jesus 
the single or double ἀμήν is an elliptical exclamation, like vai in Matt. xi. 9; 
Luke xi. 51, and is by no means an adverb modifying λέγω or the statement 
introduced by λέγω, that verb being on such a view a parenthetical nguam. 
The latter supposition is excluded by the simple fact that in many cases a 
ὅτι dependent upon λέγω follows. But a usage peculiar to the speech of Jesus 
is the ἀμήν, λέγω ὑμῖν (30 times in Matthew, 13 times in Mark, 6 times in 
Luke, 25 times with doubled ἀμήν in John) at the beginning of a saying 
which is neither in answer to a question nor in any way related to another 
saying as its solemn confirmation, as in Jer. xxvili. 6; 1 Kingsi. 36; Rev. 
v. 14. The usage in Rev. vii. 12, xix. 4, xxii. 20 is not essentially different 
from that of Jesus. With regard to Rev. iii. 14, see § 68, n. 8. Delitzsch 
(Zf{LTh. 1856, S. 422 f.) conjectured that the original form was xypx ἸΌΝ, 
the latter word being a contraction for 3x as. According to him, the 
Synoptists had given an exact translation, but John, in addition to this, and 
indeed quite after his manner, imitated the sound. The Babylonian Talmud 
was the only place where Delitzsch could find instances of the elision of 
the 7 in the case of contraction, and on this account Dalman, Gr.? 243, will 
not admit that it occurred in the speech of Jesus ; nevertheless, the con- 
jecture remains probable. (10) Matt. vi. 24; Luke xvi. 9-13 μαμωνᾶς 
(μαμμωνας in N.T. is poorly attested ; in Church literature it is the prevalent 
form), poo Pirke Aboth ii. 12, Aram. smn, not infrequent, Levy, ii. 138 f., 
so also Ss Sc 51, xıoo» Sh, Luke xvi. 18. Jerome, Hp. xxii. 31 (cf. Ep. 
exxi. 6; ad Matth. vi. 24; Vall. vii. 36): “Nam gentili Syrorum lingua 
(Ep. 121: ‘Non Hebr&orum, sed Syrorum lingua’) Mammona divitise 
nuncupantur.” Ibid. Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 2. 86: “Mamona in lingua 
hebr&a divitie nuncupantur, non aurum, ut quidam putant.” Adam, 
Dial. c. Marc. (Lat. ed., Caspari, 37, effaced in the Greek text): “Mam- 
monam ... - pecuniam dieit gentili lingua,” which probably is to be traced 
back to Theophilus of Antioch, and refers to the Syriac spoken in the neigh- 
bourhood of that city, cf. ZKG, ix. 232f., 238f.; Iren. 111. 8. 1 (probably 
dependent upon Theophilus or Justin, or both): “Secundum Judaicam 
loquelam, qua et Samarite utuntur,” etc, ; August. de Serm. in Monte, ii. 14. 
47, and Serm. 113 on Luke xvi. (cf. Quest. ev. ii. 34; Enarr. in Ps. lili. 2) 
distinguishes the “ Hebrew” mammona, the meaning of which he knew 
through Jerome, from the Punic mammon, which he knew through his own 
acquaintance with the language, and which he says means lucrum; cf. 
Schröder, Phönic. Sprache, 30. See also ZKom. Matt. 291, A. 6; concerning 
the doubtful etymology, cf. Nestle, EB, col. 2914; Dalman, PREH,® xii. 
153, (11) σατανᾶς, in the Gospels and Acts, the authors of which regu- 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 19 


larly use διάβολος (made current by the LXX), used only by Jesus 
(this is true of Acts xxvi. 18 also), the only.exceptions being Mark i. 13; 
Luke xxii. 3; John xiii. 27, and one'other passage (Acts v. 3), where it is 
used by Peter. It is used ordinarily by Paul also (2 Cor. xii, 7, Antiochian 
reading oarav, as in LXX 1 Kings xi. 14, 23). It is only in his later 
Epistles, from Eph. iv. 27(?) on, that it is sometimes replaced by διάβολος. 
The Aramaic form occurs as early as Sir. xxi. 27 (τὸν Sarava B* al. -vav); it 
is found in the Targum, even where it has no support in the original text ; it 
is used also in the Syriac Gospels, sometimes even for διάβολος, Sc Matt. iv. 1 ; 
Ss Luke iv. 2, 13; Ss Se John vi. 70; S! more seldom, eg. Matt. xiii. 39 ; 
Sh, on the other hand, regularly. (12) yéevva occurs outside of the Gospels 
(Matthew 7 times, Mark 3 times, Luke once) only once, Jas. iii. 6. The 
Hebrew om ; the pronunciation ge-hinnäm, from which the Hellenised form 
of the N.T. arose by dropping the m, is also that of the Targums and 
Talmuds. (13) τὸ πάσχα is used by Jesus in Matt. xxvi. 2, 17, 18; 
Mark xiv. 14; Luke xxii. 8, 11, 15. Still earlier than this, in the LXX 
(φασεκ in Chron. only), and hence used also by Philo and Josephus (also 
spelled φασκα repeatedly by the latter author, Ant. v. 1. 4, ix. 13, 3; 
Bell. ii. 1. 3) regularly in this Aramaicised form of the Hebrew nos. In 
Sh it is written sno» in Matt. xxvi. 2, 17, 18, Luke xxii. 8, and quite 
often, though the form xno» also occurs, Luke ii. 41. In Se Ss S! the 
form is xnxx. Among the Jews the pronunciation pascha must be older than 
pischa. (14) σάββατα, as regards its form, treated as the plural of σάββατον, 
and actually used with a plural meaning in Acts xvii. 2, perhaps also in Matt. 
xii. 5, 10, 12, Luke iv. 31, is, however, originally the sing. emphat. form 
xnav, and denotes: (a) a single Sabbath day, Matt. xii. 1, 11; Mark i. 21, 
ii. 23, iii. 2; ef. LXX very frequently, and perhaps even clearer instances in 
Jos. Ant.i. 1. 1, iii. 6. 6; Hor. Sat. i. 1. 69: “Hodie tricesima sabbata” ; 
hence also the expressions ὀψὲ σαββάτων, Matt. xxviii. 1, and ἡμέρα τῶν o., 
Luke iv. 16, xiii. 14, 16, xiv. 5; Acts xiii. 14, xvi. 13, the latter phrase being 
used by Luke alone of the N.T. writers (in Mark vi. 2 it is an erroneous 
insertion of the Westerns) ; (b) the week, so at least in pia [τῶν] σαββάτων, 
Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 2; Luke xxiv. 1; John xx. 1, 19; Acts xx. 7; 
1 Cor. xvi. 2. In Mark xvi. 9 this is changed into the un-Jewish πρώτη 
caßß., a form corresponding to x3wa ın the first day of the week, Sunday. 
Among the Jews also nav, xnaw, or contracted xaw, together with saw, had 
received the meaning of yay “week” (Levy, iv. 493, 506), Since even 
Josephus, in spite of his etymological learning, according to which σάββατα 
=dvaravois (Ant. i. 1.15; ¢ Ap. 11. 2. 11), uses ἑβδομάς, which properly denotes 
a group of seven, a week, also for the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath 
(Bell. i, 2.4, 7. 3, ii. 19.2; c. Ap. ii. 39; cf. 2 Mace. vi. 11), it is clear 
that the people generally had ceased to feel the distinction in derivation 
between’ naw, xnav, or rather the contracted form szy, and the word for 
“seven” yaw, xyay. Upon this supposition is explicable the signification 
given under (b). (15) Here the writer puts Βεελζεβούλ, a word cited by 
Jesus from the speech of His opponents as a term of reviling for Himself and 
for the devil as His ally (Matt. x. 25; Luke xi. 18), or put by the evangelists 
in the mouth of these opponents (Matt. xii. 24; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15), 
or adopted by Jesus Himself (Matt. xii. 27; Luke xi. 19), and even used in a 


20 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


good sense (Matt. x. 25). The Syrian translators (Ss Se 51, unfortunately Sk 
is wanting in all these passages) have everywhere put for it »21 >ya, %.e. the 
Exron god of flies, 2 Kings i. 2,6; and even a writer as early as Jerome was 
so convinced of the correctness of this interpretation, that, on the strength of 
it, he declared the reading Beelzebub, which is attested in no Greek MS., 'to be 
the only correct one (Onom. 66. 11-13), and through his Vulgate presented 
to the Latin Church this form now so general among us. Not a particle of 
proof has yet been found in the LXX, the remains of the other Greek 
versions, the Targum, or the Talmudie-rabbinie literature, which would 
support the view that the later Jews altered the name of this Ekron god so 
arbitrarily, or that they took any interest in him at all; such proof must first 
be forthcoming before we can rest satisfied with such a quid pro quo. Yet 
even recent writers like Kautzsch, 9; Dalman, @r.? 137; Graf v. Baudissin, 
PRE,’ ii. 514, content themselves with this explanation. To be sure, the 
thought of 521 to dung, 53: dung, ‘a: dunging, and the application of these 
words to idol-worship, which had become customary (Levy, i. 509f.), may 
have contributed to give the name Beelzebub an evil sense; but this name 
(and the only forms which have come down to us are BeeX (or Bee, or Be) 
-CeßovA) cannot be a transcription of zebel or zibbul, consequently the name 
must have been Sa Sys “Jord of the dwelling.” By the dwelling is meant 
naturally not that of God, the temple (1 Kings viii. 13), but the abode of the 
dead (Ps. xlix. 15), the stronghold of Hades, whence all the powers of 
destruction break forth (Matt. xvi. 18; Luke viii. 31; Rev. ix. 1-11, xx. 1-3). 
Jesus adopts the very word which His adversaries have used. When they 
call the devil a lord of the abode, they should at the same time consider that 
as such he has charge of an ordered household which he will not himself 
wantonly destroy, nor suffer to be plundered by others, so long as he can 
prevent it (Matt. xii. 25, 29). If they apply the name to Jesus Himself, He 
can appropriate it when reminding the disciples that He is the master of the 
house in which they form the household (Matt. x. 25). The first word of the 
compound name has the Aram. form, the second is Hebrew as well. Here 
belong also words which were spoken by those about Jesus, but as to which 
it is not expressly recorded that He used them Himself: (1) paßßi, "51, was 
the customary form with which the pupil addressed the teacher (John i. 38, 
translated by διδάσκαλε 8 times in John, 4 times in Matt., 3 times in Mark), 
and as such was referred to by Jesus Himself (Matt. xxiii. 7, 8; ef. John 
xiii. 13). Beside this, however, paßßovvi is used in addressing Jesus 
(Mark x. 51; John xx. 16)—both times with the variant reading ῥαββων εἰ. 
The pronunciation of ‘na “my lord and master,” may at that time have 
fluctuated between uw and o in the penult. The Jewish pronunciation 
ribbonv (Levy, iv. 416) probably belongs to a later period. Of. also ZKom. 
Matt. 643, A.70. Among the Syriac versions, Sh S! have retained this word 
in John xx. 16, S! has '» in Mark x. 51, Ss 20 in both passages, Se is 
wanting. (2) Meooias only in John i. 41, iv. 25, and then with the 
translation (6) Xpuords=Aramaic ἀπο, in the Targums, and especially 
among the Aramaic speaking Jews=nvien. The Syrians, without exception, 
have used for this word the Aramaic form, which everywhere in the N.T. is 
to be presupposed as the original of (6) Χριστός ; Sh alone, who elsewhere 
also has preserved Greek forms (e.g. oo’ Jesus), wrote w’op in John i. 41, 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 21 


iv. 25, and thus it was possible for him also, in slavish imitation of. the 
original, to add a translation, a thing which Ss Se S! declined, to do. The 
view of Lagarde (Verhältnis des deutschen Staats, etc., 1873, S. 293. Semitica, 
i. 50; Symmicta, ii. 92 ; Übersicht über die Bildung der Nomina, 1889, 5. 93-95 ; 
Register und Nachträge, 1891, S. 62, f.), that Meooias goes back to a 
ἈΠ, which, according to him, was originally Assyrian or Babylonian, later 
Nabatzan, 2.e. trans-Jordanic, and means “the repeatedly anointing one,” 
has justly met with no favour. It is beyond belief that the original meaning 
of the Aramaic word should have been misunderstood, not only by John, 
who was the first to transliterate it into Greek, and by all Greck speaking 
Christians, who called their Lord ὁ Χριστός even before, the year 43-44, 
during which the name Χριστιανοί arose in Antioch (§ 40, n. 9), but also 
by the Jews, who long since had used it in the sense. of “the anointed, 
the promised king” (e.g. also Onkelos, Gen. xlix. 10). The double oo for 
single ©, especially in the middle of a word, has analogies enough :; Αβεσσα, 
Cod. B, 1 Sam. xxvi. 6; Jos. Ant. xvii. 1.3; Αβεσσαλωμ, LXX 2 Sam, iii. 3, 
xiii. 1 ff., which also has some attestation in 1 Mace. xi. 70; Jos. Ant. vii, 1, 4; 
Ελισσαιος, Cod. A, without exception after 1 Kings xix. 16, attested pre- 
ponderantly in Jos. Ant. vill, 13. 7, and not inconsiderably in Luke iv. 27; 
Ιεσσαι, 1 Sam. xvi. 1ff.; Isa. xi. 1 (8 Ieoa.); Matt, i. 5f.; Luke iii, 32; 
som’ Dan. vi. 5 (al. 4), rendered by Jerome (Vall. v. 658) essaitha. If. all 
this should, be insuflicient to explain the form. Μεσσίας, we might regard as 
reproducing the original spelling the reading Meaias, in John i. 42, iv. 25, a 
reading the attestation of which can hardly be called slight. (9) Matt, xxi. 
9,15; Mark xi. 9, 10; John xii. 13, wcavva; Ss Se (so far as they have these 
passages) and S! everywhere ssyzix,; on the contrary, Sh xayehn. Further- 
more, osanna oecurred in the Gospel of the Hebrews according to Jerome, 
Epist. xx. (GK, ii. 650, 694), it was early received into the liturgy of the 
Eucharist according to Didache x. 6, and it was shouted by the people in 
Jerusalem in the year 66 according to Hegesippus (Kus. H. E. ii. 28. 14), 
The original form of this, as is also shown by the context in the Gospels, is 
unquestionably the x3 aywin of Ps. exviii. 25. Whether he knew the whole 
psalm or not, every Jewish, child was familiar with these words, occurring 
as they did in the liturgy of the feast of Tabernacles,—a feast, moreover, 
which the palm branches would recall; ef. Delitzsch, Z/LTh, 1855, 8. 
653 ff. The view proposed first, perhaps, by Merx in Hilgenfeld, NT 
extra cam. iv. 26, ed. ii. p. 25, and adopted by Siegfried, ZFWTh. 1884, 
S. 359, and others, according to which the original form was an Aramaic 
ΡΝ, “save us,” is in the first place opposed to all the tradition. The 
Greek translators, of Ps. exviii. 25 and the ancient commentators under- 
stood σῶσον δή ; cf. also Jerome, Onomast. 62. 29. Good proof must then be 
forthcoming before we can believe that Jews by misunderstanding the Biblical 
form found. here a suffix of the first person plural. Im the second place, the 
dative “to the son of David” (Matt. xxi. 9, 15) or “to the God of David” 
(Didache x. 6), excludes the possibility that those who thus hailed Jesus, or those 
who reported this, thought of an “us” as contained in the hosanna. In the 
third place, there is no verb ye in Aramaic at all, nor one related to this in 
derivation. The Hiph‘il of this Hebrew verb is rendered regularly in 
Targ. and Pesh. by pw. The Talmudic syvin as a name of the festal palm 


22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


branch and (with oy) of the last day of the feast of Tabernacles, which 
passed over to the Syrians as a foreign word in the form νυν, and was 
made to apply to Palm Sunday (Payne Smith, Thes. s.v.), can certainly 
be nothing else than a shortened pronunciation of the Hebrew exelama- 
tion, a pronunciation reproduced exactly in the Gospels and in the liturgy 
of the Didache. To Aramaic-speaking Jews this pronunciation probably 
seemed an assimilation to their ordinary speech ; and when the East Syrians 
Ss Se S! replaced the initial » by x (Sh retained the Hebrew spelling with 
1), this was simply a further Aramaicising of the foreign Hebrew word. An 
equally superficial and specious assimilation to the Aramaic is seen in the 
form Oshaya, the Babylonian Talmud’s spelling of the name which occurs as 
Hoshaya in the Palestinian Talmud (Levy, i. 48, 460), or in the variant 
spellings 738 and xpx, which occur in both Talmuds along with the form 
mn, a word derived from 37, and therefore Hebrew. By such a change 
hosanna became Aramaic to just about the same extent that Penston-trung is 
a German word. The same tendency, though in the reverse direction, is seen 
in the inscription on the sarcophagus of a Jewish princess, apparently from 
Adiabene (C. 7. Sem. ii. No. 156, see n. 12), in which the Aramaic word 
“queen” is written once in Syriac script correctly xn2sn, and once in the 
Hebrew square characters mn>bs, a form which appeared more Jewish. We 
cannot tell from Jerome’s report whether in the Gospel of the Hebrews the 
@cavva began with a 7 or an x, and it is still less possible to decide with how 
strong an aspiration the various members of the mixed multitude on that 
Palm Sunday shouted the first syllable of this word. 

4. (Pp. 4,7.) Even translators as early as the LXX (and Theodotion) 
rendered n'2 in Dan. ii. 4, Ezra iv. 7 by συριστί (Vulg. syriace), 1.6. gave the 
name “Syriac” to the so-called Biblical Aramaic. The corresponding soo 
and pro jieb are the terms which the Palestinian rabbis apply both to the 
Biblical Aramaic and to the colloquial speech of their time, cf. Dalman, Gr.22 ; 
Levy, i. 168, ii. 529, iii. 495. According to Sotah, 495 (cf. Baba Kamma, 83a), 
Judah the “nasi,” the editor of the Mishnah, who lived in Palestine ec. 200, 
says: “What business has the Syriac language in the land of Israel? Let 
us have either the sacred tongue or the Greek, none other.” A rabbi, J oseph, 
living in Babylonia, recast this as follows: “What business has the Aramaic 
language in Babel? Let us have either the sacred tongue or the Persian, 
none other.” On the other hand, according to Jerus. Sotah vii. fol. 21e, 
Samuel bar-Nachman says in the name of rabbi Jochanan: “Let not the 
Syriac speech be of small account in thine eyes; for it is spoken in the 
Torah, the Nebiim, and the Kethubim,” which he then verifies by quoting 
Gen. xxxi. 47; Jer. x. 11; Dan. ii. 4; ef. the Midrash on Gen. xxxi. 47, 
translated into German by Wünsche, S. 364. Then follows in Jerus. Sotah 
vii. fol. 216 : “Jonathan of Bethgubrin (ü.e. a South Palestinian) saith: Four 
languages are adapted to be of service to the world, namely, the Greek for 
song, the Roman for war, the Syriac for lamentation, the Hebrew for oratory, 
and certain say: the Assyrian also for writing.” In Dial. eiii. Justin, who 
was born in the colony Flavia Neapolis in Samaria, calls the speech of the 
non-Greek inhabitants of Palestine ἡ Ἰουδαίων καὶ Σύρων φωνή, and distin- 
guishes it, so far as can be made out from the corrupt text, from ἡ Ἑβραίων 
φωνή. Eusebius of Cxesaren was bishop of a city, the non-Jewish inhabitants 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 23 


and neighbours of which were called Syrians by Josephus, Vita, 11; Bell, ii. 
18. 1f.,and he could not have remained ignorant of the language of the 
country. Moreover, he had acquired also some knowledge of Hebrew, prob- 
ably even in his early years under Dorotheus in Antioch (Eus. H. E. vii. 32. 2), 
and often showed it in his exegesis; yet he applied the name “Syriac” not 
only to the language of Edessa, from which he translated into Greek the 
legend of King Abgar (H.E. i. 13. 5, 20, iv. 30), but also to the vernacular 
of Palestine, into which the several parts of the Greek service had to be 
translated orally by interpreters in polyglot Churches, such as those at Jeru- 
salem and Scythopolis, for the benefit of those who did not understand Greek 
(Syr. text of the Book of the Martyrs of Palestine, ed. Cureton, p. 4; cf. the 
Latin and Greek excerpts published by Violet in TU, xiv. 4, S.7, 110), Justso 
Siwie peregrin. Itin. Hieros., ed. Geyer, 99, 14-24; Jerome, Epist. eviii, 30 ; 
Vita Hilarionis, ce. xxii. xxiil. (Vall. i. 723, ii. 25); Marci, Vita Porphyrii Gaz. 
(Bonn, 1895), pp. 55-57. What is meant is the language of the so-called Evan- 
geiarium Hierosolymitanum. Cf. in general Forsch. i. 18-44, 268-272, ii. 
292-299 ; GK, i. 43, ii. 659f. Moreover, Eusebius has no hesitation in call- 
ing the mother tongne of the Galilean apostles Syriac: Demonstr. ev. iii. 
7. 10, ἄνδρες τῇ Σύρων ἐντραφέντες μόνῃ φωνῇ, cf. iii. 4. 44; Theoph. syr., ed. 
Lee, iv. 6, v. 26, 46, partly also in Greek in Mai, Nova p. bibl. iv. 1. 118, 120. 
So Quest. ev. ad Steph. in Mai, 270 (probably words of the Julius Africanus 
who wrote at Nicopolis in Palestine a hundred years before Eusebius, Forsch. 
i. 40, n. 4, ὁ Ματθαῖος Σύρος ἀνήρ. In this sense Lucian, whose mother tongue 
was the Syriac spoken in Samosata (Forsch. ii. 297), called Jesus the well- 
known Syrian of Palestine, who is a good hand at healing demoniacs (Philo- 
pseudes, 16); and the Alexandrians derided the Jewish king Agrippa as a 
Syrian by hailing him as 7, a term about equivalent to monseigneur (Philo, 
ὁ. Flaccwm, vi. Mangey, ii. 522f.; ef. Dalman, Gr.? 152, A. 3). The “ five- 
tongued” Epiphanius (Jerome, c. Rufinus, iii. 6) was a Palestinian by birth, 
indeed, according to a not very trustworthy tradition, a Jew, and brought up 
by a rabbi (Opera, ed. Dindorf, v. p. vf.) ; but when he seeks to speak with 
precision (Her. lxix. 68, above, p. 15), he calls the Aramaic words spoken by 
Jesus on the cross “Syriac,” in distinction from the Hebrew words joined to 
them in Matt. xxvii. 46. Jerome in his explanation of the Hebrew names 
in the Bible regularly appends to the words and names in the N.T. which he 
regards as Aramaic the phrase Syrwm est (Onomastica, ed. Lagarde, 62. 19 ; 63, 
3, 13; 64.27; 65.12; 66.14, 28; 67.27; 71.7; 73.24; 75.25), frequently 
with the further addition non hebreum (60. 18, 21, 25, 29; 61. 23; 63.17; 
cf. the passage concerning Mammonas above, p. 18, and the clear distinction 
between Hebrew and Syriac in Quest. hebr. in Gen., ed. Lagarde, 22. 11; 
50.29). When the distinction between the Hebrew and the Aramaic form 
is insignificant, or one part of a compound word seems to admit of a Hebrew 
meaning, he expresses this also, though often rather unclearly. Onom. 60. 
22: “* Barjona,’ filius columbe, syrum est pariter et hebr&um, ‘bar’ quippe 
lingua syra filius, et ‘yona’ coluraba utroque sermone dicitur”; cf. 65. 30f. ; 
67. 22, 28; comm. in Matth. x. 13 (Vall. vii. 60; cf. the text-critical note 
appended): “Quod enim grace dicitur χαῖρε et latine ‘ave,’ hoc hebraico 
syroque sermone appellatur ‘Salom lagh (lach?’) sive ‘Salama lach’ id est 
“pan teewm’” ; comm. in Gal. ii. 11 (Vall. vii. 409): “Quod quam nos latine 


24 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


et greece petram vocemus, Hebri et Syri propter lingus inter se vieiniam 
Cephan nuncupent.” On the other hand, Jerome when thinking of Dan. ii. 4 
chose to call the Biblical Jewish Aramaic sermo chaldeus or chaldaicus (Pref. 
in Dan., Tob., Judith, ix. 1361, x. 2 f., 22), even though in his translation’ of 
Dan. ii.4 he had used syriace. This explains, then, the combination Syrorum 
et Chaldworum lingua inthe Prol. galeatus in libros Regum-(Vall. ix. 454), and 
the statement about the Gospel of the Hebrews (c. Pelagium, iii. 2 Valli it 
782): “Chaldaico quidem syroque sermone, sed hebraieis literis seriptum 
est”; cf. GK, ii. 659 ff. Theodoret, who was acquainted with Syriac (ef. 
Forsch. 1: 39-43), recognised no distinctions of dialect within that language 
as it was spoken in Palestine, in Pheenicia, on the Euphrates, and in Edessa, 
but such as according to Judg. xii. 6 existed within ancient Israel (Opp., ed. 
Schulze, i. 337). To this may be added the opinion of a modern philologist 
(Sachau, on the Palmyrene tax. law of 137 a.p. in ZDM @, 1883, 5: 564: 
“ The language on no other monument isso closely related to Biblical Aramaic 
as'that in this Palmyrene tax inscription. ..... It is the language which: was 
spoken in Palestine at the time of the composition of Chronicles (#rca:200 B.C.) 
and of Daniel (167-166 B.c.), as'well'asat Palmyra in Hadrian’s time. . . 
It is the language of Christ and His contemporaries.” The ancient Syrian 
translators of the Gospels recognised their own tongue in the Aramaic. words 
and sentences written in Greek letters, and transcribed them in Syriac letters 
either altogether unchanged (Mark v. 41), or with merely a slight change of 
form (Mark xv. 34), so that it was’possible for them to dispense with almost 
all the remarks in the Gospels referring to translation. S!, who was later 
than Ss Se, was the first who quite often, e.g. Mark xiv. 36, John xx. 24; took 
the needless trouble of preserving for the Syrians these remarks so superfluous 
for them. 

5. (P. 4.) The Treasure Cave (Syriac and German by Bezold, Germaw 
part, p. 29, also on the margin of the Syriae text) names as the original! 
language of mankind “the Syriac tongue, which is the Aramaic; for this 
tongue is the king (jv being mase.) of all tongues . . . for all tongues on: the 
earth have sprung from the Syriac, and commingled with it are all discourses 
in books.” Cf. the Syrian Tatian’s opinion of Greek, Oratio ad Grec. i.26, and 
the writer’s explanation of this, Forsch. i. 271 ἢ, 

6. (P. 5.) Concerning Aramaie in the Persian period, cf. Néldeke, Die 
semitischen Sprachen, eine Skizze, 2te Aufl. 1899, 8.34. Among other proofs are 
the Aramaic inscriptions and papyri from Egypt beginning with 482 2.0. 
(C. I. Sem. ii. No. 122), Of. Ezra iv. 7. 

7. (Pp. 5, 7.) The heathen woman fromthe region of Tyre and Sidon is 
called by Matthew (xv. 22), in accordance with his antique style (ef. ii. 204. γῆ 
Ἰσραήλ, and also the saying of Judah quoted above, p. 22, n. 4), a Canaanite 
woman ; ini Mark vii. 26 she is called, with reference to her heathen religion, 
Ἑλληνίς (see § 2, n. 2), to which, however, Συροφοινίκισσα is added in order to 
denote that she was a Pheenician by birth and a Syrian in speech,—certainly 
not in order to tell, superfluously enough, in what country Tyre (vii. 24) was 
situated ; ef. Lucian, Deor. concil. 4, where Συροφοίνιξ in contradistinction to 
Ἕλλην denotes those Pheenicians who spoke Syriac. The earliest writings in 
which Συροφοινίκη is found are those of Justin; he uses it when referring to 
an administrative measure which had been passed shortly before, but which 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 25 


probably remained in force only temporarily, saying (Dial. lxxviii.) of the 
Damascus of his time as contrasted with that of the time of Christ’s birth: 
νῦν mpooveveunra τῇ Συροφοινίκῃ λεγομένῃ (cf. Spart. Hadrianus, 14, and 
Tertullian, ὁ. Mare. 111. 13, who 15: here dependent. upon Justin).. Arche- 
ologists fail to give this sentence due weight when they put the first estab- 
lishment of a province of this name as late as circa 194; see the summary in 
Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverw.? i. 423 f. Cf. also the inscriptions from the 
time of Aretas (Haritat) ıv. published by Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften 
(1885), Nos. 1-20, or Οἱ I. Sem. ii. No. 196 ff. Perhaps even as early as 
Nehemiah’s time Aramaic in various dialects was spoken in Moab and in 
Ashdod, so that the speech contrasted with the “Jews’ language” in Neh. 
xiii. 24 is essentially the same as that in Isa. xxxvi. 11. 

8. (P. 6.) Even as late as the times of the Hasmonean princes, John 
Hyreanus (135-105 2.c.) and Aristobulus (105-104), the language on the coins 
is pure Hebrew (Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 76-83). ‘Moreover, when 
Alexander Jannzus (104-78) ventured to have stamped, not only coins with 
a Hebrew inscription, on which he designated himself as high priest, but also 
coins inscribed in Greek on the one side and in Semitic on the other, on 
which he assumed the title of king, he used in both cases a purely Hebrew 
expression (Madden, pp. 83-90). Even his Aramaicised name ‘xx is replaced 
by the original Hebrew forms jns or 753", more rarely jn. 

9. (P. 6.) Aids to the elementary. study of the Modern Hebrew of the 
learned class: Geiger, Lehr- wnd Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah, 2 parts, 
1845 ; Siegfried and Strack, Lehrbuch der neuhebräischen Sprache, 1884. Since 
the Greek ἰδιώτης, pronounced virın by the Jews, denotes the uncultured in 
contrast to the scholar, 1.6. to the scribe among the Jews (Acts iv. 13, ἀγράμ- 
paroı καὶ ἰδιῶται, cf. Artemid. iv. 59 -- ἀπαίδευτοι), via pw primarily forms 
the contrast to the “tongue of the learned” (m:n pwd) or the “tongue of our 
teachers.” When contrasted with the Aramaic vernacular, this learned tongue 
and the Biblical Hebrew were regarded as forming a single language ; so 
that the tongue of the “sacred language,” or “Sursi” (p. 22, n. 4), which is 
but another designation of the same language, came to be contrasted with the 
“sacred tongue” in like manner (Jerus. Sanhed. 25d, line 8). At other times, 
however, the “tongue of the learned” was in its turn distinguished from the 
“tongue of the Torah,” or Biblical Hebrew. 

10. (P. 7.) We must not form our judgment of the actual relation between 
Hebrew and Aramaic even among learned circles from such dictatorial 
words as those of Judah the “nasi” (above, p. 22, n. 4). Among the good 
works by which a man earns eternal life, one is for an inhabitant of the land 
of Israel to speak the sacred tongue (Jerus. Shekalim iii. 476, line 2 from 
bottom), which shows. that this was no insignificant task. A very ancient 
commentary (Sifre, in Ugolini, Thes. xv. 581) emphasises the fact that Deut. 
x1. 19 speaks only of sons, not of daughters, and appends the remark of a 
rabbi, Jose ben Akiba (this should read probably Akabja, see Strack, Einl. in 
d. Talmud, 84): “Therefore it is said, When the boy begins to speak, the 
father should speak the sacred tongue with him and teach him the Torah. 
If he neglects this, he might as well have buried him.” A learned Jew in 
Palestine confessed to Origen that he did not trust himself to give the Hebrew 
names of things not mentioned anywhere in the Holy Scriptures, and that 


26 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the most learned were in no better ease ; but he held that it was over hasty 
to make use of the Syriac tongue instead of the Hebrew in such cases (Orig. 
Kpist. ad Afric. vi. Delarue, i. 18). 

11. (P. 7.) Josephus, who employs πάτριος γλῶσσα (Bell. v. 6. 3) and 
marpios (Bell. v.2. 1), uses also not infrequently and with propriety ἡ ἐπιχώριος 
γλῶσσα. According to him, Bell. iv. 3..5, the name of a certain Jew in. this 
language meant δορκάδος παῖς, “Son of the Gazelle” ; hence the Aramaic must 
have been xpay ap; cf. Acts ix. 36; Levy, ii, 134. Of. Bell. v..4. 2, ἐκλήθη 
δ᾽ ἐπιχωρίως Βεζεθᾶ τὸ νεόκτιστον μέρος ὃ μεθερμηνευόμενον ἑλλάδι γλώσσῃ 
καινὴ λέγοιτ᾽ ἂν πόλις. This name has been transmitted in very manifold 
forms herg and in ii. 15. 5; 19.4; v. 5.8; see below, n. 15. 

12. (Pp. 8,10.) The Aramaie or Syriae (above, p. 4f.), spoken by the Jews 
of Palestine, is called &ßpaiori in John v. 2, xix. 13, 17; for whatever the 
decision as to the correct reading in v. 2, there are Aramaic word forms in all 
three passages (n. 15). It is most natural, then, to assume that the same was 
true of the title on the cross, xix. 20, The ἑβραϊστί in John xx. 16, if its genu- 
ineness may be considered established, refers to a late Hebrew form. Josephus, 
too, applies the term Hebrew to both Hebrew and Aramaic forms without 
distinction : Ant. iii. 10, 6, πεντηκοστή, ἣν "Eßpatoı ἀσαρθᾶ καλοῦσι, Heb. NYY, 
Aram. xpyy, a form which first occurs in this signification of Pentecost. 
Although the distinetion between Hebrew and Syriac must have been perfectly 
clear to him from the studies of his youth as well as from the O.T. (Ant. 
x. 1. 2, cf. iii, 7.2), he substitutes without ceremony Aramaic for Hebrew 
forms not only in σάββατα, πάσχα, where he had been preceded by the LXX 
(above, p. 18f.), but also on his own responsibility, as, e.g., when he says 
of the priests, Ant. iii, 7,1, obs xavavalas (better xaavalas) καλοῦσιν = 
δῆ; ch Siegfried, Z/A TW, 1883, 5. 50. If, according to him, ἀδώμα -- 
“red,” is Hebrew (Ant. ii. 1. 1), xayipas or dyipas, “lame” (Bell. v. 11. 5), 
can also be called Hebrew. The “tongue of the Hebrews,” in which a freed- 
man of King Agrippa I. announced to that monarch in Rome the death of 
Tiberius (Ant, xviii. 6. 10), can surely be none other than that from which 
the Alexandrians borrowed the derisive term Mari for the same Agrippa 
(above, p. 23). It is the πάτριος γλῶσσα οἱ the Jerusalemites (Bell. v. 6, 3); 
9. 2; οἵ. ὁ. Apion. i. 9), to use which is termed ἑβραΐζειν (Bell. vi. 2.1). In 
this language Josephus had originally written his work upon the Jewish 
War, so that the Jews throughout the whole East might read it (Bell. 1, 
pro®m. 1f.). In that very passage he designates the readers for which this 
first draft was intended primarily as οἱ ἄνω Bapßapoı by way of contrast to 
the domain of Greek literature (§ 1); and it is not until § 2, where he 
speaks of them as dwelling in the remotest parts of Arabia and also in 
Parthia, Babylonia, and Adiabene, that he incidentally drops the hint that 
he really has in mind only his own people in those regions. But this im- 
plies also that the living language which he calls his πάτριος γλῶσσα (his 
mother tongue, as we would say) was in the main the common language of 
the whole territory deseribed. To be sure, king Izates of Adiabene, a con- 
vert to Judaism, sent five of his sons to Jerusalem in order that they might 
learn there the language and culture accurately (γλῶτταν τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν 
πάτριον, says Jos. Ant. xx. 8, 4); but all that follows from this is that a 
Syrian from Adiabene did not speak Aramaic quite 80 accurately as it was 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 27 


spoken “among us” in Jerusalem, to use Josephus’ phrase. Upon the sarco- 
phagus of a princess, probably of this royal house, is a double Aramaic in- 
scription (C. I. Sem. ii. No, 156, ef. Schiirer, iii. 121 (lung. trans. 11. ii. 310, 
n. 287) ; above, p. 22, line 17). This, then, was the πάτριος γλῶσσα of Josephus, 
which not infrequently he calls Hebrew. The same term was used also by 
those Church Fathers whose knowledge of the facts cannot be denied, Kuse- 
bius, or perhaps Julius Africanus (above, p. 23), calls Matthew in the same 
breath a Syrian man and “a Hebrew as to his speech.” The same writer 
calls the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, which he had in his hands and 
from which he made intelligent excerpts, “the Gospel which among the 
Jews is in the Hebrew tongue” (Theoph. iv. 12). Jerome, who by copying 
this Gospel and by translating it twice had beeome thoroughly acquainted 
with it, and who has indicated with precision the character of its language 
(above, p. 23), calls it very frequently a Hebrew Gospel, or the Hebrew 
Matthew (@K, ii. 651 ff.). Moreover, the same Aramaic words and names in 
the N.T. which in the Onomasticon and elsewhere he declares to be not 
Hebrew, but Syriac, are yet called Hebrew by him quite frequently in other 
passages (above, p. 18, line 351. ; GK, ii. 660). Epiphanius, who, as was shown 
above, p. 15, line 38, was quite able to distinguish between Hebrew and Syriac, 
nevertheless in the same passage in which he expresses the distinction, and 
immediately before he does so (Her. Ixix. 68, Dind. iii. 221. 26), classes both 
languages under the concept of the ἑβραϊκὴ διάλεκτος. Likewise in Her, 
xxvi. 1 he reckons the Syriac sq “fire,” primarily as belonging to the 
Hebrew tongue, but adds immediately that it is not the “deep,” 1.6. ancient 
tongue of this name, in which the name for fire is quite different, but the 
Syriac dialect to which it bears this relation. Nevertheless he asserts else- 
where (Ancor. 2) that Bap is a Hebrew word. As late as 600 A.D. or there- 
abouts, Joannes Moschus used ¢Spaiori of the vernacular of Palestine (Prat. 
spir. 136, Migne, 87. 3000, in the old translation syriace). rom all of which 
it follows that in the whole realm of N.T. and ancient Church literature 
the word “ Hebrew” denotes the Aramaic tongue of the Oriental Jews quite 
as much as it does the original language of the O.T. and the learned language 
of the rabbis. 

13. (P. 9.) According to the corrected text of Mark xiv. 70, the way in 
which Peter’s Galilean origin was discovered is not expressly stated, since 
Roman readers, for whom this Gospel was probably intended, were unae- 
quainted with linguistic conditions in Palestine; yet it is presupposed. 
And Matt. xxvi. 73 says explicitly, for the benefit of its Palestinian readers, 
καὶ yap ἡ λαλιά σὸυ δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ. This word is not like διάλεκτος in the 
ancient sense of that word (Acts ii. 6, 8); it denotes, not a grammatically 
and lexically separate language or dialect, but the manner of speaking (οἵ, 
also John viii. 43), and has reference to accent and pronunciation. Variations 
of this kind had existed from time immemorial (ef. Judg. xii. 6, and 'Theo- 
doret’s comment upon it, Schulze, i. 337). The anecdotes in which the 
Galilean “dialect” is ridiculed in the Talmud, especially Erubin, 535, concern 
the pronunciation of consonants of similar sound (Neubauer, 51; Dalman, 
Gr.” 57 ff.; for illustrations see Fischer in his revision of Winer’s Chald. Gram. 
31 ff.). There is not a hint in the New Testament that Jesus caused any 
surprise in Jerusalem by His pronunciation, although, like Peter, He was 


28 INTRODUETION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


looked. upon: askance,as an unlearned man (John vii. 15) and as a Galilean 
(John, vii. 41). With all due respect. for the learning and thoroughness 
with which of late Dalman has. been at pains to distinguish Judean, from 
Galilean Aramaic, one may question whether the separation of the. sources 
which underlies this work furnishes a sufliciently secure foundation for 
such'an undertaking, 

14. (P. 9.) The Aramaic dialects. spoken by non-Jews (East Syriac, West 
Syriac, Nabatzan, Palmyrene), which exerted an. unavoidable influence upon 
the speech of Aramaic-speaking Jews also, are one language in spite of; their 
differences, as can. be seen clearly upon comparison with the High German 
dialects (Alemannic, Swabian, Bavarian, Franconian, etc.). Similarly a 
certain idea of the relation of, Hebrew to Aramaic may be gained by one not 
versed in those languages, if he contrasts High German with Low German, 
In both cases there is a correspondence between certain sibilants in the one 
language and: certain dentals in the other (High Ger. Zeit = Low Ger. Tid, 
lassen=ldten, beissen=biten, muss=möt ; in like manner, Heb. am gold= 
Aram, 277, ns rock=», nw Assyria=nx). The difference is much greater, 
however, in the case of Hebrew and Aramaic, for the reason that Aramaic 
has no article, and possesses only an imperfect substitute for it in its status 
emphatacus with termination in ὦ (me). 

15. (P. 9.) In John v. 2 the name of the pool at, the sheep-gate, which 
the MSS. give in such various forms, is not indeed translated, as in ix, 7; 
yet the remark is made that it is a Hebrew word, which shows that the 
evangelist reflected upon its meaning. But there would be reason and, sense 
in his doing so only in case he wrote Βηθεσδα and meant this to be under- 
stood asınıon ma “ house of grace,” “mercy.” By a deed of gracious love, in 
imitation of His Father who is ever working (v. 17-21), and in spite of the 
Sabbath, Jesus gave true meaning to the name of the place, while His oppo- 
nents, who lacked the divine love (v. 42), accuse Him on account of this as 
a Sabbath-breaker, but for this very reason shut themselves out from the 
sphere of His quickening activity (v. 40). This reading, which is supported 
by the Greek MSS. (with the exception of D and the closely related XBL), 
was understood as above by the ancient Syrians (Sc Sh S!, Ss is wanting 
here), and was so transcribed. Concerning the variants in text, and the 
attempts, continued to the present time, to give other meanings to the names, 
see ZKom. Joh. (ad loc.). In any case, then, the name would be Aramaic. 
Likewise AxeAdaya (so most authorities, xo1 9pn S!, AreAdauax B, Αχελδαμαχ D, 
AreAdanar E), which according to Acts i. 19 belongs to the language of those 
in Jerusalem (S! “in the language of the place”), and in agreement with 
Matt. xxvii. 8 is translated χωρίον αἵματος. The first part of the compound 
name >pn, used in the Targums to translate the Heb. my, has no essentially 
identical Hebrew word corresponding to it. Klostermann, Probl. 1-8, refers 
the second pant to the Syriac 797 “to sleep,” and accordingly translates the 
word “field: of the dead.” But such an interpretation seems to have. in- 
sufficient grounds from an exegetical standpoint, cannot be regarded as 
corresponding to Palestinian usage, and even though the x at the end is 
probably genuine, cannot be established, on the strength of that. Dalman, 
@r.2 202, A. 3, cites as parallels Ἰωσήχ, Luke iii. 26, for Ὃν, the abbreviated 
Joseph, and Sepay for xyp. Taßßada, John xix. 13 (written also, though 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 25 


less aceurately, Taßafa, Sh un, 8! amers:, Ss Se are wanting), is probably xp: 
(Neubauer, 56; Dalman, Gr., lte Aufl. 108, A. 1, but enn23 2te Aufl. 160, 
A. 4; Worte Jesu, 6 [Eng. trans. 7,n. 2]). Alongside of this the evangelist 
Puts λιθόστρωτος (or -ov), pavement, especially mosaic pavement; and 
though, indeed, he does not give it as the translation of Gabbatha, he 
remarks that the Jews in their language call this particular mosaic pave- 
ment in the pretorium at Jerusalem, or any pavement of that kind, 
“gabbatha” ; so that he must have in mind a derivation which explains 
this. He cannot, then, have been thinking of 73, «33 (mase.) “ridge,” 
“hillock,” or «723 “summit,” or of «enzi “baldness” (Dalman, Worte, 6 
[Eng. trans, 7, n. 2]), but probably rather on 332 (to pick up, rake together 
straw, wood, vegetables, etc.), and substantive 7223, #22: (small sticks of wood 
and the like; examples in Jastrow, 204; Levy,i 291). The signification 
“parquet or mosaic fioor” would be natural enough. Τολγοθα, Matt. xxvii. 
33; Mark xv. 22; John xix. 17; in Sh ans, written exactly as in Targ. 
Onkelos Ez. xvi. 16, the stat. emph. of xb:yu “skull,” corresponding to the 
‘Heb. rbsba, rendered easier of pronunciation in Greek by-omission of the 
‘second +, and in Ss S! by omission of the first. | The localities near Jeru- 
‘salem, Βηθῴφαγη, Matt.xxi. 1, Mark xi. 1 (ἢ), Luke xix. 29 (Sh x» wa, Ss 
51 without «, written by the Jews also "se mz, literally “house of the unripe 
figs”), and Tefompaveı (-vı, -vn), Matt. xxvi. 36, Mark xiv. 32 (misunderstood 
by all the Syriac versions; it is sog nz, literally “ press of the oils”), are-by 
no means Hellenised by the appending of a termination, like so many names 
in Josephus, but are exact reproductions of Aramaic plurals in é, or i for in, 
and are treated as indeclinable; ci. Dalman, Gr.*.191. Moreover, Oghas, 
Jos. Bell. ii. 17. 9, v. 4. 2, is Aramaicised. Of course, in addition to these 
there remained in use time-honoured names such as τὸν Isa viii. 6.in LXX 
(ἐς also in Neh. in. 15); Luke xiii 4; John ix. 7, 11, Σεριωάμ or Σιλωάμ, prob- 
ably written by Josephus regularly Ξίλωά, so that he could decline it, Bell. v. 
4.1.2. As for the name of the Holy City itself, the Jew, and especially the 
Palestinian Jew, save when he wished toadapt ittothe Greek by transiorming 
it into Ἱεροσόλυμα, probably never pronounced it otherwise than Yerushalem, 
and certainly im no case said Urishlem, the pronunciation in Edessa. 

16. (Pp. 9,12.) No onomasticon of the N.T. can be given here, yet certain 
remarks ean be made which will be in part pertinent to later detailed investi- 
gations. We find old Hebrew names, such as Jacob, Johanan, Joseph, Judah, 
Simon, among Galileans as well as in Jerusalem and Judea. It may be that 
people in Jerusalem, like the historian Josephus, preferred the full form τον 
(Jos. Vita, 1; Bell. i procem. 1, Ἰώσηπος, like the patriarch, Ant. 1. 19. 7, the 
high priest Joseph Caiaphas, Ant. xviii 2.2; Joseph the son of Kami, Ant. 
xx. 1, 3; the father of Jesus, a Judean, in the N.T. invariably written 
Ἰωσήφ); and that, on the other hand, the abbreviated cr (Dalman, Gr.? 106, 
175, A. 2) was more usual among the Galileans (Mark vi. 3, probably also Matt. 
xiii. 55,4 brother of Jesus, Mark xv. 40, 47; Matt. xxvii. 56 another; Jos. 

Βα, ῖν. τ, 4; 1,9, probably Ἰώσην should be read, a Jew in Gamala ; among the 
great rabbis “Jose the Galilean”; but there are many others also who were 
not Galileans zu the liste given by Strack, Einl. in d. Talmud, 77-93, about 
a dozen). The Heb. j52# is written Σίμων as early as Sir. 1 1; 1 Maec. 
ii. 3 (alternating with Συμεων, ii. 1, 65), and regularly so in Josephus and 


30 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the N.T., a form identical with a Greek name of even classical times (Pape- 
Benseler, Wörterbuch der griech. Eigennamen, s.v.; Fick - Bechtel, Griech. 
Personennamen, 251), and which, therefore, could not have sounded so 
strange to a Greek as Συμεών. This latter form was used regularly in the 
LXX, is the only form to be found in many passages in 1 Mace,, and was 
used sometimes by Josephus also, Ant. xii. 6. 1 (along with Σίμων) ; Bell. iv. 
3.10; used in the N.T. of the old man in Luke ii. 25, 34; put in the mouth 
of James, Acts xv. 14, and used by Peter himself, 2 Pet. i. 1, with reference to 
Simon Peter; used of a teacher in Antioch, Acts xiii. 1; of the Israelitish 
tribe, Rev. vii. 7 ; and once in the genealogy, Luke iii. 30. This form sounded 
more ancient and more genuinely Jewish. The e init was an attempt to repro- 
duce the sound of the y, as in ’EA-e-d¢apos, and the v served the same purpose as 
in Συχέμ, Gen. xxxiv. 2, along with which occurs Σίκιμα, Gen. xxxiii. 18. In 
a family in Jerusalem the husband bore the Heb. name Chananyah, the wife 
the Arm. Shappira or Shafira (Acts v. 1). In the home in Bethany we find 
together names of most various kinds, viz. first o, which the Massoretes (Ex. 
xv. 20) intended should be read Miryam, but which seems to have been pro- 
nounced commonly Maryam in N.T. times, and even long before that; for 
the LXX everywhere has Μαριαμ; and Josephus, after his fashion of adding 
an ending so as to decline it in Greek, has everywhere Μαριάμη (probably it 
is to be spelled thus with a u throughout), only once Μαρία, Bell. vi. 3, 4 
(Niese, vi. 201). The name of Jesus’ mother, as one might expect from the 
antiquated Hebraic style of the stories of the infancy, which are the only 
passages where that name occurs frequently (elsewhere only in Matt. xiii. 55; 
Mark vi. 3; Acts i. 14), is in the nominative (v. 1; Luke ii. 19), accusative 
(also Matt. i. 20), and vocative Μαριάμ; in the genitive, however, Μαρίας, in 
the dative once Μαρίᾳ (Acts i. 14), and once Μαριάμ (Luke ii. 5). Only once 
elsewhere do we find the latter form attested as the name of a Christian 
woman of the East (Rom. xvi. 6; see below, § 23, n. 1). All other Marys of 
the N.T., including her of Bethany, are always called Mapia. Cf. Barden- 
hewer, Bibl. Stud. i. 1. 1-17, especially also 9, n. 1,2. Second, the sister 
Martha bears an Aram. name which is quite common even in Talmudic 
literature (Zunz, Ges. Schr. ii. 14; Levy, ii. 234, 251), but which is not 
Hebrew at all, smn, “the lady”; cf. also Orig. c. Cels. v. 62; Epiph. Her. 
xix.2. Third, the brother has the ancient Heb. name ὃν in an abbreviated 
form then common, Adlap (-os), John xi. 1; cf. Luke xvi. 20; Jos. Bell. v. 18. 7; 
Jastrow, 72. It is also indicative of the language then in use that in the 
N.T. there are numerous patronymics beginning with Bar-, but not one 
beginning with the corresponding Heb. Ben-. In Josephus, indeed, except for 
Barnabazos, which was probably the Jewish way of writing the Persian 
Pharnabazos (Ant. xi. 6. 4), Bar- is altogether lacking also; but this is simply 
because he translates it by vids or παῖς, or else substitutes the genitive of the 
father’s name. The Simon whom he calls the son of Gioras, Bell. ii. 19. 2, 
22.1, had, according to Dio Cass. Ixvi. 7; Tac. Hist. v. 12, the good Aram. name 
of sm a, 1.9. “son of the proselyte.” Like this Simon, most if not all the 
bearers of such patronymies probably possessed in addition personal names 
of their own ; see above, p. 16, concerning Simon Peter. This must have been 
the case with the many who were called Bar-abba, “son of the father” (0. 1. 
Sem. ii. No. 154, and the list of the Talmudic teachers in Strack’s Hint. in d, 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 31 


Talmud, 2te Aufl. S. 88, 90). Thus the name of the Bar-abba in Matt. xxvii. 
16-26, Mark xv. 7-15, Luke xxiii. 18, John xviii. 40, was Jesus, according 
to very ancient tradition, which has been confirmed recently by the reading 
of Ss in Matt. xxvii. 16 (Forsch. i. 105, 108; GK, ii. 699; this treats also of 
the misinterpretation of the name traceable to the Gospel of the Hebrews to 
the effect that it meant “son of their teacher”). So the Barsabbas of Acts 
i. 23, who bore the particular name Joseph, and in addition to this the Latin 
cognomen Justus; so also the other Barsabbas of Acts xv. 22, whose par- 
ticular name was Judah. Aside from the cases, which are quite frequent, 
where the former person is confounded with Joseph Barnabas of Acts iv. 36 
(GK, ii. 562), the reading in both passages of Acts, just as in Papias (Hus. 
H. E. iii. 39. 9), fluctuates between -σαββας and -caBas. The former reading 
suggests xavi(=xnaw Sabbath and week, see above, p. 19), to which Hitzig, 
Merx’ Archiv, i. 107, called attention (though he himself preferred xax host); 
the latter, x2p “the old man,” as Theodoret translated it even when a proper 
name (Hist. Rel. 2, Schulze, iii. 1119). Other instances in Dalman, @r.? 180, 
A.2. Opinions still differ widely about the second element of Bar-nabas 
also (Hitzig, op. cit. 106; Klostermann, Problenic, 8-14 ; Deissmann, Bibelstud. 
177; Neue Bibelstud. 16; Dalman, Gr., Ite Aufl. 142, again differently 
2te Aufl. 178; Worte Jesu, 32 (Eng. trans. 40 f.); Nestle, Phil. sacra, 19 f.), 
and the meaning of Bar-timai (Mark x. 46) has not been cleared up yet 
even by Nestle, Marginalien, 83-92. The evangelist, who here, con- 
trary to his custom, mentions by name a person healed by Jesus, plainly 
because he was known by this name in Christian circles (cf. Mark xv. 21 and 
Klostermann, Das Markusevangeliwm, 222, 292), does not show the slightest 
interest in the meaning of Timai. Otherwise he would have translated it. 
He might have contented himself with ὁ υἱὸς rod Τιμαίου, just as Ss does on 
the other hand with Bar-Timai, except for the simple reason that such an 
expression instead of an individual proper name would have been as strange 
to Greek readers in a prose narrative as it would have been natural to Jews 
or Syrians ; hence after the Greek words he puts the Aram. form with a 
Greek ending, thus making clear that this was a proper name or the ordinary 
substitute for such. Moreover, we do not know the particular name of the 
Apostle Βαρθολομαῖος (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 14; Acts 1. 13, 
Ss 81 prin na, Sh son 72, which may mean “son of Ptolemy,” but which can 
just as well go back to a Semitic name, Dalman, @r.?176. In the writings of 
the oldest Syrians, Aphraates, 65, and the translator of Eus. H. E. i. 12. 3, 
ii, 1.1, iii. 25. 6, 29. 4, 39. 10, the name Matthias, Acts i. 23, is supplanted 
by Thulmai). It is therefore very possible, indeed,—and a very simple 
putting of facts together makes it also probable,—that he was called Nadavanı 
=xin3 (John i. 46-50), an ancient Heb. name (Num. i. 8; 1 Chron. ii. 14, xv. 
24, xxiv. 6; in later times, Ezra x. 22; Neh. xii. 36; also Jos. Ant. xx. 1, 2; 
Jerus. Hagiga, 77a, line 8 from bottom). If this name was rare in N.T. 
times, as seems probable, it is the more easily explained why Nathanael, like 
Barabba, Barnaba, Bartimai, was, as a rule, called by his father’s name or his 
surname. Σιλᾶς, also, Acts xv. 22 ff, is an Aram. name. Especially to be 
rejected is the idea that it is a contraction from Σιλουανός or Σιλβανός (so 
B in 1 Pet. v. 12), which would be rather Σιλουᾶς or Σιλβᾶς (Jos. Bell. vii, 
8.1, a Φλαουιος Σίλβας, whose name, according to inscriptions and writers, is 


32 INTRODUCTION TO THE ‚NEW TESTAMENT 


spelled now Silva, now Silvanus (see, Prosopayraphia, ii. 75, No. 243). If the 
names Silas and Silvanus in the N.T. denote the same person (see below, § 18, 
n. 1), it is one of the many cases in which a Jew bore, besides his name.in his 
native tongue, a Greek or Roman name of similar sound. It seems doubtful 
whether there was a Greek name Σίλας. The writer finds it only in 0. 1. 
Grecie sept. No. 1772. On the other hand, it is quite common among Syrians 
and Jews. It occurs in the form *w on an East Aramaic inscription as early 
as the fifth century B.c. (C. I. Sem. ii. No..101, there derived from sw) ; in the 
form xxv on a Palmyrene inscription cited by Dalman, Gr.? 157, A. δ᾽; 
several Rabbis with the name x>bw Jerus. Shabbath, 5a; Sanhed. 26a; 
Tosefta Berach. ii. 10; Midrash on Cant. viii. 10, and on Ruth ii. 18 ;. ef. 
also the proverb on Ruth 1.1 (trans. by Wünsche, S. 12). Σιλᾶς is written 
thus in Acts by S!. It is the name of a Jew from Babylonia, Jos. Bell. ii. 19.2, 
iii. 2. 1 f.; of other Jews, Ant. xiv. 3. 2, xviil. 6.7; Vita, 17, 53; οἵ ἃ Syrian 
in Emesa in the year 78 4.D., Le Bas-Waddington, iii. No. 2567, Sauovyépapos 
ὁ καὶ SevAas. But in seeking for the derivation of this Aramaic name we are 
not to think of ποῦ “to send,” with Jerome on Gal. i. 7 (Vall. vii. 374, and 
Onomast., Lagarde, 71. 16, 72.25 ; cf. also the Greeks in the same work, pp. 198. 
61,199. 70), nor of nby Gen. x. 24; 1 Chron. i. 18,24 (LXX and Luke iii. 35 
Sada), with Zimmer (JfPTh. 1881, 8. 723), but of >xw, “to ask, inquire.” 

17. (P. 9.) Since names of parties, ike most names of peoples, are regu- 
larly used first in the plural and only after that in the singular, this reason 
alone should lead us to say that of Φαρισαῖοι is the stat. emphat. plur. x:w75= 
Heb. over, and not that Φαρισαῖος is the stat. emphat. sing. Wp=Vnan. 
This latter assumption is unlikely even. for grammatical reasons, since the 
numerous names in aios (Ayyaios, ᾿Αλφαῖος, Βαρθολομαῖος, Ζακχαῖος, Zeßedatos, 
Θαδδαῖος, Λεββαῖος, Ματθαῖος), and also thenational and local names ’Apınadatos, 
Γαλιλαῖος, Ιουδαῖος, Ναζωραῖος, are always based upon Heb. or Aram. forms 
which already have at least 7 and more often ai or ay as their final sound, so 
that the appended Greek ending is not ws, as Dalman, @r.? 157, A. 2, thinks, 
but os. On the other hand, a form based upon Perisha or Pherisha must 
have been Φαρισας, like Tuwpas from x3, Xayıpas fromınman (above, p. 26, n. 
12; p. 30, line 45); ef. Messias, Kaiaphas, Kephas, Sabas, ete. Inasmuch, 
then, as no Greek form of the party name but Φαρισαῖοι is to be found, we 
must assume that the Jews of Palestine, among whom the name arose perhaps 
circa 150-130 ».c., never applied to the party either then or later any but the 
Aram. form of the name. Essentially the same is true of Σαδδουκαῖοι and 
Kavavaios (if in Matt. x. 4, Mark iii. 18 we are to read this latter word= 
ζηλωτής, Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13), likewise of ᾿Ασιδαῖοι, which does not occur 
in the N.T. (1 Mace. ii. 42, vii. 13; 2 Mace. xiv. 6), and of the oft-quoted 
’Ecroatoı. To be sure, in the Talmudic literature, which emanated from the 
circles of the former Pharisaic party, the name regularly has the Heb. form 
pene; but this is an affectation of antiquity which proves nothing when 
set over against such witnesses for the usage in the living language of the 
Pharisee Paul, the evangelists, and Josephus. Concerning the Aram. forms 
Μεσσίας, kopßaväs, xaavaia, ἀσαρθᾶ, πάσχα, σάββατα, which relate to the life 
of religion and worship, see above, pp. 18, 19, 20, 26. 

18. (P. 10.) With regard to the three letters of Gamaliel, ef. Derenbourg, 
Hist. et géoyr. de la Palestine, 241-244. In Jerus. Sanhedrin i. 18d (the meaning 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 33 


is essentially the same, though the order is different, in Jerus. Maaser sheni 
v. 56c and elsewhere), after some introductory words, it runs, literally trans- 
lated : “Rabban Gamliel said unto him (Johanan, the priest and secretary): 
Write to our brethren the sons of upper Doroma and to our brethren the 
sons of nether Daroma: May your peace increase. I make known unto you,” 
ete. The salutation x10’ panbv=n εἰρήνη ὑμῶν πληθυνθείη is repeated in all 
these letters, cf. 1 Pet. 1. 2; 2 Pet. i.2. It is only in the third letter that 
Gamaliel speaks of the elders (o1pr7), who had been mentioned also in the 
introduction, as joint authors with him of the resolution and decree. Dalman 
in Dialektproben, 3, gives a pointed text of this among other ancient documents. 

19. (P. 11.) Aram. sayings of Hillel: Pirke Aboth i. 13, ii. 6. In Jerus. 
Sotah ix. 245 (cf. Jos. Ant. xiii. 10. 3) a supernatural voice which the high 
priest Johanan (John Hyreanus, 135-105 B.c.) heard, is given in Aramaic, 
and on the same page it is expressly said of a word which Rabbi Samuel 
the Less uttered when dying, that this was spoken in the Aramaic tongue. 
Cf. the Midrash on Cant. viii. 10, translated into German by Wiinsche, 188. 

20. (P. 11.) With regard to the relation of Gamaliel the elder and the 
younger to the Targum of Job, see Derenbourg, 241, 243. Concerning oral 
translation in the synagogue, see for brief discussions Zunz, Die gottesdienst- 
lichen Vorträge der Juden, 2te Aufl. 9; Schürer, ii. 457 (Eng. trans. 11. ii. 81); 
König, Einl. in das Alte Testament, 99 ; more details in Hamburger, RE für 
Bibel und Talmud, ii. 1167-1174. Even if the rules of the Mishnah (Megillah 
iv. 4) had been in force as early as Jesus’ time, such a short pericope from the 
prophets as the single sentence which he read in Nazareth (Luke iv. 18-19; 
Isa. Lxi. 1-24) would have been read through in Hebrew without interruption 
on the part of the methurg'man (also thory’man=dragoman), or interpreter, 
and only after that was done would have been interpreted, either by the same 
person who had read it or by someone else. The narrator had no occasion to 
mention the latter proceeding, since it always took place. If Jesus omitted 
translating the text Himself, so long as He stood with the roll in His hand 
(Luke iv. 16), He probably combined the interpretation with the sermon, 
which He gave sitting (Luke iv.20). For later times, ef. Joel Miller, Masechet 
Sopherim Hinl. 24 ; Kommentar, 256. Naturally the meaning of John vii. 15 
is not that Jesus had not learned to read and write (cf. the ancient apocryphon, 
John viii. 6), but that He had received no classical education, which, in the 
case of other men, was the presupposition of their public activity as teachers. 
Men wondered in Jerusalem as in Galilee (Luke iv. 22; Matt. xiii. 54; 
Mark vi. 2), though with very mixed feelings, at this gifted, self-taught man. 
There would have been no occasion for such wonder if His knowledge of the 
Seriptures had been as scanty as A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache, 54 f., is disposed 
to represent it in view of the discourses in the Gospels, excluding the fourth 
and even such passages as Matt. iv. 1-12, xxiv. 15; Luke xxiv. 27. The 
question, “Where did He get this learning or technical knowledge?” we 
cannot answer by precise biographical statements. The narrative in Luke 
ii. 46 justifies the assumption that from youth up Jesus took advantage of 
every opportunity to acquire knowledge of the Seriptures with uncommon 
zeal. In the judgment of those who heard His discourses, and in the recollee- 
tion of His Church, He was not inferior in this respect to the teachers who 
had the regular rabbinical training, 

VOL. I. 3 


34 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


$ 2. THE GREEK LANGUAGE AMONG THE JEWS (wn. 1) 


~ That Greek was a cosmopolitan language at the time 
when the N.T. books were written, was due primarily, of 
course, to the rapid conquests of Alexander, and the long 
continued existence of the great empires of his successors ; 
but it can be fully understood only when due recogni- 
tion is given to the fact that the Romans, themselves 
nourished by Greek culture, united east and west in a 
world-empire. According to a law, the working of which 
may be observed in a variety of instances, great political 
changes work their effect upon language only gradually. 
In Gaul, e.g., complete change from the Celtic vernacular 
to Latin was not effected under the Roman emperors, but 
took place later under the Frankish kings. In the same 
way the Hellenisation of Asia Minor, which had been pre- 
pared for so long in advance, made its most rapid progress 
under the Roman rule, and the process was not concluded 
until the time of the Empire. Under the Seleucid and 
the Ptolemies the transformation of Syria and Egypt went 
on even more slowly than that of Asia Minor during the 
same period. In fact, Aramaic spread more widely and 
took deeper root during the period of the Diadochi than 
in the Persian period. It was not until now, indeed, that 
Aramaic became the common language of the “ Hebrews” 
and the vernacular of Palestine; and even so late as the 
Roman period it maintained its position as the distinct- 
ively national language through the whole of the Seleuci- 
dan empire. Before the Gates of Antioch, “the beautiful 
eity of the Greeks,’ as it is called in the fifth century by 
the Syrian poet Isaac, the common people continued to 
speak Syriac until the triumph of Islam. While the 
uneducated peasantry in general remained entirely un- 
acquainted with Greek, many of the inhabitants of the 
cities had some knowledge of the vernacular. The farther 
we go from the capital, the port cities, and the highways 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS © 35 


of commerce, the less disturbed do we find the sway of 
Aramaic and the more superficial the influence of Greek 
culture. 

Under the dominion of the Ptolemies and, afterward, 
of the Seleucid&, conditions in Palestine were somewhat 
different. In these times the Jewish community was like 
a small island which was not only girt about by Greek 
influence, but frequently also flooded by waves from the 
two great Greek powers between which it lay. The 
community was isolated from its countrymen in Galilee 
and Perea, and surrounded by a cirele of Gentile cities, 
some of which offered very little resistance to the inroads of 
the Greek language and culture, and others of which were 
founded or colonised for the very purpose of Hellenising 
the land. Names of Macedonian cities, such as Pella and 
Dion, east of the Jordan, recall the times of Alexander him- 
self, while names like Ptolemais (Accho) on the coast and 
Philadelphia in the east take us back to the reign of the 
Ptolemies. South and south-east from the Lake of Gennes- 
aret, the regions occupied by the non-Jewish cities, Hippus, 
Gadara, Scythopolis, and Pella, formed an organised district, 
which, in Mark v. 20, vii. 31, Matt. iv. 25, is called ἡ Aera- 
moms, from the fact that originally it was a confederation 
consisting of ten autonomous cities. In ancient Samaria, 
Alexander himself had settled Macedonian colonists ; and 
it was made still more a Gentile city, speaking the Greek 
language, by Herod the Great, who rebuilt it when it was 
falling into decay, calling it Sebaste, in honour of Augustus, 
and colonising it in part with discharged soldiers. Of 
similar character were the cities Antipatris (Acts xxii. 31) 
and Phasaélis, north of Jericho, both of which were founded 
by Herod. Of course, one must not be misled into the 
error of concluding, from the names of cities found in 
Greek authors, from inscriptions on coins, and from traces 
of Greek religious worship, that the Greek language was 
universally spoken in the cities mentioned and in others 


36 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


like them, e.g. in Uwsarea (Strato’s s fortress) on the coast 
and its environs. Unless it is further defined, the ex- 
pression πόλις ἑλληνίς cannot be taken to mean a city in 
which the Greek language is spoken ; because to the Jews, 
who had been exposed to the seductions and then to the 
threats and violence of Greek heathenism since the third 
century B.c., “ Hellenic” was synonymous with heathen 
(n. 2). Among the mhabitants of the cities so designated 
by Josephus there were strong Jewish minorities, and of 
the non-Jewish population the majority were “ Syrians” 
by birth and language. #.g., centuries later in the 
Christian era we tind large numbers of people in and 
about Gaza and Scythopolis who not only spoke Syriae, 
but who were even unacquainted with Greek. This was 
due not to a reaction from Greek conditions, but simply 
to a continuation of the conditions that existed before and 
during the time of Christ; and only because the old 
Semitic names of cities survived after they were given 
Greek names was it possible for these Greek names to be 
displaced again, as was done so largely in the centuries 
after Christ. In the thought of the Palestinian Jews, 
Greek remained a foreign language, or rather “the 
foreign language” (n. 3). But, in spite of this feeling, 
how profoundly were the Jews intluenced by it and by 
the culture which came with it, even as early as 170 B.c. ! 
High priests borrowed their names from the Greek legends, 
as in the case of a certain Jesus, who gave up his Hebrew 
name and called himself Jason ; and of a certain Menelaus, 
whose Hebrew name we do not know. It was upon this 
disposition and tendeney manifesting itself among the 
best classes in Jerusalem that Antiochus Epiphanes relied 
in his attempt to destroy Judaism. The Maccabean revolt 
showed that there was still vitality in the faith and 
institutions of the Jews, but nevertheless it was not 
possible longer for the Jews to keep themselves aloof 
from Hellenism. Men might fight for religious freedom 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 37 


with prayer and sword, but the measure of political 
independence necessary for the maintenance of this 
religious freedom could not be won and retained without 
the use of diplomacy. The ambassadors of Judas Macca- 
beus who appeared in the Roman senate in the year 161 
B.0. could not use in that place any other language than 
Greek. These enemies of the Greeks, whose fathers were 
still known by the Hebrew names Jochanan and Eleazar, 
were called Kupolemos and Jason, and the former was 
probably one of the first Jews to write Jewish history in 
Greek (n. 4). As evidenced by their coins, the Has- 
monean high priests, as they developed into worldly 
princes, allowed their government to become more and 
more Hellenised. 

The first of them, Aristobulus (105-104 B.c.), who 
styled himself a king, and who was known also as a 
Philhellene (Jos. Ant. xiii. 11. 3), calls himself on his 
coins simply “Juda the high priest.” In the case of his 
successor, Alexander Jannzeus (104-78 2.0.), part of the 
coins have only the Hebrew inseription, “ Jonathan 
the high priest,” while others are inscribed in Greek, 
“King Alexander,” having on the reverse side the words 
“ Jonathan the king” in Hebrew. From Herod the Great 
and his successors only Greek coins have come down to 
us. The founder of this foreign dynasty, which came 
into power by the favour of the Romans and through his 
own cunning and violence, made no concealment of the 
fact that he felt himself more a Greek than a Jew (Jos. 
Ant. xix. 7. 3). His first minister, Nicolaus of Damascus, 
was a Greek man of letters, and his court consisted of 
men of the same stamp. His sons he had educated in 
Rome. His army consisted largely of foreign mercenaries, 
Gauls, Germans, and Thracians, who would not have been 
at home in any other than a Greek command. In the 
theatres, amphitheatres, hippodromes, and all those 
heathen institutions established by Herod in and about 


38 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Jerusalem, in Jericho, and in all the cities of the land, 
predominantly Gentile, as Czesarea (n. 4), Greek was 
practically the only language spoken. If the Jewish 
tragic poet Hzekiel, whose old Hebrew name suggests 
that he was a native of Palestine rather than of Alex- 
andria, really wrote his poems for presentation on the 
stage, his use of Greek iambies would show that all his 
conceptions of the drama were Greek. Even the rabbis 
were of the opinion that Greek was the proper language 
for “Song” and all poetry intended for entertainment 
and amusement (above, p. 22, n. 4). The system estab- 
lished in 6 A.D., by which Judea and Samaria were put 
directly under Roman rule, and, with a brief interruption, 
governed by Roman procurators residing in Ceesarea until 
the fall of Jerusalem, far from checking further inroads oi 
the Greek language, tended rather to increase its influence. 
According to Josephus (6. Apron. 1. 9), he himself was the 
only man in the Roman army at the time of the Jewish 
War who understood the Jewish deserters. While the 
Herodian princes were Jews, at least to the extent that 
they understood the vernacular, the Roman _ officials, 
changing frequently as they did, never took the trouble 
to familiarise themselves with the language of the people. 
Here, as everywhere else in the East, they used Greek in 
their official relations. Many Latin names of objects may 
have been more commonly used in Palestine than pre- 
viously, and may have passed over into the vernacular as 
foreign words. Undoubtedly also, out of deference to the 
ruling nation, public notices were sometimes written in 
Latin as well as Greek (n. 5). But this had no more 
practical use in Palestine than did the Latin inscriptions 
upon monuments and milestones in Asia Minor and 
other lands in the Hast. Greek was the only language 
that could be used as a medium of communication among 
the different bodies of soldiers who maintained the Roman 
authority in Palestine, representing as they did such a 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 30 


variety of nationalities (n. 6). Though the tax-gatherers 
and their subordinates may have been native Jews in the 
Roman districts (Luke xix. 2-9; Jos. Bell. ü. 14. 4) as 
well as in the domain of Herod Antipas (Mark i. 14; 
Matt. ix. 9), all their business intercourse with their 
superiors in Ceesarea had to be carried on in Greek. 

But foreign rule, which in one form or another had 
burdened the land of the Jews for centuries, was not the 
only agency by which Greek thought and life were intro- 
duced. Jerusalem was the metropolis of Judaism the 
world over, including the “ Greek diaspora.” Among the 
embassies who brought tithes and offerings to the temple 
at Jerusalem from all parts of the la and among the 
pilgrims who streamed thither of their own accord, especi- 
ally at the time of the great pilgrim feasts, there were not 
a few Jews who, during their long residence abroad, had 
entirely or largely forgotten their native tongue and ex- 
changed it for Greek. Among these pilorims there were also 
Greeks and Hellenised barbarians, who, though they had not 
espoused Judaism formally and fully by accepting the rite 
of circumcision, were nevertheless attracted by its faith 
and worship, and attended the temple services in so far as 
these were open to them (n. 7). There were also a great 
many Jews from outside Palestine who had come to re- 
side permanently in Jerusalem in order that they might 
be near the temple, and that they might end their days 
in the holy city, and be buried in the “land of Israel.” 
Those who had grown accustomed to use the Greek 
language found no occasion in Jerusalem to give it up: 
Jews of this sort were called “ Hellenists” in contrast to 
the ‘‘ Hebrews,” 7.e. those who remained in the land of 
their birth and retained the Aramaic vernacular (n. 8). 
This unwillingness on the part of the Hellenists to give 
up their language is the chief reason why they had their 
own synagogues in Jerusalem. Two such are fairly dis- 
tinguished in Acts vi. 9,— one whose adherents were 


40 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Hellenists from Alexandria, Cyrene, and Rome; the other 
made up of Jews from Asia Minor, especially from the 
provinces of Cilicia and Asia (n. 8). They would not 
have grouped themselves together in this way according 
to the countries from which they came, nor would they 
have been called Hellenists, if they had not insisted upon 
the retention in these synagogues at Jerusalem of the 
Greek form of worship and the Greek translation of 
the O. T., the Septuagint, to which they had become 
accustomed in the foreign lands in which they had made 
their homes. The Pharisees and rabbis could make no 
objection to this use of a foreign language, because these 
Hellenists, whose settlement in Jerusalem was due mainly 
to their genuine Jewish piety, were among the most 
zealous members of the community in the fulfilment of 
their religious and ceremonial obligations. The useless 
zeal of the rabbis for the sacred language was directed 
not against Greek, but against Aramaic as used by the 
common people (n. 9). Greek was spoken even in the 
more prominent rabbinic families; and the law at one 
time enacted, that sons should not be taught Greek, was 
one of those renunciations which betray the peculiar 
earnestness of the times and the anxiety to preserve 
everything essential to the national good. 

This leads to the consideration of the question, how 
far knowledge of Greek had spread among the middle and 
lower classes. That a considerable number of Palestinian 
Jews who came in contact with public life and were 
engaged in business generally belonged to these classes, 
is clear from the historical facts and conditions already 
mentioned. That this must have been the case becomes 
evident, when it is recalled how small the region was 
which was occupied more or less exclusively by Jews. It 
required only a day’s journey, or a little more, in almost 
any direction from Jerusalem, to reach cities where more 
Greek than Aramaic was spoken. And in Galilee especially 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 41 


similar conditions must have existed all the way from 
Cxsarea on the coast to Caesarea Philippi, which are to 
be met anywhere to-day near the language boundaries, 
where numbers of people are to be found who, though 
otherwise uneducated, are able to make themselves fairly 
well understood in two languages. And it is hardly 
necessary to appeal to similar conditions in modern times 
to prove that the cosmopolitan language, without which 
no Jew belonging to the better social classes could get 
along, had everywhere an advantage over the Aramaic 
vernacular, which no Greek or Roman needed to take the 
trouble to learn. Representatives of the common people, 
like the apostles Andrew and Philip, must have been called 
by these Greek names in ordinary life ; otherwise the 
Hebrew names by which also they may have been known 
would somewhere crop out (n. 10). The Aramaic ver- 
nacular and the Hebrew used by the learned classes were 
full of words borrowed from the Greek, and included also 
the Latin terms with which the Jews in Palestine became 
familiar through contact with Greeks and with Greek- 
speaking officials, countrymen, and neighbours. In par- 
ticular, technical terms of a legal character were probably 
for the most part Greek, but in everyday life and social 
intercourse also objects and relations were very commonly 
designated by Greek and Latin words. By reason of the 
ability of the Jews to adopt these foreign words into their 
speech through various devices, and even to form new 
verbs, Semitic in form, from Greek substantives, the 
common people were not at all conscious that these new 
elements in the language were foreign. | Undoubtedly 
there were many such foreign words in the Aramaic 
spoken by Jesus. Words like συνέδριον, διαθήκη, mapa- 
κλητος, κύριε (AS address), δηνάριον, ἀσσάριον, κοδράντης, 
πανδοκεύς, πανδοκεῖον, Aeyewv, and many others which we 
find in the discourses of Jesus, are not translations made 
by the evangelists, but were spoken by Jesus Himself, 


42 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


modified as they would be by a Jew, the evangelists 
simply restoring the original sounds and characters 
(n. 11). \ Besides, Jesus and: His disciples must have 
been able when occasion required to reply in Greek when 
they were addressed in this language. Persons whe 
would hardly have been called Greeks if they had spoken 
Aramaic like the Jews, nevertheless make request directly 
of the two disciples with Greek names that they may see 
Jesus personally (John xii. 21). Of Pilate’s transactions 
with the representatives of the Sanhedrin who remained 
outside the pretorium, and with Jesus who was taken in- 
side the pretorium, we have different and comparatively 
full accounts. If, as certainly was the case, Greek was 
used in the first transaction, there could not fail to be some 
hint of the fact if, in the intercourse between Pilate and 
Jesus, they had difliculty in understanding each other, or 
if an interpreter had been necessary. While the com- 
mander of the Roman garrison was surprised because 
Paul, whom he took for an uneducated Egyptian, under- 
stood Greek, the populace were surprised when Paul 
addressed them in their native Aramaic (Acts xxi. 37- 
xxi. 2; cf. above, p. 11). Even before he began to speak 
an expectant stillness fell over the crowd. Had he 
spoken Greek, as the crowd expected he would, it would 
not have been altogether without point; he would have 
been understood not only by the pilgrims of the Greek 
diaspora who had come to the feast (xxi. 27), but also by 
many of the natives of Jerusalem. But it is easy to 
understand why attention increased when Paul addressed 
them in the vernacular as “brethren and fathers.” Even 
visiting Hellenists aud Hellenists settled in Jerusalem 
who. understood only with difficulty, some of them not 
at all, must have been touched sympathetically by this 
expression of genuine Israelitish thought and spirit. If 
only it be kept clearly in mind that Aramaic was the 
language ordinarily used by the Jews living within the 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 43 


bounds of Palestine proper, one can hardly go too far m 
the assumption of a certain practical familiarity with 
Greek, not only in Galilee, but also in Jerusalem ; not 
only among the better elasses, but in the middle and 
lower ranks of society as well (n. 9, end). 

In this regard, the position of the early Church in 
Jerusalem was a peculiar one. According to the notices 
of Acts, which are the only sources we have, the member- 
ship of the Church from the start consisted predominantly 
of Hellenists (n. 8, 12). The first three thousand converts 
(Acts ii. 41) to gather about the personal disciples of Jesus, 
who were mainly Galileans, were not natives of Jerusalem 
and Palestine. From the names of their home countries 
one must infer that the language “in which most of them 
were born” was Greek. It is probable that the later 
accessions to the Church were largely from the native 
population, and that the Hellenists were already in the 
minority when they made complaint that their widows 
were not treated in the same way as the widows of the 
Hebrews (Acts vi. 1). But that they still constituted a 
considerable portion of the Church it is fair to infer from 
the fact that, of the seven men who as a result of this 
complaint were intrusted with the care of the funds for 
the widows and the poor, one was a proselyte from 
Antioch, and that no one of the seven has a Hebrew 
name. Though the Church was scattered after the death 
of Stephen, as soon as peace was restored, and the Church 
could reassemble in Jerusalem, many of the refugees came 
back; and then, as before, the Jerusalem Church was the 
mother Church of Christianity. And in this Church more 
than one language was and continued to be used. Of the 
fugitives who testified their faith wherever they went, and 
gathered the nuclei of new Churches, persons from Cyrene 
and Cyprus are distinguished as the most courageous 
(Acts xi. 19-21). The fact that it was in Antioch that 
they first ventured to preach the gospel to the Greeks as 


44 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


well as to the Hebrews, is proof that they themselves were 
Hellenists, or, to put it less strongly, Jews who were 
familiar with the Greek language. In the most important 
cities lying on the route from Jerusalem to Antioch, 
where primarily as a result of this dispersion Jewish 
Christian Churches were established, as in Czesarea (Acts 
vii. 40, x, 1 ff, xxi. 8), Ptolemais, and Tyre (xxi. 4-7), 
thoush the members were Jewish Christians, Greek was 
spoken quite as much as was Aramaie (Syriac). In the 
eities of Cyprus and in Antioch, Greek was universally 
used. So that, even before the beginning of Paul’s mis- 
N sionary work, Greek had a wide use in the Church, in 
spite of the fact that as yet its membership consisted 
almost entirely of native Jews. Nor is there any reason to 
assume, what is not suggested in the tradition, that at 
that time the Hebrews opposed this development, which 
had its origin in the nature of existing conditions, and 
which was destined to become more and more marked 
with the growth of the Church. People who boasted 
proudly that they were Hebrews (2 Cor. xi. 22) neverthe- 
less found shortly afterwards a fruitful field for their 
propaganda in the Greek Churches of Asia Minor and 
Greece. It was not until after the last strugeles with the 
Romans in 66-70, 116, and 133, that the Palestinian Jews 
made serious efforts to get rid of the Greek language 
(above, p. 40; below, n. 9). Likewise the strenuousness 
with which the Nazarite communities, described to us by 
Kpiphanius and Jerome, restricted themselves in life and 
worship to national customs and the national language 
(above, p. 13), is to be explained from circumstances con- 
nected with the final catastrophe in the history of 
Jerusalem and of the Jewish nation. Their exile from 
the city was due to the enactments of Hadrian, who 
transformed Jerusalem into a heathen city, calling it Alia 
Capitolina. In order to retain their nationality, they tore 
themselves away from Jerusalem, thereby severing all 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 45 


connection not only with the Gentile Christian Churches, 
but also with the Hellenistic branch of the Jewish Chris- 
tian Church. But in the apostolic age the Church in 
Jerusalem and throughout Palestine was comprised to 
such an extent of both Hellenists and Hebrews, and these 
were so closely united, that the only evidences in our 
sources of the existence of this difference of language are 
incidental references to the fact. It is clear that the 
leaders and teachers of the Palestinian Church were the 
ones who were most concerned with this condition of 
affairs. Men like James, who for at least twenty years 
presided over the bilingual mother Church, and Philip, 
residing permanently as he did in Ceesarea, the population 
of which was principally Gentile and half Greek, also the 
apostles Peter and John, who at first served both the 
Hellenists and the Hebrews in the Jerusalem Church as 
preachers and as ministers to the poor, and who laboured 
later as superintendents of the Churches scattered through- 
out the regions around Jerusalem, and as missionary 
preachers in Palestine and adjoining districts (Acts ii. 42, 
vi) 2) vill. 14-25, ix. 32—xi. 18, zii. 175; Gal: aie 11; 
1 Cor. ix. 5),—no one of these could have fulfilled even 
the immediate duties involved by his office, to say nothing 
whatever of that extension of their apostolic work which 
they had in view outside of their own country and nation, 
without a good deal of readiness in speaking Greek. How 
much knowledge of Greek they had before they became 
disciples of Jesus and entered the service of the Church, 
how much ability they had for acquiring language, which 
ability may have differed in the individual cases, and 
whether they made special effort to perfect themselves 
in the language, we do not know. But the supposition 
that twenty or thirty years after Jesus’ death these men 
were still the purist ‘“ Hebrews,” unable to read a Greek 
book, to write a letter in Greek, or to address Greeks or 
Hellenists without the aid of an interpreter, has against 


46 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


it both the general conditions existing in Palestine at the 
time, and the peculiar position that these men occupied. 
Reference has already been made more than once: to 
the language conditions of the Jewish diaspora in the 
apostolic age. There is no doubt that the Jews in Egypt, 
where their number was estimated at a million, in Asia 
Minor, in the European provinces, and in Rome, used the 
Greek language in their daily intercourse and in their 
religious services, and that this was really the only lan- 
guage with which they were familiar, For proof we 
have only to remind ourselves of the Alexandrian trans- 
lation of the O.T., which from the legendary accounts of 
its origin is called the Septuagint ; of such pieces of 
writing as the preface with which the grandson of Jesus 
Sirach introduced the Greek translation which he had 
made of his grandfather's proverbs to the Jews in Eoypt; 
of an author like Philo of Alexandria, who considered 
himself a Greek in language and training, contrasting 
himself in this regard with the Hebrews; and of the 
inseriptions found upon Jewish tombs in Rome (n. 13). 
The Hellenisation of the “ diaspora of the Greeks,” which 
was now practically complete, and which had taken place 
in many cases with surprising rapidity, will seem less 
strange when we recall that the vast majority of Jewish 
emigrants did not leave the “land of Israel” until after 
Aramaic had displaced the old sacred language in Pales- 
tine. Certainly the Jews in Alexandria who translated 
the O.T. into Greek still retained a respectable linguistic 
knowledge of the original; but that their native tongue 
was not the Hebrew of the O.T., which they could read 
tolerably well, but Aramaic, which they found used also 
in several chapters of the O.T., is proved by their tran- 
scriptions of Hebrew technical terms and not a few trans- 
lations of single words. What was true of these scholars 
must have been much more true of the uneducated mass 
of the Jews in the diaspora. Their knowledge of Hebrew 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 47 


was originally limited to their recollection of a number 
(certainly of many) of liturgical passages which they 
understood only imperfectly. By the second generation 
this knowledge was likely to have dwindled to a few 
Hebrew words such as are found upon Jewish gravestones, 
the inscriptions otherwise being in Greek. The Aramaic 
colloquial, which the first generation brought with them 
from Palestine, was all the more easily and completely 
exchanged by the second generation, born abroad, for the 
cosmopolitan Greek without which they could not get 
along, because even among Jews in the Kast, who used 
Aramaic as their regular language and continued to do so, 
it was not regarded with any special reverence (above, 
pp. 5 f., 22). Aramaic was not a sacred language through 
which the pious Jew could gain access to the sources of 
his religion, and it was only in the far Hast that it was 
a language of common intercourse. Now essentially the 
same causes which led to the substitution of Aramaic for 
Hebrew among the Jews in the Hast, produced the Hel- 
lenisation of the Jews in Egypt, Asia Minor, and Europe. 
But, owing to the active intercourse that was kept up be- 
tween the homeland and the Greek cities abroad, the return 
of Jews to Palestine (above, p. 39f.), and the constant 
migrations from Palestine abroad, the extent to which 
Jews in the diaspora forgot their native tongue and came 
to use Greek in its stead, naturally varied very much in 
individual cases. The Oriental Jew who settled in Ephesus 
or Rome may very quickly have mastered Greek enough 
for practical purposes, but he could not at once forget his 
native tongue, and it would not be easy for him to learn 
to think and pray in Greek. This came with the next 
generation. One of the seven synagogues in Rome, the 
existence of which has so far been proved from inserip- 
tions, was a synagogue of the Hebrews (n. 14). There 
can be little doubt that its adherents were Jews who had 
recently come from the East, and who in Kome were un- 


48 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


willing to give up the Hebrew O.T., the Aramaic orai 
translation and interpretation to which they had been 
accustomed in their synagogues at home. This synagogue 
of the Hebrews in Rome was the counterpart of the 
synagogues of the Hellenists in Jerusalem (above, p. 39 £.). 

One case of the retention of the national language in 
the diaspora, and one of great interest to us, is that of 
Paul the apostle. To think of him as a Hellenist con- 
tradicts not only what is said in Acts xxi. 40) χα 8 
xxvi. 14, but also his own very clear testimony. Twice 
with emphasis he calls himself a Hebrew (2 Cor. xi. 22; 
Phil. iii. 5). He cannot have reference to his pure Jewish 
origin, since in both passages this is sufficiently described 
by other expressions (ef. Rom. xi. 1). Quite as little can 
he refer to the thoroughly Israelitish spirit or bent with 
which he grew up; Ἑβραῖος is never used in that sense, 
and in Phil. 111. 5f., Gal. i. 13 f., his strong Jewish bias is 
denoted by other expressions, particularly by the reminder 
that he belonged to the party of the Pharisees, The only 
possible meaning left is that of Acts vi. 1, where the word 
is used in contrast to the Hellenists. In the Philippian 
passage, Paul calls himself a Hebrew when contrasting 
himself to the wandering Jewish Christian teachers against 
whom he warns the Philippians; and in the Corinthian 
passage when comparing himself to the followers of Peter 
who had come to Corinth from Palestine. He is a Hebrew 
in the same sense that they are Hebrews. The language 
in which he threatens them (1 Cor. xvi. 22, above, p. 13) 
is his own mother-tongue, and therefore also the language 
in which he was accustomed to pray. This is perfectly 
clear from Gal. iv. 6; Rom. viii. 15. The only word 
adequate for the expression of his consciousness of divine 
sonship, as this consciousness expresses itself in prayer be- 
fore God, is the Aramaic child-word abba. He could expect 
only a few Christians in Rome, and fewer still in Galatia, 
to understand really what this prayer-word meant; in 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 49 


both passages he adds a Greek translation. This makes 
it all the more certain that when he wrote the abba it 
was not with his readers in mind, but because, without 
reflection on his part, that word welled up with irresistible 
force out of the depths of his own heart. But the anti- 
thesis in both the passages where he so emphatically speaks 
of himself as a Hebrew is to be explained by the fact 
that it was with Paul's case in view that his opponents, 
especially those in Corinth, were boasting that they were 
Hebrews. In general, the Palestinians were disposed to 
look a little askance at their countrymen in the Greek 
diaspora, and the chief point of difference was that of 
language. So it is easy to see how the followers of Peter 
in their narrowness may have cast reflections upon Paul, 
suggesting that he was born in Tarsus, and that his many 
years of travel in Greek lands had thrown him out of 
touch with genuine Israelitish life, thus at the same time 
emphasising the fact that they had come to Corinth 
directly from the native land of Israel and of Jesus, and 
spoke the same language that Jesus spoke. So then, far 
from contradicting the statement of Acts that Paul was 
born in Tarsus, the emphasis and antithesis with which 
Paul calls himself a Hebrew goes rather to confirm the 
statement that he was born in the Greek diaspora, and 
that on this account his Hebrew charecter could be called 
in question (n. 15). In the same way his designation 
of himself as βραϊος ἐξ “Ἑβραίων can be explained from 
the biographical notices of Acts. Inasmuch as he was 
brought to Jerusalem at an early age, there to be educated 
under Gamaliel for a rabbi (Acts xxii. 3), it was possible 
to explain the knowledge of Aramaic which he really did 
possess, and which could not be denied by anyone of his 
opponents, as one of the acquisitions of his student days 
in Jerusalem, while in reality he was the son of a Hellen- 
istic household. But this is not a true representation of 
the case. His Hebrew character was rather an inherit- 


VOL. I. 4 


50 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ance from his fathers. Aramaic was the language spoken 
in his father’s house in Tarsus, the language in which his 
mother taught him to pray. There are other things also 
which confirm the opinion that his home was of this 
character. For one thing, his membership in the Phari- 
saic party was not merely in consequence of his training 
under the Pharisee Gamaliel, but an inheritance from his 
father and grandfather (n. 15). To be sure, Pharisees, 
like other Jews, sometimes made journeys abroad on 
various errands (e.g. Matt. xxiii. 15); but it is inconceiv- 
able that a Jewish family living in the Greek diaspora 
should continue for generations to count itself a member 
of the Pharisaic party... This party was kept up largely 
by its opposition to the party of the Sadducees, 2.e. the 
high priestly aristocracy and their following. The seat 
of both parties was Jerusalem, and individual members of 
either who went abroad must soon have lost their dis- 
tinctively Pharisaic or Sadducaic character. This shows 
that Pauls family had emigrated from Palestine only 
recently, and that it cherished zealously its connection 
with the home land. The first statement is supported by 
an apocryphal tradition (n. 16), the second by Acts. The 
father had given his son the old Hebrew name Saul (n. 16), 
and had sent him to Jerusalem in his boyhood to be in- 
structed by the most distinguished Pharisaic teacher of 
the time. He had a married sister living in Jerusalem, 
and her son saved the life of his uncle by disclosing to 
the Roman commandant a plot against the apostle’s life 
(Acts xxiil. 16-22). And later, in frequently interrupt- 
ing his widely extended missionary labours in Gentile 
lands by journeys to Jerusalem, Paul remained loyal, to 
the traditions of his family. It is very improbable that 
during the years of his residence at Jerusalem: the young 
Hebrew, Saul, attached, himself to the synagogue of the 
Hellenists from Cilicia and Asia (Acts vi. 9, above, p. 40; 
below, p. 60f.).. On the contrary, it may be considered 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 51 


certain that under the instruction of Gamaliel he became 
a more confirmed Hebrew, and made his acquaintance 
with the Hebrew O.T. Certainly there is nothing in his 
letters to prove the contrary (n. 17). 

But even after full weight has been given to Paul’s 
own testimony that he was a Hebrew, to the statements 
of Acts which agree with this testimony, and to the 
apocryphal tradition, the mastery of language and the 
breadth of view disclosed in his letters are by no means 
fully explained. He does not write Greck as a person 
would who had acquired the language with effort late in 
life (n. 18). Although he makes no claims to be an orator 
(2 Cor. xi. 6; 1 Cor. i. 17), and pays little attention to 
the purity of his diction, he does know how to use the 
language with versatility and effect. Paul was a man 
whose heart was easily moved and often deeply stirred, 
and there is no emotion which he is not able to express 
to his readers, as occasion may require, by delicate sug- 
gestion, in sharp tones of bitter irony, or in a full stream 
of irresistible eloquence. The most uninteresting material, 
such as the tedious details about a collection, disagreeable 
facts involved in cases of discipline, or the rebellious 
suspicions of persons greatly his inferiors, he is able to 
treat in so broad a manner that the reader is amply repaid 
for his effort to understand them correctly, although the 
matters referred to are no longer of interest. And when 
one takes into consideration also the dialectical skill which 
Paul shows when he attempts to teach, to argue, or to 
refute objections, it must be admitted by unfriendly 
modern readers, as by his ancient opponents, that “ his 
letters are weighty and strong” (2 Cor. x. 10),—an estimate 
which is just as applicable to a short note like Philemon 
as it is to a lengthy Epistle like Romans. Paul had 
_ indeed a habit of frequently repeating certain words and 
phrases within a comparatively short passage, but this is 
not due to poverty of language; it is to be explained 


52 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


rather by his indifference to elegance of style. In short, 
taking into survey all his writings left to us, the wealth of 
his vocabulary and the versatility of his grammatical 
constructions are astonishing. In comparison with his 
letters, considered simply from a literary point of view, 
the Fourth Gospel is monotonous and the Epistle of 
James is barren. From the Epistles, from the narratives 
in Acts, and from the discourses which the latter puts 
into Paul’s mouth, we get uniformly the impression that 
~Paul was a finely cultured man, thoroughly acquainted 
with the usages of Greek educated society. There is 
apparently no good reason for assuming, as some are fond 
of doing, that the knowledge of the poetical literature of 
the Greeks, of which there are traces here and there in the 
letters, was picked up from hearsay, and not derived from 
his own reading (n. 19). The manner in which he in- 
troduces the verse from Epimenides in Tit. i. 12 shows, 
better than would any mention of the poet by name, 
and οὗ the work from which the verse is taken, 
Paul’s familiarity with the traditions about this writer. It 
cannot be proved that the verse of the Attic comic poet, 
Menander, of which he makes use in 1 Cor. xy, 33, Was a 
widely used proverb. In Acts, Paul is represented as 
knowing that the poetical quotation which he uses in his 
speech on the Areopagus (Acts xvii. 28) occurred not 
simply in one poet, Aratus, but in essentially the same 
form in another, Cleanthes, ze. “in several poets,” and 
these poets of the Stoic school. | Whether he was familiar 
at all with the philosophical literature, and if 80 to what 
extent, it is difficult to say. Certainly he studied the 
Greek O.T. with far: more zeal than he did the heathen 
poets and philosophers. He is perfectly familiar with the 
LXX, and follows it in most of his quotations from the 
O.T. Indeed, he makes use of his knowledge of the 
Hebrew original so rarely that some have sone so far as to 
deny his acquaintance with it altogether (n. 17). 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 52 


The question whence the Hebrew Saul derived all this 
wisdom it is not difficult to answer from the story of his 
life. Since his father could hardly have sent him to 
Jerusalem, to be educated in the principal school of the 
Pharisees, before he was twelve, and since also there is 
other evidence to show that he passed his childhood in 
Tarsus (n. 15), there is hardly any doubt that besides 
learning Aramaic at home he acquired at an early age a 
practical knowledge of Greek as it was spoken in the 
streets of his native city. He could not have failed to 
have occasion to use it even in Jerusalem. | During his 
first visit there after his conversion—a visit lasting: only 
fifteen days—he immediately had personal dealings with 
the Hellenists (Acts ix. 29), from which we may assume 
that even before the event which took place on the road to 
Damascus he had had relations with his Jewish country- 
men from Cilicia (Acts vi. 9), although he did not belong 
to their synagogue. Being a Hebrew who knew Greek, he 
occupied a mediating position between those Hebrews 
who understood little or no Greek and the Hellenists who 
understood little or no Aramaic. But the most important 
factor in the development of this culture of which we find 
Paul possessed, is the fact that between his conversion and 
the beginning of his Christian ministry he spent at least 
five years (38-43 A.D.) in his native city, Tarsus, before 
Barnabas brought him to Antioch to assist in the work 
there (see Chronological Survey, part xi. vol. Π1.). Since 
during this long period Paul was waiting for a new divine 
commission to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 
xxii. 21), undoubtedly he prepared himself for this: new 
work. He had received scholarly training along the lines 
of Judaism, and nothing was more natural than that he 
should pursue such studies in the literature of the Greeks, 
among whom he expected to labour in the future, as 
seemed best suited to fit him for this work. For this 
purpose Tarsus was admirably adapted (n. 20). It was a 


54 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


prominent centre for the study of philosophy and rhetoric, 
and the citizens of Tarsus, unlike those of Athens, Alex- 
andria, and other famous centres of learning, are praised 
for the very lively interest which they took in the sciences 
taught in their schools. Only rarely did students from 
abroad resort to Tarsus ; while, on the other hand, many of 
the native students, not satisfied with the opportunities 
afforded them in their own city, completed elsewhere the 
education begun at home. In Paul’s case Tarsus offered 
quite enough of literary information and stimulus to 
enable him to become a Greek to the Greeks, just as 
his rabbinie training received at home and in Jerusalem 
enabled him to be a Hebrew to the Hebrews (ef. 1 Cor. ix. 
19-23). 

The purpose of this text-book does not call for a 
historical, grammatical, and lexical investigation of N.T. 
Greek. At the present time, researches relating direetly 
and indirectly to this subject are being so vigorously 
prosecuted, and consequently are in a condition so incom- 
plete, that I would not venture in a compendium like this 
to set forth any definite results. Still a few remarks may 
be in order, so that statements about the language made 
in connection with the separate writings may not seem 
entirely arbitrary. As is well known, after the time of 
Alexander the Great there grew up a popular Greek, 
which in distinction from the various dialects, spoken 
and literary, into which the Greek of classical times had 
separated, was called ἡ κοινή or ἡ ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος. This 
language, based upon the later Attic, was used in litera- 
ture and among the educated classes. The old dialects 
held their sway in the regions where they had been in use 
earlier ; but there grew up also, as an offshoot from the 
literary language, a language used in daily life, varying 
greatly in the different lands in which it was spoken, 
but nevertheless taking its place along with the common 
literary language as a medium of general intercourse. 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 55 


Only by artificial effort could its impure grammaticai 
forms and mixed vocabulary be kept out of literature 
permanently. With this end in view the Greek stylists 
and their docile pupils had been endeavouring, ever since 
the beginning of the Christian era, to restore the use of 
the language in its Attic purity. There were those, how- 
ever, more concerned about what they said than how they 
said it, who persisted in writing practically as they spoke. 
Such were the writers of the N.T. One principal cause 
for the continuous development of this living language 
after the time of Alexander, was the fact that of those 
speaking the Greek language there were ten non-Greeks to 
every genuine Greek, and of the former very many con- 
tinued to make more or less use of their native tongues. 
In Egypt and Syria, there were some who spoke a 
mixture of Greek and their own language in their inter- 
course with Greeks and Romans (μιξοβώρβαροι). Others 
spoke Greek and even wrote it when necessary, but in 
both cases with gross violations of grammatical usage 
(solecisms). Then there were Syrians whose Greek style 
was not inferior to that of any native-born Athenian, e.g., 
that of Lucian of Samosata, whose native tongue was 
Syriac. Between these extremes were almost as many 
intermediate stages as there were individual writers. 
There was never any language that could be called dis- 
tinctly Syrian or Egyptian Greek, although, just to the 
degree that Greek was a foreign language to the barbarian, 
the characteristics of his national language cropped out. 
This is true also in the case of the Jews. Certainly the 
manner in which they wrote Greek calls for special notice. 
For, althouch the Jewish Aramaic spoken at the time was 
not very different from the Aramaic spoken by Gentile 
Syrians, the effect of the O.T. literature and of the 
religious life inseparably connected with it was always to 
make the Jew look at things from a point of view dis- 
tinctly national, and so gives an unmistakable character to 


56 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


his Greek style. And this was particularly the case when 
he dealt with subjeets relating to his own history and 
religion. Even so we may not speak of the Greek written 
by Jews as if it were something uniform. For this reason 
the term dialectus hellenistica, which did not come into 
use until after the beginning of the seventeenth century, 
is not an adequate expression with which to describe the 
very complex facts in the case; and the number of 
different meanings which the word can have has given 
rise repeatedly to all sorts of misunderstandings (n. 21). 
The extremes of Jewish Greek are represented, on the one 
hand, by the LXX, including post-canonical books trans- 
lated from Hebrew or Aramaic, such as 1 Mace., Sirach, 
Psalms of Solomon, ete.; and, on the other, by the 
writings of Philo. The latter wrote the current literary 
language, and wrote it just as well as did Clement of 
Alexandria who was born in Athens. So also Josephus’ 
writings, thanks to the help of Greek correctors of whom 
he made use in editing his works, approach the κοινή of 
the educated classes. On the other hand, the Alexandrian 
translators in their effort to render literally the holy ori- 
ginal, used language which was altogether inadmissible, and 
indeed impossible, in the speech of common life. Still even 
they did not try the patience of their readers with such 
absurdities as those of Aquila in the Christian era, who, 
in order to reproduce the two meanings of the Hebrew 
NS, translated Gen. 1. 1, Ἔν κεφαλαίῳ ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς σὺν 
τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν (Field, “εααρίω, 1. 7). Between 
these extremes, the Greek of the Alexandrian translators 
and that of Philo, were as many gradations of style as we 
find between the barbarous Greek of numerous inscrip- 
tions in Asia Minor and of various Egyptian papyri, and 
the Greek of the Syrian Lucian—with this difference, 
however, that in the case of Jewish literature it is possible 
to trace some little development. The language of the 


_. LXX must have exerted on the language of those whe 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 57 


heard it from Sabbath to Sabbath a strong influence, com- 
parable to that of the Luther Bible upon the language of 
the German people. The sermon which followed the 
reading and the synagogue prayers based upon the Greek 
Bible could not have been in language wholly different 
from that Bible. It was not without reason that R. Simon 
spoke of le Grec de la synagogue. Moreover, it is self- 
evident that native-born “‘ Hebrews” who did not become 
acquainted with Greek until late in life would always 
have had to make an effort to think in Greek, and it is a 
question to what extent they really made such an effort. ἡ 
Ifa man like Paul, who was far more than a “ Hebrew,” 
continued to use Aramaic, even in his old age, when he 
wished to express his deepest emotions (above, p. 49), we 
must assume that the same was true of the disciples of 
Jesus. The use of the term “Jewish Greek” has some 
justification, though the idea may be exaggerated by 
association with the modern expression “ Jewish German.” 
Possibly there was a language actually spoken among 
Jews and Jewish Christians which with propriety could be 
so designated. But the writings which have been gathered 
up in the N.T. were all written under circumstances and 
conditions so complex, that the language of no one of them 
can properly be described by the single word Jewish 
Greek. And, on the other hand, there is no one of them, 
not even the two parts of the work of Luke, born a 
Gentile, the language of which is not consistent with the 
Jewish origin of every one of the N.T. writings. 


1. (P. 34.) With regard to the penetration of the Greek culture and lan- 
guage into Judaism, ef. SCHÜRER, ii. 21-175, iii. 304-562 (Eng. trans. 11. 1. 
11-148, τι. iii. 156-381). A bibliography of the extensive literature on the 
character of the Greek written by Jews on the diffusion of the knowledge of 
the Greek language in Palestine at the time of Jesus and similar facts, is 
given by SCHMIEDEL in his revision of Winer’s Grammatik des neutestament- 
lichen Sprachidioms (8th ed. part i. 1894), in the notes to $$ 2-4 and the 
addenda, p. xiii. f. Here belong also some works cited above, p. 14. Of 
more recent treatises may be mentioned: E. Haron, Essays in Bibl. Greek. 
Oxford, 1889; J. Vırkau, Btude sur le Grec du NT (2 parts), Paris, 1893, 


58 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


1896 ; DEıssmann, ‚Dibelstudien, Marburg, 1895 ; ibid., Neue Bibelstudien, 
1897 (Eng. trans. of both, Edinburgh, 1901); ibid., “ Hellenistisches griechisch,” 
PRE,® vii. 627-639; KENNEDY, Sources of N.T. Greek; or, the Influence of 
the Septuagint on the Vocabulary of the N.T., Edinburgh, 1895 ; Brass, Gram- 
matik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 2te Aufl. 1902 (Eng. trans., London, 
2nd ed. 1905); zbid., Philology of the Gospels, London, 1898. Cf. also the 
brief remarks of Schlatter, Geschichte Israels von Alexander bis Hadrian, 2te 
Aufl. 1906, 8S. 22-28 ; cbid., Sprache und Heimat des 4 Ev. 8. 7 ff. J. Voss, 
in his De septuaginta interpr. dissertationes, 1661, p. 76 ff. cc. xxiv, xxv, had con- 
tented himself simply with establishing the authority of the LXX by its use 
on the part of the apostles and the evangelists. But in his treatise, De 
Sibyllinis, Oxon. 1679, he went much further. He now made Christ Himself 
the witness for the authority of the LXX, p. 75 ff., believed that by Hel- 
lenists and Hebrews in Acts vi. 1 should be understood friends of Greek 
culture and genuine national Jews, p. 92 f., held that it was owing to a pre- 
conceived opinion that Christ and the apostles were supposed to have spoken 
Hebrew constantly and exclusively, p. 96, and in general unfolded a picture 
of the linguistic conditions of Palestine, according to which, except for a 
scanty knowledge of Hebrew among the learned (nor did he deny this 
wholly to Jesus, p. 94) and a mixed jargon of Syriac and Greek among the 
peasants, the ordinary language of everyone, Jesus included, was Greek. A 
hundred years later appeared D. Diopatt, J. C. Neapolitani de Christo Greece 
loquente dissertatio, Neap. 1767, against whom de Rossi wrote (above, p. 14), 
and a hundred years later still in a similar vein A. Ropuris, Discussions on 
the Gospel: I. On the Language employed by our Lord and His Disciples 
(ed. 2), Cambridge and London, 1864. Such exaggerations are refuted simply 
by the facts adduced in § 1. 

2. (P.36.) 2 Mace. vi. 8, with reference to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, 
speaks of τὰς ἀστυγείτονας πόλεις EXAnvidas, along with this vi. 9, xi. 24 of 
τὰ ἕλληνικά as heathen religion and custom ; ef. iv. 10, ὁ ἑλληνικὸς χαρακτήρ ; 
iv. 13, ἑλληνισμὸς καὶ ἀλλοφυλισμός. Jos. Vita, 13, uses the term ἔλαιον 
ἑλληνικόν of oil prepared by Gentiles in distinction from that which was 
ceremonially clean ; cf. Ant. xii. 5. 1, 5, xv. 9.5. He designates Gadara, 
Hippos, Seythopolis, Gaza as πόλεις ἑλληνίδες (Bell. 11. 6. 3; Ant. xvii. 11. 4, 
ai ev τῇ Συρίᾳ δεκαπόλεις Over against πόλεις Ἰουδαίων, Vita 65, Niese 341, 349), 
meaning in every case simply that the majority of the inhabitants were non- 
Jews, and that the form of government was modelled after that of Greek 
communities. According to him, at the beginning of the Jewish War 20,000 
Jews were slain by non-Jews in Ceesarea (Bell. ii. 18. 1), 13,000 in Seythopolis 
(ii. 18. 3), 2500 in Askalon, 2000 in Ptolemais (ii. 18.5). It was said of the 
Jews in Scythopolis (= Bethshan, Baishan) that in their pronunciation they 
interchanged certain Hebrew consonants (Levy, Lea. i. 224), hence they must 
have used “ Hebrew,” ae. Aramaic, frequently, to say the least, when speak- 
ing to one another and to their fellow-countrymen. Josephus, in a passage 
where he has in mind the distinction between heathen worship and Judaism, 
calls the non-Jews in Caesarea Hellenes, Bell. ii. 13. 7, 14. 4, but remarks at 
the same time, ii. 13. 7, that the Roman troops in Caesarea, which for the 
most part were levied in Syria, and hence were composed of Syrians by birth 
and language (see above, p. 7), were of the same race as these “ Hellener”; 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 59 


indeed, he distinctly calls these non-Jews of Cxsarea Syrians in Ant. xx. 8. 7, 
9; Bell. ii. 18. 1; Vita, 11; ef. above, pp. 22, 24,n.7. With regard to the 
survival of the Aramaic language in Scythopolis and Gaza in Christian 
times, see p. 22. The Greek names of many of the “Hellenic cities,” such 
as Gadara, have not been handed down with any certainty ; others, such 
as Abila, Gerasa, bear their Greek names only on coins and isolated in- 
scriptions. 

3. (P. 36.) The subst. ıyb (related to the Heb. and Syr. verb ıy5 Ps. 
exiv. 1) when used alone denotes any foreign language, but in the Palestinian 
Talmud, in the passage about the four languages cited above, p. 22, and 
elsewhere (see Levy, ii. 515), it denotes without further modification the 
Greek tongue, so that the part. ıy> and subst. nyb (properly τα βάρβαρος, 1 Cor. 
xiv. 11) denote simply a Greek-speaking person. In intercourse with Greeks 
and in books intended for Greek readers, the Jews were obliged to reverse 
the proceedings and to call themselves and their fellow-countrymen, so far 
as these spoke Aramaic and were unacquainted with Greek, βάρβαροι (Jos. 
Bell. i. proem. 1). A native of Jerusalem like Josephus could not indeed 
attain to such a degree of self-effacement as the Alexandrian Philo, who 
reckons himself among the Greeks when he treats of the contrast between 
the Hebrew language and the Greek (De conf. ling. 26, ἔστι δὲ ὡς μὲν Ἑβραῖοι 
λέγουσι Φανουήλ, ὡς δὲ ἡμεῖς ἀποστροφὴ θεοῦ), and who highly praises among 
the merits of Augustus that he enlarged Greece by adding to it many 
Greeces, and that he thoroughly Hellenized the most important parts of the 
land of the Barbarians (Leg. ad Cai. xxi, ἀφελληνίσας). Yet even as early as 
Aristotle’s time there were fully Hellenised Jews (Jos..c. Apion. i. 22, 
“Ἑλληνικὸς οὐ τῇ διαλέκτῳ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ ψυχῆ). Cf, on the other hand, 
Jos. e. Apion. i. 11, and quite frequently. 

4. (Pp. 37, 38.) Concerning Eupolemos, see the statement in Schürer, iii. 
351 f. (Eng. trans. 11. iii. 203f.). The identity of the historian with the one in 
1 Mace. viii. 17 isopposed by Willrich, Juden u. Griechen, 1895, p. 157. The 
coins are found most conveniently classified in Madden, Coins of the Jews, 
1881. Concerning Herod’s troops, see Jos. Bell. i. 33. 9, 15. 6, 20. 3, 22. 2; 
Ant. xvii. 8. 2; concerning his military colonies, see Ant. xv. 8. 5, xvi. 5. 2 ; 
Bell. i. 21. 9. Concerning theatres, etc., in and near Jerusalem, see Ant. 
xv. 8.1; ef. Schürer, i. 387 f., ii. 46 (Eng. trans. 1. i. 482f., τι. 1. 32f.); in 
Jericho, Bell. i. 33. 6, 8; Ant. xvii. 6. 3, 5, 8. 2. Concerning the tragedian 
Ezekiel (Clem. Strom. i. 155; Eus. Prep. ix. 28; 29. 4-12), see in brief 
Schiirer, iii. 373 f. (Eng. trans. ır. 111. 225#.). 

5. (P. 38.) An instance in point is the title on the eross, John xix. 20 
(Luke xxiii. 38%). Mention is made of bilingual inscriptions from the times 
just before Christ in Askalon, Tyre, and Sidon, Jos. Ant. xiv. 10, 2, 3, 12. 5. 
The case is different, however, with the inscriptions, partly Latin and partly 
Greek, which were placed upon the stone wall separating the inner from the 
outer court of the temple, and which forbade every non-Jew to advance 
further on pain of death, Jos. Bell. v. 5. 2, vi. 2.4. The purpose here was 
a very practical one. The Latin inscriptions were to warn the Roman officials 
and soldiers. A Greek inscription of this kind was found in 1871, Survey of 
Western Palestine, vol. iii. (Jerusalem) 423. 

6. (P. 39.) While an Alexander Jannzeus was willing to have Pisidians 


60 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


and Cilieians but no Syrians in his army of mercenaries (Jos. Bell. 1. 4. 3), the 
Roman garrison of Oxsarea, circa 66 A.D., consisted largely of native Syrians 
(Bell. ii. 13.7 ; cf. iv. 1. 5, above, n. 2). A cavalry troop of the Augustans is 
mentioned repeatedly (Bell. ii.12.5; Ant. xx. 6.1; cf. xix. 9. 2, according 
to which men of Cesarea also served in it). We are not accurately informed 
as to the composition of the infantry in Cesarea (5 cohorts, Ant. xix. 9. 2), in 
Jerusalem (John xviii. 3, 12; Acts xxi. 31f., xxii. 24 ff., xxiii. 17-33), and 
elsewhere. The name σπεῖρα Σεβαστή (cohors Augusta) in Acts xxvii. 1 gives 
no information as to the origin of the soldiers that served in it.. On the 
other hand, σπεῖρα ἡ καλουμένη ᾿Ιταλική, Acts x. 1, certainly denotes a band 
the nucleus of which consisted of Italian volunteers. Schürer’s argument, 
i. 462 f. (Eng. trans. 1. ii. 51-54), against the historicity of the statement that 
such a band was stationed in Caesarea at that time (perhaps circa 35-40) is based 
upon an unwarranted combination of data. The statement in Jos, Ant. xx. 
8. 7, according to which in the year 66 not only the cavalry troop mentioned, 
but the whole Roman garrison of Czsarea, was made up largely of men from 
Ceesarea and Sebaste, cannot be maintained in view of the statement in Bell. 
il. 13. 7 (see above), and would prove nothing about the earlier time of 
Acts x. 1. 

7. (P. 39.) Philo, who calls Jerusalem the μητρόπολις of all Jews on earth 
(c. Flace. vii ; Leg. ad Car. xxxvi), and who had visited it at least once himself 
(Fragm. in Eus. Prep. ev. viii. 14. 64, Mangey, ii. 646), speaks probably with- 
out exaggeration of the pilgrimages thither by Jews of all lands, de Mon. ii. 1, 
and of the bearing of tribute and gifts to that city, Mon. ii. 3; Leg. ad Car. 
xxiii, xxxi, xl; ef. Jos. Ant. xiv. 7. 2, xvi. 6. 2-7, xviii. 9. 1; Cicero, pro Flacco, 
xxviii. Turning to the N.T., we find in John xii. 20 certain Greeks ; in Acts 
viii. 27, an Ethiopian who apparently spoke Greek and read the Septuagint ; 
in Acts xxi. 27, Jews from the province of Asia. Vice versd, the central 
authority in Jerusalem, later in Jabne and Tiberias, kept in touch with all 
the Jews in foreign countries, and likewise with the διασπορὰ τῶν ᾿Ελλήνων, 
John vii. 35=p7 xmbı, as it is called in one of the letters of Gamaliel 
mentioned above, pp. 10, 33 (Jerus. Maas. sheni, 56c). 

8. (Pp. 40, 43.) In Acts vi. 1 we find the division into "EAAnviorai and 
Ἑβραῖοι within the community of Christiansat Jerusalem ; in Actsix. 29, where 
the reading Ἕλληνας is not to be considered, Jews in Jerusalem hostile to Chris- 
tianity are called Ἑλληνισταί. S! was right in the main in translating Acts ix. 
29, “with the Jews who understood Greek” ; Chrysostom was more exact in 
Hom. xiv on Acts vi. land in Hom. xxi on Acts ix. 29 (Montfaucon, ix. 111, 169). 
The same name would form a contrast to Ἰουδαῖοι in Acts xi. 20, if it were to be 
read there ; but for that very reason it is incredible that such is the reading. 
In Acts vi. 9 it is uncertain whether the author, in consideration of the fact 
that Außeprivov was a Latin word, prefixed to it τῶν λεγομένων, or whether 
we should read τῆς λεγομένης, which is supported by the most authorities. 
In the latter case it would be certain that two groups were meant to be dis- 
tinguished. In the former case also this is the only thing probable, for 
otherwise simply καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ Kup. κτλ. would have been written instead of 
kai Kupikwv καὶ ᾿λλεξιανῶν. A synagogue of the Alexandrians in Jerusalem 
is mentioned also in the Jerus. Talmud (Megilla, 73d). Nothing seems more 
natural than that Cyrenians, like the Simon mentioned in Mark xy. 21, should 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 61 


have connected themselves with this synagogue. Allied to them also were 
the Libertines, ¢.e. descendants of Jews who had been brought to Rome by 
Pompey as prisoners of war and sold as slaves, but who afterward had been 
manumitted and made Roman citizens (Philo, Leg. ad Caz. xxiii; Schiirer, iii. 
84 (Eng. trans. 11. ii. 276). The thousands of Acts ii. 5 ff. also belong to the 
number of foreign Jews who had taken up residence in Jerusalem ; for karoı- 
κοῦντες, 1]. 5, 14, not to be confused with παροικοῦντες (Luke xxiv. 18), signifies 
that they were permanent residents of Jerusalem (iv. 16, vii. 4, ix. 35, xiii. 27). 
This interpretation is but confirmed by the use of the same word in ii. 9. 
With reference to the language in the midst of which they had grown up, the 
Jews from Mesopotamia, etc., are called “dwellers in Mesopotamia” instead of 
“ Mesopotamians,” so as not to weary by an uninterrupted series of names of 
nations. The idea that at this time their fixed abode was still Mesopotamia, 
etc., is a misunderstanding, and is excluded by vv. 5, 14. Moreover, ἐπι- 
δημεῖν (ver. 10), not to be confounded with παρεπιδημεῖν (1 Pet. i. 1, ii. 11, 
below, § 38, n. 4), denotes not a visit at a feast, but very commonly, as 
every lexicon shows, residence at home and return home, in contrast to a 
passing sojourn in a strange place. The attempt of Blass (NKZ, 1892, 
S. 826 ff.,-and in his Acta Apostolorum, Acts ii. 5) to omit the Ἰουδαῖοι in 
ii. 5 (following 8), and thus to transform the witnesses of the miracle at 
Pentecost into “‘God-fearing” Gentiles, 1.6. so-called proselytes of the gate, is 
to be rejected. In ver. 10 it is said expressly of the “Romans” that they 
were partly Jews, partly proselytes (i.e., according to the usage of the N.T., of 
Josephus, and of the Early Church, circumcised proselytes of righteousness) ; 
but this also implies that all the rest were Jews by birth, and that it was only 
among the Romans that there were also certain proselytes. Without a hint 
being given of a change in the circle of hearers, Peter addresses them in a 
body as Jews and Israelites (vv. 14, 22, 36, 39), as inhabitants of Jerusalem 
(vv. 14, 29, ev ywiv=in Jerusalem), as representatives of the Jewish people, 
among whom and upon whom Jesus had done His works (ver. 22), and who 
by the hand of the Gentiles had slain Him (ver. 23). For the author of Acts 
it would have been an insupportable thought that the hearers of the first 
preaching of the apostles should have been uncircumcised Gentiles (i. 6, 8, 
ii. 39, iii. 26, xill. 46, ete.). Further, it is not demonstrable that εὐλαβεῖς, 
ii. 5, ever denotes, like φοβούμενοι or σεβόμενοι τὸν θεόν, proselytes of the 
second degree. ‘These Jews who had returned from a foreign land to the 
home of their fathers are called “ Romans, Parthians, Arabians,” ete., just as 
the Jew Aquila is called Movrikds, and the Jew Apollos ᾿Αλεξανδρεὺς τῷ γένει, 
Acts xviii. 2,24. It is not their parentage which is stated in ii. 5 (this would 
have been expressed by ἐκ παντὸς ἔθνους or γένους, Acts xv. 23; Rev. v. 9, 
vii. 9; Gal. 11. 15; Phil. iii. 5; Rom. ix. 24), but the fact that they had 
come from the most various lands; cf. with reference to ἔθνος, § 21, n. 2. 
They were therefore native Jews throughout, and only in the case of the 
Ronans is it remarked that there were also some proselytes among them. 
The only difficulty in this text arises from Ἰουδαίαν, ver. 9, for which Bentley, 
(Crit. sacra, ed. Ellies, p. 22) suggested Λυδίαν or Ιδουμαίαν, the present writer 
Ἰνδίαν. For one of the motives for their return hinted at above, p. 39, 
namely, the wish to be buried in the Holy Land, see the instances in Weber, 
System der altsynag. Theol. 64, 352; for other instances of high regard for 


62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the Holy Land, 62 f., 192, 200 ff. All that has been said of the Hellenists 
in Jerusalem naturally has its exceptions; and it is also probable that 
Hellenist families in Jerusalem in the second and third generation again 
came to receive a Hebrew education. The family of the Boethusians, e.9, 
which came from Alexandria (Jos. Ant. xv. 9. 3), and from which five or 
six high priests arose during the last century of the temple, bears in: its 
male and female members nothing but Hebrew and Aramaic names: Simon, 
Joazar, Eleazar, Eljonai, Marjam (Jos. Bell. 1. 28.4; Ant. xvii. 4. 2), Martha 
(Mishnah, Jebam. vi. 4). See the list in Schürer, 11. 216-220 (Eng. trans. 11. 
i. 197-202). 

9. (Pp. 40, 43.) For the preference of Greek to Aramaic on the part: of 
Judah the Nasi, see above, p. 22. In the portion of the Mishnah edited by him, 
Megillah i. 8, we read : “There is no difference between the (holy) writings 
(on the one hand) and the Thephilin and Mesusoth (on the other), except that 
the writings may be written in any desired language, whereas the Thephilin 
and Mesusoth may be written only in Assyrian” (1.6. Hebrew). Rabbi Simeon 
son of Gamaliel (the younger), says: “Also with reference to the writings, 
it has been permitted that they be written only in Greek.” Connected with 
this in Jerus. Megillah, 716, is the following: “Search was made, and it was 
found that the Torah cannot be translated satisfactorily into any language 
but Greek.” In the same passage it is stated that the Greek translation of 
the Bible by Aquila had met the approval of the most celebrated rabbis of 
his time (circa 100-130). The fact that this slavishly literal translation was 
preferred to the Septuagint as well as the origin of this translation itself, rests 
in part upon the opposition to Christianity. There were no objections to the 
use of Greek in worship. There was seen in this rather a fullilment of the 
prophecy in Gen. ix. 27 (Jerus. Megillah, 710), and by a play upon words 
Ps. xlv. 3 was applied to Aquila, the most accurate translator of the Torah 
into the language of Japhet (op. eit. 71c). Although in Ceesarea the so-called. 
Schema, the basal creed of Judaism (Deut. vi. 4-9, xi. 13-21; Num. xy. 
37-41), was said in Greek, no serious objection was made to this (Jerus. 
Sotah, 210, moreover the Mishnah itself, Sotah vu. 1; Megillah ii. 1). 
According to the express testimony of rabbi Ishmael (Shekalim 111. 2), Greek 
letters were inscribed on the chests used for the offerings in the temple; 
while, according to Shekalim v. 3, certain tokens which served as receipts for 
gifts offered on the altar bore Aramaic inscriptions, ef. Joel, Blöcke in die 
Religionsgesch. ii. 1708. With reference to the Greek inscriptions of the 
Herodians in the Hauran (especially Waddington, No. 2329), cf. Schlatter, 
Gesch. Israels von Alexander bis Hadrian,? 8. 26, 317, and also Sifre on Deut. 
§ 33 (Sprache und Heimat des 4 Ev. 8. 128), “Everbody runs to read a new 
διάταγμα (edict).” In Sotah ix. 14 we read: “In the war of Vespasian the 
crowns of the bridegrooms were forbidden, and the drums. In the war of 
Titus (?) the crowns of the brides were forbidden, nor was anyone allowed to 
teach his son Greek. In the last war the bride was forbidden to go about in 
the midst of the town in a sedan chair.” It is now probably universally 
recognised that instead of Titus we are rather to read Quietus, and hence to 
think of the Jewish revolt under Trajan, circa 116 (Schiirer, i. 667 [Eng. trans. 
τ. i. 9867). It is only of the ordinance which it was claimed arose in the last 
war, i.e. that of Hadrian, that the Mishnah says expressly that it was repealed 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 63 


by the rabbis. But the prohibition with reference to the Greek language 
likewise failed to be maintained. In true rabbinic fashion, later writers used 
the letter of the ordinance, which speaks only of sons, not of daughters, in 
order to set it aside as far as possible. A rabbi Abbahu (circa 300) declares in 
the name of his teacher Johanan (died 279): “A man is permitted to teach 
his daughter Greek, since it is an ornament unto her” (Jerus. Shabbath, 7d ; 
Sotah, 240). To be sure, this Abbahu, who lived in Ceesarea, shows himself 
to an unusual degree to have been conformed to the world and open to Greek 
influences (Hamburger, RE, ii. 4-8; Levy, Verhandlungen der 33 Versamm. 
deutscher Phil. 1879, S. 81). The family of Gamaliel, which after the year 
70 occupied an almost princely position for a number of generations, was 
pardoned for its diligent cultivation of Greek as a colloquial language just 
because of its social standing. Tradition is probably right in this particular, 
that the reaction against the adoption of the Greek language and culture is 
connected with the last spasmodic struggles of the nation to assert its in- 
dependence. Even from the historical accounts all signs of this are absent 
before the year 66. Josephus, born 37 Δ...) the son of an eminent priestly 
family, but not belonging to the aristocracy proper, had acquired, in addition 
to the rabbinic learning of which he could boast when only fourteen (Vita, 
2; Ant. xx. 12), so great a knowledge of Greek in Jerusalem, that when 
twenty-six years old, without ever having been out of his country before, he 
could undertake a mission to Rome, and could mingle with the highest 
circles of society there, advocating his cause with zeal and success before the 
wife of Nero, Vita, 3. He also endeavoured to learn Greek from books, 
receiving instruction in grammar ; but he confesses that the use of his mother- 
tongue hindered him from acquiring a correct pronunciation of Greek. In 
preparing the Greek revision of his work on the Jewish War, and probably 
also in writing the Antiquities, he availed himself of the assistance of several 
Greek literati, c. Apion. i. 9. In Ant. xx. 12 he explains that his education 
was lacking on this side, because among his countrymen a knowledge of 
foreign languages was not highly prized. Such knowledge was in their eyes 
something vulgar, being easily attainable, not only by any free man, but also 
by every slave who hada liking for it. It was only knowledge of the Law 
and ability to explain the O.T., in which few accomplish anything, that gave 
one a reputation for learning. According to this, it is a mistake to think 
that a knowledge of Greek was limited to the aristocratic circles in Jerusalem, 
much less to the scholars. Many a merchant and artisan probably excelled 
famous rabbis in this respect. Among the women, knowledge of Greek was 
at any rate much more common than knowledge of the sacred language (see 
above in this note, also pp. 7, 25, n. 10). Nevertheless it was expedient that 
Titus, when seeking to induce the besieged Jews in Jerusalem to surrender, 
should have treated with them through an interpreter (Jos. Bell. vi. 6. 2), just 
as it was also perfectly natural that Josephus should have used his mother- 
tongue when commissioned by Titus to address them (v. 9. 2, vi. 2. 1). 

„10. (P. 41.) Among the apostles, only Andrew, whose father and brother 
bore Hebrew names, and Philip have Greek names. Every one of the seven 
names in Acts vi. 5, among which also the name Philip occurs (ef. viii. 5, 
xxi. 8), is Greek ; but this is explained by the occasion for the appointment 
of these. seven men. ‘ Hebrews” probably always had along with their 


64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Greek names Hebrew or Aramaie names, like the later Hasmoneans Johanan- 
Hyrkanos, Juda-Aristobulos, Jannay-Alexandros, Salome- Alexandra. So 
a Nicodemus (Jewish Nakdimon), perhaps identical with the one men- 
tioned in John iii. 1, is said to have been called originally Bunay (Bab. 
Taanith, 20a). Latin names also were very common along with the Hebrew : 
Johanan-Mareus, Acts xii. 12, 25; Joseph-Barsaba-Justus, Acts i. 23; Jesus- 
Justus, Col. iv. 11 ; Shimon-Niger, Acts xiii. 1 ; Shila-Silvanus, above, p. 32, 
line 6. Even when we know only of the Latin name, as in the case of Niger, 
Jos. Bell. iv. 6. 1, Justus Julius Capellus or Capella and Crispus, Jos. Vita, 
9, a Jewish name besides was probably not lacking. The Greek name Petrus 
(Phlegon, de Longevis, 3; in Josephus xviii. 6. 3 poorly attested for Πρῶτος) 
occurs even in the case of Palestinian Jews (Jerus. Moed Katon, 82d, line 9 
from bottom), but belongs to the apostles only as a translation of the surname 
Kepha given him by Jesus, above, p. 16, ZKom. Matt. 537. 

11. (P. 42.) Concerning foreign words from the Greek and Latin in Jewish 
literature : J. FÜRST, Glossariwm Greco-hebraicwm oder der griech. Wortschatz der 
jüdischen Midraschwerke, 1890 ; Krauss, Griech. u. lat. Lehnwörter im Talmud, 
Midrasch u. Targum, 2 vols. 1898-1899 ; SCHÜRER, ii. 44-67 (Eng. trans. ır.i. 
31-47), gives a selection from the Mishnah arranged according to subjects, and 
Daman, Gr.? 182 ff., presents from the grammatical point of view examples 
drawn from the literature claimed to be Palestinian Aramaic. Greek and 
Latin words probably used by Jesus are, συνέδριον, Matt. v. 22,x. 17; Mark 
xiii. 9; in the LXX nine times, also in Ps. Solomon iv. 1; 2 Mace. xiv. 5, 
Jewish j'77730 court of justice, especially the highest at Jerusalem ; also title 
of a tractate of the Mishnah. Whether we should include here ἀντίδικος, 
Matt. v. 25; Luke xii. 58, xviii. 3, which is quite common in the Midrash 
literature, but which does not seem to occur in the Talmud and Targum, is 
doubtful. On the other hand, there is little doubt that he used παράκλητος, 
John xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7; 1 John ii. 1; Didache, v. 2, πλουσίων mapa- 
κλητοι, πενήτων ἄνομοι κριταί ; Clem. Quis dives, xxv, τὸν τῆς σῆς συνήγορον καὶ 
παράκλητον Ψυχῆς ; Heb. wdp1s Pirke Aboth iv. 11, “advocate.” Here, as in 
the Targum of Job xxxiil. 23, the word is used in opposition to mIwp=xkarn- 
yopos, or rather karnyop, Rev. xii. 10, a form which probably belonged to the 
Greek colloquial ; a similar form is συνήγωρ (Ξε συνήγορος), A330, which in 
Jewish literature forms the contrast to kategor much oftener than does 
peraklit, eg. Jerus. Joma, 44} ; ef. Krauss, BZ, 1893, 5. 526. Among the Jews 
the meaning of the more infrequent peraklit has: become broadened and is 
plainly treated as active=zapaxadav. In the Targum of Job xvi. 20, xxxiii. 
23, the Aram. ΝΡ. corresponds to the Heb. pbs, which in both passages, 
even in xvi. 20, where it does not suit, the translator has taken in the sense 
of “interpreter, representative of another before a third party, mediator.” 
Two Jewish translators, Aquila and Theodotion, render Job xvi. 2, oni 
“comforters,” by παράκλητοι, where the LXX has παρακλήτορες and Sym- 
machus rapnyopoüvres (Field, Hexapla, ii. 30). Thus Philo, Opif. mundi, 6, | 
expresses the thought that God, without having been persuaded or exhorted 
thereto by anyone, bestowed the riches of His goodness upon His creatures, 
οὐδενὶ δὲ παρακλήτῳ---τίς yap ἢν ἕτερος---μόνῳ δὲ ἑαυτῷ χρησάμενος ὁ θεὸς ἔγνω 
κτλ. Less characteristic is Vita Mosis, tii. 14. Likewise Origen, de Orat. 10, | 
treats the παράκλητος πρὸς τὸν πατέρα in 1 John ii. 1 as active, among other | 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 65 


things paraphrasing it συμπαρακαλῶν τοῖς παρακαλοῦσι. Originally the word 
was not construed actively, but such a meaning grammatically is by no means 
impossible. To the examples in Kühner-Blass, ii. 289, should be added λαλητός, 
“speaking, able to speak,” Iren. Fragm. xiv., Stieren, 833. Tertullian, who 
translates παρακαλεῖν by advocare, c. Marc. iv. 14, p. 191, παράκλησις by 
advocatio, Pud. xvii, and παράκλητος by advocatus, Praz. ix, found it necessary 
to form advocator, Mare. iv. 15, p. 193 ; Greeks, however, and Jews who used 
the foreign term παράκλητος, could dispense with the other form παρακλήτωρ 
found in the LXX. Jesus, who in John xiv. 16 applied the term to Himself 
primarily, had been up to that time not the advocate called to the aid of the 
disciples, but the teacher speaking to their hearts in the name of God, the 
interpreter through whom God spoke to them. After His departure this is the 
oflice of the Spirit, xiv. 26. On the other hand, it is the ascended Jesus who, 
in the name of the disciples and for their advantage appeals to the heart of 
God, intercedes for them, 1 John ii. 1. The extent to which the meaning of 
the word can vary is just the same in the N.T. as in Jewish writings, 
διαθήκη, Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 20, cf. xxii. 29, Acts iii. 
25, διατίθεσθαι, of testamentary disposal, very common in the form *p’n™ or 
‘pink, in the sense of a testamentary disposal of one’s property in the event of 
death, as distinguished from snp, a gift during one’s lifetime, Jerus. Pea, 17d ; 
on the other hand, διάθεμα, which was uncommon even among the Greeks, 
or the verb διεθέμην (according to Jasrrow, 294), which occurs in a saying of 
Simon the son of Gamaliel, was unintelligible to a later rabbi Joshua (Jerus. 
Baba Bathra, 16c, lines 17-19). κύριε as a form of address to a superior, 
Matt. vii. 21 f., xiii. 27, xxi. 30; John xiii. 13 f.; also the numerous cases where 
in the narrative Jesus is thus addressed. How common the Greek word was 
among the Jews is shown by the fact that yp is adduced as an example of 
the corrupt pronunciation of the Galileans, in whose mouth it became 3 
(supposedly = xeipıe?), b. Erubin, 53); moreover, in b. Chullin, 139, we have 
even the doubling of 7, which goes to show that in Matt. vii. 21 we have 
not a translation, but merely a transcription. Outside of the Targums, which 
are acquainted also with op ὁ κύριος, and use it even of God (Levy, Targ. 
Wörterbuch, ii. 360; Dalman, Gr.? 186), we meet with mp almost exclusively, 
and that, too, in the vocative ; but this is explained by the fact that the form 
of address κύριε was more frequently to be heard than the other case forms, and 
was the first to become common among the Jews (cf. Monsieur and le Steur). 
In this it is like the Greek proper names, which as spoken by the Syrians 
were often in the vocative form (Nöldeke, Syr. Gr. § 144). However, what 
is found in the lexica under "v3 (also=xaipe, χαρά, or χάρις), Pp, Op, is still 
very much in need of sifting. πανδοχεύς, or more correctly πανδοκεύς, and 
mavdoreiov, Luke x. 34, 35, the former as 'pına (yet it also has the spelling 
of the latter in the Mishnah, Gittin viii. 9; Kidd. iv. 12), the latter as pans, 
ΡΣ, pI, were very common, as is especially evident from the further 
fact that even the feminine npin5=avdoxet’rpia oceurs not infrequently in 
the Mishnah (e.g. Jebam. xvi. 7), Targums, etc. δηνάριον, Matt. xviii. 28, 
xx; 2-13; Mark xii. 15; Luke vii. 41, x. 35, xx. 24, in the mouth of the 
disciples, Mark vi. 37, xiv. 5; John vi. 7, xii. 5. The transliteration 1329 
is at least as common in the Mishnah as the Heb. equivalent m (examples in 
Schiirer, ii. 54, A. 162 [Eng. trans. τι. i. 39, n. 164]); in the Jerus. Talmud 
VOL. I. 5 


66 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(also xy in an Aram. context), Targ., and Mid. the proportion is probably 
about the same. Also ἀσσάριον, Matt. x. 29, Luke xii. 6, which as sox (75x) 
is very common in the Mishnah (Erubin vii. 10; Kidd. i, 1, etc.) and in all 
Jewish literature, was probably used by Jesus in this form ; probably also 
κοδράντης, Matt. v. 26, Latin quadrans in the form vun mp. It is not necessary 
to suppose that Mark of Jerusalem, who in xii. 42 writes for his Roman readers 
λεπτὰ δύο 6 ἐστι koöpdvrns, did not learn this last expression until he came 
to Rome, for we read almost exactly the same thing in Jerus. Kidd. 58d, 
Danmp mune ‘3. But, in any event, Luke, who in the parallel passages, xii. 59, 
xxi. 2, uses the purely Greek λεπτόν, which had not made its way into the 
Jewish vernacular at all, has not preserved for us, as Schiirer, ii. 55, A. 169 
(Eng. trans. 11. i. 40, n. 171), thinks, the wording of the original written source 
used also by Matthew ; for this was written not in Greek, but in Aramaic. 
Elsewhere, also, Luke has substituted the genuine Greek word for the Latin 
term used by the Jews of Palestine ; thus φόρος, xx. 22 (xxiii. 2), instead of 
«nvoos, Matt. xxii. 17; Mark xii. 14 (Matt. xvii. 25, xxii. 19). How completely 
the latter word had become naturalised is seen from the fact that Dip, XD3p occurs 
mostly in the later and secondary sense of ‘ mulet, fine,” that a denominative 
verb dsp was in use, and that a Greek derivative form κήνσωμα, nor, which 
cannot be pointed out elsewhere, occurs (Krauss, Zehnwörter, ii, 534, 554). 
Aeyıov, λεγεών, Matt. xxvi. 53, cf. Mark v. 9, 15; Luke viii, 30, pr, plur. 
para and = maya. Levy in both his lexica maintains that this has a second 
meaning, “commander”: and on the basis of that A. Meyer makes bold: 
assertions concerning Mark v. 9, 15; but such a meaning is incredible at the 
outset, since the Romans had no title of an officer that was formed from legio. 
When the word denotes an individual, we must either alter m9 into und 
(legatus ; Fürst, Gloss. 130) or understand a soldier (miles legionarius ; Krauss, 
li. 305). A verb corresponding to dyyapevew in Matt. v. 41 (xxvii. 32; 
Mark xv. 21; cf. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 37 ; DEIssMANN, Bibelst. 81 
[Eng. trans. 86 £.]) has not been pointed out as yet in Jewish literature ; but 
the substantive ΝΉΣΩΝ Ξε ἀγγαρεία (Epiet. Diss. iv. 1. 79 ; Artemid. Oneiroer, v. 
16) is very common, and the Jews appropriated dyyapevrns also, which shows 
that these words, though derived from the Persian (Herodot. viii. 98), did not 
become naturalised among the Jews until Hellenistic times, The people 
were for the most part not conscious that such words were foreign, as is 
shown by the remark of the linguist Epiphanius that povpvaé=fornaa= 
κάμινος, belonged to the vernacular of Palestine (Her. xxx, 12). The Latin 
furnus, or even furna, in the. form 823, "35, was common among both Jews 
and Syrians ; cf. Krauss, BZ, 1893, S. 524 ; Lehmwörter, i. 72, ii. 434, 

12. (P. 43.) Concerning Acts ii. 5 ff., see above, p. 61. The half foreign 
character of the young Church in Jerusalem is confirmed by iv. 36 (Barnabas 
from Cyprus), vi. 1-5 (above, p. 63, n. 10), xi. 20 (Κύπριοι καὶ Κυρηναῖοι), XXi. 
16 (Mnason, a diseiple from the early days of the Church, from Cyprus). Per- 
haps we may reckon with these the family of Simon of Cyrene (Mark xv. 21; 
Rom. xvi. 13; below, § 22). The further growth is given in iv. 4, without a 
statement of their origin; v. 16 mentions people from the towns in the 
neighbourhood of Jerusalem ; vi. 1 refers to the increase of the Church as 
oecasioning the complaint of the Hellenists, in so far as they seem to have 
been forced by it into the background ; vi. 7 speaks of many priests, or more 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 67 


probably according to x*S! ὄχλος Ἰουδαίων, 1.6. Judeans, ef. Klosterinann, 
Probleme, 13 ; ef. the variants in. ὃ Mace. vi. 1 ; further, Pharisees are men- 
tioned xy. 5, i.e. certainly genuine ‘‘ Hebrews,” even if zeal for the law was 
common to all Jewish Christians in Palestine, whatever their origin or language, 
xxi. 20. What was said above, p. 44, of Caesarea, Ptolemais, and ‘Tyre, is 
probably not true of Damascus. Although belonging to the Decapolis, it had 
received no Greek name, but had, on the contrary, a large Jewish population ; 
according to Jos. Bell. ii. 20. 2, almost all the wives of the Gentiles were 
attached to Judaism, and in the war 10,500 Jewish men were slain in one 
day. The names Hananyah and Judah in Acts ix. 10f. are Hebrew. 

13. (P. 46.) Concerning Philo asa Hellene, see above, p. 59,n.3. The 
question to what extent he and other Jews of the diaspora were acquainted 
with Hebrew (answered in very different ways, e.g., by Frankel, Vorstudien 
zur Septuaginta, S. xv. 45f., who denies him all such knowledge ; and by 
Siegfried, Philo, 142 ff.) may be allowed to remain unanswered all the more 
since the point at issue as between “Hebrews” and Hellenists is not a 
scholarly knowledge of Hebrew, but the practical use, either of Greek or of 
Aramaic, inaccurately called Hebrew (above, p. 46 f.). Philo, ¢. Flace. vi, 
states that the Jews in Alexandria and in Egypt, as far as the Ethiopian 
border, were no fewer than a hundred myriads (1,000,000). Among perhaps 
a hundred and fifty Jewish epitaphs from Rome, there are, according to A. 
Berliner, Gesch. der Juden in Rom, i. 58, only forty in Latin, the rest—indeed, 
all those dating from the first three centuries a.D.—are in Greek. It is only 
seldom that the word ‘ Peace,” or “In peace,” or “Peace upon Israel,” is 
added in the Hebrew language and character. See the list in Berliner, i. 
71-92, which is convenient, even if not satisfactory in every respect. For 
Aramaic forms in the LXX, see above, Ὁ. 181. No. 13. Here belongs also 
yeıwpas for the Heb. "1 -Ξ- προσήλυτος, Ex. xii. 19; Isa. xiv. 1; cf. above, p. 
30, line 45. The translation νικήσῃς in Ps. li. 6, ef. Rom. iii. 4, gives 'to the 
Heb. an (“to be pure”) the meaning of the Aram. xn (“toconquer”). Other 
examples in Frankel, 201. 

14. (P. 47.) 0.1. G. No. 9909, also Schiirer, Gemeindeverfassung der Juden 
in Rom, 35, No. 8—epitaph of a certain Salome, daughter of Gadia, who bears 
the title of a πατὴρ συναγωγῆς Aißpeov="Eßpaiwv. Another epitaph, first 
brought to light by Derenbourg in Mélange Renier, 1887, p. 439, calls this 
same Gadia “ father of the Hebrews” (πατρὸς τῶν ‘EBpéwv). For the interpret- 
ation given in the text, ef. Schürer, ibid. 16 ; ibid. Gesch. ii. 46 (Eng. trans. 
τι, ii. 248); still more definitely Berliner, 104, who cites Neubauer also in 
support of this; while Derenbourg, who appeals to Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 6, ete,, 
tries to make out that the Hebrews in and about Rome were Samaritans. 
Gadia (Jastrow, 211, x72 ıı. ; Berliner, 55) and Salome were ordinary names 
among Palestinian Jews. 

15. (Pp. 49, 50, 53.) With this and the following note, ef. the writer’s 
essay, “Zur Lebensgesch. des Paulus,” NKZ, 1904, 5. 23 ff. (among others 
against Mommsen, Z/NTW, 1901, S. 81 ff.) and 8. 189 ff.; also PRE,’ xv. 
61-88. Acts xxii. 3 tells unequivocally in what sense Paul is called Ταρσεύς 
in xxi, 39, cf. ix. 11, 30, xi. 25. It was a needless supposition of Fabricius, 
Cod. apocr. NT, iii. 571, that on account of the tradition to be cited in n. 16 
Jerome must have read in Acts xxii. 3 with Cod. A, γεγενημένος (simply 


68 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


“having been”). The contrast between the birthplace and the place of 
education was unmistakable. Starting with the fact that Paul was born in 
Tarsus, the Ebionite work entitled ἀναβαθμοὶ ᾿Ιακώβου (Epiph. Her. xxx. 16, 
25) asserts that he was a Hellene on both his father’s and his mother’s side, 
Paul would not have called himself a eitizen of Tarsus if he and his father 
had not really possessed, in addition to the civitas Romana, municipal eitizen- 
ship in his native town (cf. a number of inscriptions in JHSt. 1889, p. 50ff., 
Nos. 12-20, Ῥωμαῖος καὶ Avddrns, and similar expressions). The fact that 
Paul spent the first part of his youth in another city than Jerusalem and 
among a population differing in race from him, is attested also in Acts 
xxvi. 4; for there is no doubt of the genuineness of the re (NABES!), and 
certainly not of the τὴν am’ ἀρχῆς, which Blass strikes out; and, moreover, 
ἐν τῷ ἔθνει μου cannot mean “among the Jewish people,” which m any case 
would be a singular mode of expression in an address to the Jew Agrippa (ef. 
per contra ἡμετέρα, ἡμῶν, xxvi. 5-7), but=ev τῇ πατρίδι pov. For this use of 
ἔθνος, cf. below, ὃ 21, n. 2. He says in this address that all the Jews know 
how from his youth up he has led a life of strict conformity to the law, 
and this, too, not merely as a result of his rabbinic training, but “from the 
beginning,” in his native city of Tarsus, as well as later in Jerusalem. This 
piety, inherited as it was and early instilled into him in the home before 
ever he sat at Gamaliel’s feet (cf. 2 Tim. i. 3), is defined more closely in 
xxvi. 5 as Pharisaic piety ; cf. Phil. iii. 5; Acts xxiii, 6, where we are certainly 
to read Φαρισαίων, not Bapıcaiov. For several generations the family had 
belonged to that party. Moreover, in Gal. i. 14 (τῶν πατρικῶν [not πατρῴων] 
μου παραδόύόσεων) Paul is thinking of his father, asin Gal. i. 15 of his mother ; 
and one can hardly avoid the conjecture that he uses the words ὁ ἀφορίσας 
με (Gal. i. 15), ἀφωρισμένος (Rom. 1. 1), as a play upon the name of the 
Pharisees,—a name which earlier he had borne with pride, but which now 
he can employ in an altogether different sense ; cf. Clem. Hom. xi. 28, τῶν 
Φαρισαίων . .. ol εἰσιν ἀφωρισμένοι. Cf. Orig. in Matt. serm. 20 (Delarue, iii. 
843, cf. 835 f. 847). Epiph. Her. xvi. 1; Jerome, Interpr. hebr. nom. (Lagarde, 
Onom. 61. 20, 69. 6; also 204. 47). 

16. (P. 50.) Jerome in Ep. ad Philem. 23 (Vall. vii. 762): “Quis sit 
Epaphras concaptivus Pauli, talem fabulam accepimus: Ajunt parentes apos- 
toli Pauli de Gyscalis regione fuisse Jude, et eos, quum tota provincia 
Romana vastaretur manu et dispergerentur in orbem Jud«i, in Tharsum 
urbem Cilicie fuisse translatos; parentum conditionem adolescentulum 
Paulum sequutum. Et sie posse stare illud quod de se ipse testatur ‘ Hebravi 
sunt,’ etc. (2 Cor. xi. 22), et rursum alibi * Hebraeus ex Hebreis’ (Phil. iii. 5), et 
cetera, quee illum Judeeum magis indicant quam Tharsensem.” Ibid.,Vir. Ill. v: 
“ Paulus apostolus ... de tribu Benjamin et oppido Jude Giscalis fuit, quo 
a Romanis capto cum parentibus suis Tarsum Cilieise commigravit.” From 
this latter passage the story passed over into Latin Bibles, cf. Card. Thomasius 
Opp., ed. Vezzosi, i. 382 (ea oppido Judee Egirgalis). The fact should not 
have been overlooked that the tradition which is given in full in the com- 
mentary on Philem. 23 (written A.D. 387) is essentially altered through care- 
less abbreviation in the later work, Vir. Ill. v. The tradition, in the only 
form in which it needs to be considered, does not say that Paul emigrated 
with his parents from Gischala to Tarsus, but means that his parents, on the 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 69 


occasion of a capture of Gischala by the Romans, were (taken prisoners of 
war, and thus, perhaps having been sold as slaves, involuntarily) removed to 
Tarsus, and that Paul (inherited and) shared in his youth this condition of 
his parents. It surely goes without saying that Jerome learned about this 
fabula not through hearsay, but from an older commentary. Probably his 
source is Origen’s commentary on Philem., cf. GK, ii. 1002. Photius draws 
his similar statements (Quest. Amphil. 116, 117, Migne, 101, col. 688f.; per- 
haps also the further statements in Quest. 211, col. 965) from the same 
source, and by no means from the Greek translation of Jerome, Vir, Ill., 
though he often shows dependence upon this elsewhere (Forsch. ii. 8, 111, 35 ; 
Wentzel, Die griech. Übers. der viri ill. 1895, 5. 1 ff.), The τῷ Ῥωμαϊκῷ δόρατι 
of Photius, e.y., corresponds to the Romana manu of Jerome. Although the 
Coptic fragments of the Acts of Paul have furnished no verification, the 
supposition remains probable, that this legend, which was quite highly 
esteemed by Origen (GK, ii. 865f.) is the ultimate source of the tradition. 
The fabula of Jerome, hardly worthy of notice, is in keeping with his attitude 
toward apocryphal writings, which differed from Origen’s; and the Acts of 
Paul, which was written circa 170, represents its hero as a Hebrew. Prayers 
spoken in Hebrew are represented as being the apostle’s last words before 
his execution (Acta Petri, Pauli, etc., ed. Lipsius, p. 115; GA, ii. 875, 877). 
In any case this tradition, which does not contradict Acts, and yet cannot by 
any possibility have been derived from it, is too definite to have been invented. 
Hero Krenkel, Beiträge 2. Gesch. des Paulus, 8 ff., is right as against Hausrath, 
Neutest. Zeitgesch. ii. 404; Schenkel’s Dibellex. iv. 408. The criticism of 
neither, however, is satisfactory, since both confuse the careless version in Var, 
il. v with the original tradition, and overtax our credulity by the assump- 
tion that there existed in Gischala until Jerome’s time a true (so Krenkel) or 
false (so Hausrath) tradition of this purport. The tradition that Paul’s 
parents lived in Gischala in Galilee (see Buhl, Geogr. Paldstinas, 233 ; 
Schürer, i. 616ff., ii. 445f. [Eng. trans. 1. ii. 226f., τι. 11. 70f.]) before 
they removed to Tarsus, where their son was born, is one that probably 
dates from the second century, is independent, and supplements the NT 
statements in a most satisfactory way. If the first person who recorded this 
tradition, very probably Jerome, regarded the taking of Gischala by the 
Romans in 67 A.D. (Jos. Bell. iv. 2. 1-5), ae. perhaps about the year of 
Paul’s death, as the occasion of the captivity of Paul’s parents, it was 
certainly a gross error on his part. But aside from the fact that we do 
not know this certainly, such an error on the part of this reporter would 
not prejudice much the essential truth of the tradition worked over by him. 
The event might very easily have taken place in the year 4 B.c., when 
Galilee suffered severely at the hands of the legions of Varus and his Arab 
auxiliaries; and among others the inhabitants of Sepphoris were made 
captives and slaves (Jos. Ant. xvii. 10.9; Bell. ii. 5.1; cf. the allusion in 
Keim, Gesch. Jesu, i. 318, A. 1[ Eng. trans, 11. 15,n.1]). Thestory thus corrected 
deserves credence for the added reason that in this way it becomes explicable 
why such a strict Pharisaic family should have come to Tarsus; they came to 
Tarsus, just as the original contingent of the Roman Jewish population came 
to Rome, in the condition of prisoners of war and then slaves. As the latter 
for the most part obtained their freedom and at the same time Roman citizen- 


70 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ship (above, p. 61), so Paul’s father must have done, and that, too, before Paul’s 
birth, for Paul was born a Roman citizen (Acts xxii. 25-28, cf. xvi. 378. 
xxill. 27). As such he must also have had a Roman prenomen, nomen, and 
cognomen in this general form: (Marcus Claudius) Paulus. In the inter- 
pretation of a hideous dream, Artemidorus says (Oneiroer. v. 91): “The 
slave receives at his emancipation three names instead of the one which he 
has borne hitherto, taking two names from the master who gives him his 
freedom. The view that Paul took this name in honour of his convert 
Sergius Paulus, was known even to Origen (com. in kom., preef., Delarue, iv. 
460), was spread especially by Jerome (Vir. Jil. v ; ad Philem. 1, Vall. vii. 746 f.), 
and of late has been defended by Krenkel (18); but this view finds no 
support in Acts xiii. 9, where it is said simply that in addition to his Jewish 
name Saul, Paul bore the Roman name Paulus, the name which Luke uses 
thenceforth. Cf. Ἰανναῖον τὸν καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρον, Jos. Ant. xiii. 12.1; also Σίμων 
ὁ καὶ TIerpos (Alecandrin. Inschr. Bull. di arch. erist. 1865, p. 60). Concerning 
this formula in general, see the writer’s note on Ign. Eph. Inser., or Deissmann, 
Bibelst. 182 (Eng. trans. 313). It is still more improbable that the apostle 
exchanged the name Saul for Paul after his conversion ; for Luke applies the 
Hebrew name to him after that event as well as before it. It was natural 
that a Pharisee who, since his son was born a Roman citizen, had to give him 
Roman names, should have given him also a Heb. name, and that Paul should 
have ordinarily borne the latter name asa disciple of the rabbis and a persecutor 
of the Christians in Jerusalem, and on the other hand his Roman cognomen 
as a missionary to the Gentiles. The doubts of Krenkel (20 f.), that an 
orthodox Pharisee should have called his son after king Saul, the persecutor 
of David, are not suflicient’ to cast suspicion upon the statement of Acts. 
Many contemporaries of the apostle in Palestine were called Saul (Bell. ii. 
17. 4, a relative of the house of Herod; Bell. ii, 18. 4, a prominent man in 
Scythopolis); Abba Shaul is a rabbinic authority of the second century 
(Strack, Hinl. in d. Talmud, 84) ; moreover, the female name Shaulah occurs 
in rabbinie circles (Levy, Neuhebr. Lex. iv. 491). The question whether the 
fathers who bestowed these names thought more of king Saul, who was by 
no means a monster, and who like Paul belonged to the tribe of Benjamin 
(Rom, xi. 1; Phil. iii. 5), or of the meaning of the word (“the one asked 
for”), need not be considered. Conjectures as to why the particular name 
Paul was chosen are to be found in a letter of Levy to Delitzsch, Z/L Th. 
1877,8. 12. 

17. (Pp. 51,52.) The question as to what extent Paul shows a knowledge 
of the Hebrew O.T. is in no wise settled by the work of KautzscH, De VTi locis 
@ Paulo apostolo allegatis, 1869, or of VOLLMER, Die alttest. Citate bei Paulus, 1895. 
At the same time, isolated remarks in reply, for which alone there would be 
room here, would not help in its solution. Cf, König, ThLb, 1896, No. 14. 

18. (P.51.) E. Currius, Sitzungsber. der Berliner Akad. 1893, 5. 934: 
“Paul did not acquire Greek as a missionary acquires the language of the 
natives, in order to make himself understood by them as far as might be 
necessary, Paul did not acquire the language for missionary purposes at all, 
but grew up in it.” With the qualification made above in the text, this is 
correct. Blass, Gr. des neutest. Griech 5 5f. (Eng. trans. 2nd ed. 5), finds in 
Paul’s speech before Agrippa, which he regards as “very accurately repro- 


INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 71 


duced,” signs that Paul was in a measure familiar with the finer Attic forms, 
and made use of them when before a select audience. 

19. (P. 52.) Even in early times attention was paid to Paul’s quotations 
from profane literature, Clem. Strom. i. 59 (ef. Ped. τι. 50; Epiph. Her. xlii., 
ed. Pet. p. 362; Jerome, Ep. Ixx ad Magn. ; comm. in Gal. iv., Eph. v., Tit. 1. 
(Vall. i. 426, vii. 471, 647, 706); Socrat. H. E. iii. 16; pseudo-Euthalius 
(Zacagni, Mon. coll. i. 420, 543, 545, 558, 567). Concerning Tit. 1. 12, see 
below, § 35, n. 1. The verse from the Thais of Menander (Fragm. com. gr., 
ed. Meineke, iv. 132), or, according to the Church historian Socrates,’ from 
a tragedy of Euripides (cf. Clem. Strom. i. 59), which Paul appropriates in 
1 Cor. xv. 33, is not, to be sure, quoted by him as the saying of a poet. But, 
on the other hand, we are not to conclude from the fact that the Pauline 
text as handed down is without the metrical form (χρήσθ᾽, as Lachmann 
printed it, instead of χρηστά, the form handed down), that Paul dietated the 
word in unmetrical form, and was not conscious that he was quoting poetry. 
Copyists have very frequently destroyed the metrical form of such quota- 
tions (e.g. Just. Apol. i. 39, γλῶσσα ὀμώμοκεν for γλῶσσ᾽ ὀμώμοχ᾽ in a verse 
of Euripides). In a sacred text, which was to be read in church, anything 
that would remind of a comedy would be disturbing rather than pleasing. 
Yet in later times verses from Menander were inscribed even on Christian 
tombstones (C. I. @. No. 3902r ; Ritter, De compos. tt. christ. 27 ; de Rossi, Inser. 
christ. ii. 1, procem. viil.). In Acts xvii. 28, where ποιητῶν is an addition 
to fit the facts which does not make its appearance until the second recension 
of the text, the idea expressed in any case is that several writers have said 
essentially the same thing. The quotation agrees literally with Aratus, Phat- 
nom. v.5; as also Acts xvii. 25 corresponds to the preceding sentence in 
Aratus, πάντη δὲ θεοῦ κεχρήμεθα πάντες. Cf. also the citation of the Jew, 
Aristobulos, in Eus. Prep. xiii. 12.6; but a quite similar thing is said by 
Cleanthes, Hymn. in Jovem, v. 4 (Mullach, Philos. gree. fragm. i. 150), ἐκ 
σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν. Aratus of Soloi in Cilicia, whither his family probably 
moved from Tarsus, is thought to have composed his Phainomena in Athens 
(see in brief, Knaack in Pauly-Wissowa, RE, ii. 394); Cleanthes was for 
years a disciple of Zeno in Athens, and then head of the Stoic school there 
until his death. Paul could therefore reckon them both among the Athenian 
poets. Since both were Stoics, he could also say with reference to the Stoics 
present (xvii. 18), τινὲς τῶν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν. 

20. (Ρ. 53.) With the statement in the text concerning Tarsus (above, 
p. 54), ef. Strabo, xiv. p. 673. That writer also mentions a considerable 
number of well-known Stoies and other philosophers also and of philologists 
who came from Tarsus. Cf. Lightfoot, Ep. to the Phil., 3rd ed. p. 301 ff., 
ibid. 308; Bibl. Essays, 205f. Concerning the time of waiting in Tarsus, ef. 
the Chronological Survey, Part ΧΙ, and also Skizzen, 67, 69. 

21. (P. 56.) Jos. Scaniamr, who in his Animadv. in chron. Eusebii after 
the Thes. temp. 1606, p. 124, ed. 1658, p. 134, reproduced correctly the ancient 
interpretation (above, p. 60) of Ἑλληνισταί, Acts vi. 1, nowhere to my knowledge 
speaks of Hellenistic language. On the contrary, Jon. Drusius, Annot. in NT, 
1612, on Acts vi. 1 (Critic? sacri, Frankf. 1696, tom. iv. 2193) writes : ‘“Higraca 
biblia in synagogis legebant et greece seiebant, peculiart dialecto utentes, quam 
hellenisticam vocant, cujus frequens mentio in his libris.” On the analogy of 


72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


οἱ σοφισταί (sc. τέχνη, ἐπιστήμη), derived from ἡ σοφιστική, we might have had 
οἱ Ἑλληνισταί, formed from 7 ἑλληνιστικὴ διάλεκτος ; but such is not the case. 
Further, since Luke, who in the extant literature is the first writer and the 
only one for a long period to use this word, unquestionably understands by 
Ἑλληνισταί Jews, it did not seem unfitting to call the Greek used by such 
Jews Hellenistic. But this limitation of the concept lies merely in the his- 
torical setting here. In itself the word ‘EAAnvorai refers to all non-Hellenes 
who speak Greek or who in general have adopted Greek customs and ways 
of thinking. Indeed, the intrans. ἑλληνίζειν taken alone means simply “to 
speak Greek,” and in general “to appear as a Greek”; yet it lies in the 
nature of things that it is used only where there is a contrast to other 
languages (Luc. Philopseudes, 16, ἑλληνίζων ἢ Bapßapilov), and hence as a 
rule only of non-Greeks (Xenoph. Anab. vii.3.25 ; ARschines, c. Otesiph. 54 of 
Demosthenes with reference to his Scythian grandmother, βάρβαρος ἑλληνίξζων 
τῇ φωνῇ), just as ῥωμαΐζειν denotes Roman ways of thinking on the part of non- 
Romans (Jos. Bell. ii. 20. 3), and ἰουδαΐζειν Jewish manner of life on the part 
of non-Jews (Gal. ii. 14). Moreover, the transitive and occasionally passive 
ἑλληνίζειν (Thue. ii. 68; Jos. Ant. i. 6.1) and ἀφελληνίζειν (Philo, above, p. 
59, n. 3) must everywhere mean simply to make Greek a person or thing that 
is not Greek; cf. “Germanise,” “ Anglicise,” and similar terms. So also 
ἑλληνισμός means, as a rule, Greek ways adopted by non-Greeks. We are not 
justified by such passages as2 Macc. iv. 13 (above, p- 58, n, 2, line 4) in limiting 
this concept to Greek language, culture, and customs only so far as they were 
appropriated by Jews; we must rather apply the term Hellenism to all the 
Greek culture spread abroad since Alexander’s time among the barbarian 
peoples, and thereby modified according to their individual peculiarities. 
On the same principle, dialectus hellenistica must denote all Greek spoken by 
barbarians (Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, Phrygians, Scythians) with its conse- 
quent modifications in each case. As a matter of fact, the term “Hellen- 
istic” has often been used in this sense, and, what is altogether confusing, 
the Hebraistic colouring of the Greek written by Jews has even been con- 
trasted with Hellenistic, and in the works written by Jews in Greek the 
Hebraisms as a rule have been distinguished as exceptions from the Hellen- 
istic used elsewhere in them. If a writer is unwilling to give up the un- 
fortunate concept of the dialectus or lingua hellenistica, he should state clearly 
in the preface to the work in which he is going to use the term whether he 
employs it in the narrow sense which Drusius gave it, or in the wider sense 
so common to-day, In the former case, Hebraisms would be just the char- 
acteristic marks of that peculiaris dialectus. In the latter case, the Greek 
written by Jews would be a variety within that species of Greek speech 
which people choose to call “Hellenistic.” Likewise this variety, in dis- 
tinction, say, from the Greek which Copts (Egyptians) wrote, would be recog- 
nised by its Hebrew or Aramaic colouring; for in proportion as Jews have 
been able to divest themselves of their national peculiarities in the use of 
the Greek, they have approached or fully adopted the common Greek, 
whether that was the cultured literary language or the vulgar colloquial 
of their time, 


11. 
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 


§ 3. THE DESTINATION OF THE LETTER INDICATED 
BY THE GREETING. 


REGARDING the origin of this Epistle, there is no tradition 
whose certain age or apparent originality makes it of use 
as a guide in the investigation. Though the document 
itself is in the form of a letter, it contains very little 
which can be connected with events of which we have 
knowledge from other sources. With the exception of 
the author (i. 1), mention is made of no person living at 
the time when the letter was written ; nor is there notice 
of any historical event which had taken place in the im- 
mediate past, nor reference to any event that had hap- 
pened in the life of the author or of the readers (n. 1). 
Nothing is said which indicates the abode of the author 
or the place where the readers lived. Here, as in the 
case of all the N.T. Epistles, the address placed on the 
outside of the letter, and designed to assist the messenger 
in delivering it into the proper hands, has not been pre- 
served (n. 2)-** On the other hand, unlike some of the N.T. 
Epistles (1 John, Heb.), James does retain the salutation 
at the beginning of the letter, which in ancient literature 
contained both the address to the reader, as is customary 
in modern letters, and as a rule also the writer's signa- 
ture. Doubtless in many instances it happened that per- 
sons receiving letters did not know from whom they came 


until they opened them and saw the writer's name in the 
73 


74 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


greeting. On the other hand, as a general rule, the address 
to the reader served no such practical purpose, but, like the 
greeting proper with which the superscription was gene- 
rally, concluded, it could be used to express in various 
ways the esteem in which the person addressed was held 
and the way in which the writer felt toward him. Con- 
sequently, in greetings of this kind, we generally find, 
in addition to the mention of the person addressed by 
name, and where necessary of his place of residence also, 
elements of a purely ideal character (n. 3). There are 
instances in the N.T. of greetings where the designation 
of the person addressed is altogether of this kind, as, in 
fact, is the case with Jas. 1. 1. 

Hopeless as the undertaking may seem in the absence 
of every other clue, we are compelled, provisionally at least, 
to seek a historical and geographical background for the 
letter by an exegetical discussion of the words ταῖς δώδεκα 
φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ Siactopa. Taken alone, the words ai 
δώδεκα φυλαί can hardly mean anything but the Jewish 
people, and the Jewish people in their entirety (n. 4). 
But throughout the entire letter it is clearly presupposed, 
both by implication and by express statement (ii. 1), that 
the readers as a body accept Jesus as the Messiah. Even 
if this were not so, it hardly needs proof that what we 
have here is not an epistolary address to the entire Jewish 
nation (n. 5). Naturally, therefore, one looks to the 
accompanying ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ to supply the exacter 
definition which the conception requires. That this modi- 
fying phrase gives a characterisation of the’ readers’ 
situation which cannot be logically dispensed with, and 
which is by no means unimportant for the determination 
of the conception itself, is elear from the conditions 
existing in apostolic and post-apostolie times (n..6). At 
that time no one could say that the Jewish nation as such 
was living in ἃ dispersion, either as regards its condition 
or its location, nor is any such statement made. Ne 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 75 


matter how largely the Jews were living outside of Pales- 
tine, and no matter how widely they were scattered, the 
nation retained its fatherland. Long after Jerusalem was 
destroyed, and even after the still more stringent measures 
adopted by Hadrian, Jews and Jewish Christians called 
Palestine “the land of Israel,” and so it is spoken of 
to-day (n. 7). Jews living abroad, such as Philo, for 
example, nevertheless considered Jerusalem, ‘“‘ where stood 
the temple of the Most High God,” their capital (e. Place. vii; 
Leg. ad Car. xxxvi). The high priests ruling in Jerusalem 
treated Palestine, with its land and people, as their domain 
(John xi. 48), and Jews living in Palestine were accustomed 
to speak of their countrymen living abroad as the diaspora 
among the Greeks (John vii. 35), as the exiles in Babylon 
and other lands, in contrast to themselves who lived in 
the land of their fathers and constituted the nation (n. 7). 
Consequently no author informed at all as to the facts 
could say that the Jewish nation was living in the diaspora. 
On the other hand, if it is assumed that someone hostile 
to the Jewish nation made use of this exaggerated and 
awkward expression (instead of some such phrase as ταῖς 
κατὰ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην διεσπαρμέναις) in order to direct 
attention to the sorry plight into which the Jews had 
fallen, one is still at a loss to understand why he makes 
it include his Christian readers also, and how he could 
have omitted to indicate by a word the religious condition 
which distinguished his readers from Israel as a whole. 
These objections retain their full force also against the 
interpretation, often attempted, by which it is maintained 
that, so far as the words are concerned, James does address 
the Jews living outside of Palestine, but really means 
the Jewish Christians living outside of Palestine (n. 8). 
And besides, this construction stands in absolute contra- 
diction to the idea of the “ Twelve Tribes” which indicates 
specifically the Jewish people with special emphasis upon 
their entirety. The interpretation is right only in its 


76 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


recognition of the fact that ταῖς ἐν τ. 8 is one of those 
appositives or attributes which complete the idea and at 
the same time express a contrast to another determination 
of it which might be possible, or which is assumed to be 
known (n. 6). Here the contrast is not between individual 
Jews, or single tribes of Israel, and the remaining Jews 
or tribes, but between the “ Twelve Tribes” which live in 
the dispersion, so constituting a homeless diaspora, and 
another “ Twelve Tribes” of which this is not true. It 
is only by such an assumption that we get a natural 
explanation of the omission of the usual τοῦ ‘Icpanr after 
ταῖς δ. φ. (n. 4). This phrase is replaced by one which, 
while on the one hand retaining the comparison with the 
Jewish people, on the other brings the object which it 
describes. into sharp contrast with the Jewish people. 
Unlike the twelve tribes who have Palestine for their 
native land, Jerusalem for their capital, and the temple 
as a centre of religious worship, the twelve tribes ad- 
dressed in the letter have no earthly fatherland, nor any 
capital upon earth, but always, no matter where they may 
be settled, live scattered in a strange world, like the Jewish 
exiles in Mesopotamia or Egypt. It is no new doctrine 
concerning a twofold Israel which James develops here; 
this would be entirely out of place in a greeting. He 
assumes that his readers are familiar with the general 
thought which he has in mind; and more than this, that 
the language which he uses to express the idea will be 
understood at once. It is not likely that he was mis- 
taken (n. 9). It is only for us moderns, before we have 
made a careful examination of the historical conditions 
under which the letter was written, that the greeting 
can have a double meaning. The expression, the twelve 
tribes in the diaspora, may mean either the entire body 
of Christians living at the time, the sense in which Peter 
and Paul use practically identical expressions, or it may 
mean the believing Israel, the entire body of Jewish 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES oF 


Christians,—a sense in which Paul sometimes uses expres- 
sions of this kind. Between these two meanings the 
letter itself must decide. It is to be remembered, how- 
ever, that there was a time when such an alternative did 
not exist, because the believing Israel constituted the 
entire Church (n. 10). 


1. (P. 73.) Some writers have thought that they found in Jas, v. 11 a 
reference to the death of Jesus as an event that had taken place before the eyes 
of the readers. This is the view of as late a writer as W. Schmidt, Lehrbegr. 
des Jakobus, 76. But since in the same verse 6 κύριος undoubtedly refers to 
God, κύριος without the article, occurring as it does just a few words before, 
cannot possibly mean Jesus. Where there is a distinction, it is in the reverse 
direction, κύριος meaning God, and 6 κύριος, Jesus (Jas. v. 8, 10, 14,15), If the 
death of Jesus is to be understood, then we-must-zemember that this was in 
no way witnessed by “the twelve tribes in the dispersion,” that no one at all 
saw the resurrection, and that only a few beheld the ascension. There is no 
intelligible reference to the patience of Jesus or to His blessed departure con- 
tained in rd τέλος. In fact, the juxtaposition of ὑπομονή and τέλος (cf. Matt. 
x. 22, xxiv. 13; Jas. i. 4) makes it clear that what is meant is the end in 
keeping with Job’s patience and constancy, the end which God the Lord 
put to His testing of Job. On logical grounds the reading ἴδετε has much to 
commend it; and if this is the true reading, there should be a heavy mark of 
punctuation before it. It was so understood even by Greek commentators : 
Leontius, 6. Aphthardoe. et Nestor. 111. 13 ; Cramer, Cat. viii. 35. Among more 
recent writers, see Hofmann, ad loc. 

2. (P. 73.) The salutations which stand at the head of most letters of 
antiquity preserved to us in literature are not to be confused with the address 
of the letter, the inscription written upon the outside of the sealed Epistle. 

ong the Agypt. Urkunden aus den Berliner Museen, which have been 
Min in parts since 1892, as in other colleetions of similar content, 
there are not a few letters, mostly of a business character and dating from 
the first century A.D., which illustrate this relation, and which are instructive 
in other ways also. No. 37 of the 15th Aug. 51 (ce. about contemporaneous — 
with James) has at the top of the enclosed letter Mvorapiov Στοτύητι τῷ ἰδίῳ 
πλεῖστα χαίρειν, and on the outside has the address Στοτόητε Λεσώνῃ eis τὴν 
νῆσον tr... No. 93, Πτολεμαις (sic) "ABov(rt) τῷ τιμιωτάτ(ῳ) πατρὶ πλί(εῖστα) 
χαίρειν, the outside address ᾿Αβοῦτι οὐετρανῷ x(aipeıw) (apa) IIroX(epaiov) υἱοῦ. 
Sometimes the address on the outside names also the place of destination : 
No. 423, eis Φιλαδελφίαν ᾿Επιμάχῳ ἀπὸ ᾿Ἀπίωνος υἱοῦ After this a still more 
precise direction to the bearer, introduced by ἀπόδος (“to be delivered at”). 
This form of the address is particularly common : Nos. 38, 164, 261, 332, 435, 
523, 530, Oxyrhyn. Pap. ii. 293, No 293 of 27 a.p. Near as address and saluta- 
tion often stand to one another, yet these examples confirm the fact that there 
is a distinction—and that a self-evident one—between the two, the address 
being primarily a directiop for the bearer, though occasionally informing the 
receiver from whom the letter comes before he opens it, the salutation, on the 


78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


other hand, being an address and greeting directed to the recipient of the 
letter. Chrysostom (Montfaucon, iii. 55) remarks that on receiving a letter 
one is not wont to read immediately what is within, ἀλλὰ πρότερον τὴν 
ἔξωθεν ἐπιγραφὴν ἐπερχόμεθα καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνης μανθάνομεν καὶ τὸν πέμψαντα καὶ 
τὸν ὀφείλοντα ὑποδέξασθαι. Since the address served its purely practical pur- 
pose at the moment of delivery, it is not to be wondered at that it fell away 
in the literary transmission of letters. Especially with more voluminous 
letters consisting of several sheets, in ancient as in modern times, the address, 
together with the enfolding sheet (envelope) on which it was written, in most 
cases probably was soon destroyed. The salutation, on the other hand, which 
in case of proper delivery of the letter served no practical end, and hence 
oceasionally could even be omitted altogether, was regularly transmitted in 
the literature together with the other essential and constituent: parts of the 
letter. Of the three letters in the Aristeas legend (Jos. Ant. xii. 2, 4-6), the 
first has only an address, the second and third have only a salutation. Of 
the three regular parts of ancient salutations (name of the writer of the letter 
in the nominative, name_of the recipient in the dative, and greeting), the 
third had among the Greeks from ancient times usually the form χαίρειν, 
the form employed in Jas. i, 1, but only twice elsewhere in the N .T., Acts 
XV. 23, xxiii. 26; cf. the six letters of king Philip (Zpistologr. gr., ed, Hercher, 
461 ff.). The remark of Artemidorus, Oneiroer. iii, 44, ἴδιον yap πάσης ἐπι- 
στολῆς τὸ χαῖρε καὶ ἔρρωσο (cf. Acts xv. 28, 29), is not to be taken literally 
with reference to the opening salutation ; for unless the greeting took the 
form of a grammatically independent sentence, the writer’s designation of 
himself in the third person required, instead of the χαῖρε usual in oral 
address (seldom so in letters, Barn. Epist. ; Berl. ἂρ. Urk. 435, 821; Oxyrh, 
Pap. i. 189, No. 122; Faydm towns, p. 285, No. 129), the elliptical infinitive 
χαίρειν dependent on λέγει, εὔχεται understood (cf. 2 John 10, 11) and often 
strengthened by πλεῖστα, cf. Berl. dg. Urk. 37, 93, 623 ; Ign. ad Polye. (address) ; 
in the other letters of Ignatius except ad Phalad. there are Christian em- 
bellishments. Other Greek forms, such as εὖ πράττειν, preferred by Plato to 
χαίρειν, it is alleged, and employed in the pseudo-Platonic letters (Hercher, 
492 ff., especially Ep. 3, p. 496; cf. Plato, Charmides, 164), and ὑγιαίνειν (Bal. 
dg. Urk. 775, 794), which writers as early as Pythagoras and Kpicurus are said 
to have used commonly (Lucian, de lapsu in salut. 4-6, cf. Pearson, Annot. 
in epist. Ign., ed. Smith, 6; Bernays, Lucian und die Kyniker, 3f., 88 £.), 
did not pass over into common Christian usage ; cf., however, Acts xv. 29, 
εὖ πράξετε, and 3 John 2, εὐοδοῦσθαι καὶ ὑγιαίνειν, also as early a passage as 
2 Mace. i. 10. 

3. (P. 74.) We find prosaic mention of place united to ideal elements in 
all Epistles addressed to local Churches, ö.e. in those of Paul except the private 
letters and Eph., also in Rev. i. 4; 1 Pet. ; Clem. 1 Cor. ; in the letters of 
Ignatius, of Polycarp, and of the Churches of Smyrna (Mart. Polye.) and of 
Lyons (Eus, H. #. v. 1. 8). Every external indication of the recipient, such 
as would have been necessary for the address of a letter, is lacking in Eph. 
i. 1 (§ 28, n. 4); 2 Pet. i. 1; Jude 1; 2 John 1, and probably also Rom. i. 7, 

4. (Pp. 74,76.) Usually we find (τοῦ) Ἰσραήλ or words of similar meaning 
appended to ai δώδεκα φυλαί : Ex. xxiv. 4; Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30; Rev. 
xxi, 12; Protev. Jac. 1. 1; cf. Acts xxvi. 7, τὸ δωδεκάφυλον ἡμῶν ; Clem. 1 Cor, 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 79 


lv. 6, τὸ δωδεκάφυλον τοῦ Ἰσρ. ; Protev. Jac. 1. 3, τὴν ωδεκάφυλον τ. "lop. (see 
the variants in Tischendorf, p. 3; Thilo, Cod. ap. 166); Test. patr. Napht. 5, 
τὰ δώδεκα σκῆπτρα τοῦ lop. ; Clem. 1 Cor. xxxi. 4, τὸ δωδεκάσκηπτρον τοῦ “lap. ; 
Just. Dial. exxvi, ὑμῶν αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί. The context alone can render such 
an addition unnecessary, e.g. Ex. xxxix. 14; Sibyll. iii. 249. This is not 
practicable, however, at the beginning of a letter, especially of such a one as 
James, which at all events is not addressed to the Jewish people. Conse- 
quently Jas. i. 1 is distinguished from all the other passages cited by its lack 
of a genitive with ai 6. @. Further, it must be borne in mind that since the 
political separation of the Israelitish people and State, and especially since the 
return of but a fraction of the nation from the Exile, ai δώδεκα φ. τ. Ἴσρ. was 
synonymous with an emphatic πᾶσαι αἱ φ. τ. “lop. (Josh. xxiv. 1; Judg. xxi. 
5-8) or πᾶς Ἰσραήλ (2 Chron. xxix. 24, cf. xxx. 1, 5 ; Rom. xi. 26), cf. Ezra vi. 17 
or 1 Kings xviii. 31 with xiv. 21, or Ezek. xlvii. 13 with xlviii. 19, or 
Sir. xxxiii. 11 (συνάγαγε πάσας φυλὰς Ἰακώβ) with xliv. 23, or Rev. xxi. 12 
with vii. 4. Over against the statement “All Israel (9x7 92) has a share in 
the future world” (Mishnah Sanhedrin x. 1), Rabbi Akiba declared : “ The 
ten tribes will not return,” in reply to which Rabbi Eliezer, plainly in de- 
pendence upon Isa. viii. 23-ix. 1, asserted that at last the light would arise 
again upon them also (Sanh. x. 3). It goes without saying that it would have 
been quite impossible for a Jew and Christian of ancient times to designate 
as the people of the twelve tribes a part of the Jewish people, such as the 
Jews of the diaspora ; and even if this were not self-evident, it would be 
proved most clearly by the Apocalypse of Baruch, written probably c. 80 
A.D. Viewed from the standpoint of the time after the first destruction 
of Jerusalem, the nation divides itself into three parts: (1) the two and a 
half tribes of the former kingdom of Judah, which were deported to Babylon ; 
(2) the nine and a half tribes of the former northern kingdom, which were 
deported farther toward the north-east ; and (3) the few from all twelve tribes 
who remained behind among the ruins of Zion (Ixxvii. 1-19, Ixxviii. 1, 
Ixxx. 4f., ef. i. 2, Ixii. 5, Ixiii. 3, Ixiv. 5). Including these three divisions, 
Baruch writes, Ixxviii. 4: “Ecce colligati sumus nos omnes duodecim tribus 
uno vineulo.” On this point cf. the fantastic speculations about the lost ten, 
or nine and a half, tribes in 2 Esdr. xiii. 40 ff., and in the writings of the 
Christian Commodianus, Instr. ii. 1, Apol. 941-998, ed. Dombart. See also 
Zöckler, Bibl. und Kircheng. Studien, v. 74-114. 

5. (P. 74.) This was the view of M. Baumgarten, Apostelgesch. ii. 2. 121. 
So far as the formal correctness of the exegesis of Jas. i. 1 is concerned, this is 
certainly to be preferred to the view of H. Grotius on Jas. i. 1 and of Credner, 
Einl. 595, that the letter is addressed to “Jews outside of Palestine” quite 
aside from their division into Christian and unbelieving Jews ; and’also to 
the view of Spitta, that the letter was written by a Jew and addressed to the 
Jews in the diaspora who had not been touched at all by Christianity as 
yet; seen. 8 and § 8. But what was said above in the text is a sufficient 
answer to Baumgarten as well. 

6. (Pp. 74, 76.) The history of the interpretation of Jas. 1. 1 compels us to 
recall some rather trivial considerations. We must decide whether ταῖς ev τῇ 
διασπορᾷ belongs to that class of appositives and attributives which could be 
omitted without impairing the logical and grammatical completeness of the 


80 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


concept, or whether we have here really a closer definition and limitation 
of the concept, a contrast being thus expressed to something else under the 
more general class to which the concept might be referred if it were not for 
this closer specification. Examples of the first kind are Jas. ii. 25, ἡ πόρνη, 
Matt. i. 6, τὸν βασιλέα ; Matt. xxi. 11, ὁ ἀπὸ Ναζαρέθ; Acts xxiv. 5, πᾶσιν τοῖς 
Ιουδαίοις τοῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην (“all Jews” are nothing more nor less than 
“the Jews in the whole world”); Mark iv. 31, in like manner, πάντων τῶν 
σπερμάτων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Examples of the second kind are Rom. x. 5, τὴν 
ἐκ τοῦ νόμου (cf. Phil. iii. 9); 2 Cor. i. 1, τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ ; Acts xi. 22, 
Xv. 23, τοῖς ἐξ ἐθνῶν, in contrast to the writers and their Jewish fellow be- 
lievers. In many cases, such as Gal. i. 22 (Is ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ in contrast to 
unbelieving Jewish communities ?), the decision may remain doubtful, but 
not so in Jas. i. 1. 

7. (P. 75.) In the Pesachhagyadah (ed. D. Cassel, 5): “ Here this year, next 
year in the land of Israel.” So in Matt. ii. 20f., and very commonly in the 
Mishnah, e.g. Baba Kamma vii. 7; Jebamoth xvii. 7, and above, p. 22, π.. 4: 
Also in direct contrast to the diaspora in Babylonia, e.g. Bab. Sanhedr. 38a. 
Διασπορά, like the corresponding 9713, m>3, xmo3 (Levy, Neuhebr. Lex. i. 332, 
Jastrow, 221, 247), had originally the abstract meaning “act or state of dis- 
persion, banishment from home” (Jer. xv. 7; Dan. xii. 2; LXX Ps. Sol. 
ix. 2; Clem. Hom. iii. 44; so also 1 Pet. 1. 1, § 38, n. 5); it then came to 
mean “the territory in which the banished ones are dispersed” (Judith v. 19 § 
so also Jas, i. 1 and John vii. 35, since we should there read eis, not πρὸς 
τὴν διασπορὰν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ; cf. Paralip. Jeremie: Βαροὺχ ἀπέστειλεν 
εἰς τὴν διασπορὰν τῶν ἐθνῶν, cited by Wetstein, i. 888, on John vii. 35, not to 
be found in Ceriani, Monum. v. 1-18) ; finally, it meant “the Jews dwelling 
in scattered communities outside the home land (Deut. xxviii. 25, Cod. B, 
ἔσῃ διασπορά; Isa. xlix. 6; 2 Mace, i. 27; Ps. Sol. viii. 34 f.), the same who in 
Gamaliel’s letters are called “sons of the diaspora,” above, pp. 10, 33. 

8. (P. 75.) This was probably the meaning of Didymus (Migne, xxxix. 
1749), “ Judzis seribit in dispersione constitutis,” with the note appended that 
this could be interpreted also of the spiritual Israel. Most significant is the 
way in which pseudo-Euthalius, in order to gain the desired meaning, improves 
upon the clumsy author (Zacagni, Coll. mon. i. 486), τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν δώδεκα 
φυλών διασπαρεῖσιν καὶ πιστεύσασιν eis τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν “I. Xp. Even apart 
from this additional assumption that they were Christian Jews, the mode of 
expression presupposed in James would be hardly more sensible than ex- 
pressions, say, like this; “that German nation which lives in America.” If 
he had been speaking of real Jews, James must have written τοῖς ἐν τῇ 
διασπορᾷ ᾿Ιουδαίοις or ἀδελφοῖς ; cf. 2 Mace. i. 1 (also i. 10), τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς τοῖς 
κατ᾽ Αἴγυπτον Ἰουδαίοις ; Apoe. Baruchi, Ixxviii. 2, “ fratribus in captivitatem 
abductis” ; see also the letters of Gamaliel, above, pp. 10,33. To this day the 
expression used by James as a rule is grossly misinterpreted : (1) αἱ δ. d.= 
“the Jewish people in its entirety” ; (2) as limited by ταῖς ev τ. 6. =the Jews 
dwelling outside of Palestine ; (3)=Christians, but only as determined from 
the contents of the Epistle. Cf. the commentaries of Kern, 79; Wiesinger, 49; 
Beyschlag, 43. This seems to be the view of Mayor also, who, in his 
introduction, ex., refers us to his comment on Jas. i. 1, p. 30, and in his 
comment on that passage refers to the introduction, without, in either place, 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 81 


going into a very thorough discussion of the concepts. Recently (1896) this 
position has been taken by Spitta with the greatest frankness, Zur Gesch. u. 
Literatur des Urchristentums, ii. 14, though he abandons the idea that either 
author or readers are Christians ; see below, § 8. 

9. (P. 76.) Since this idea is important in several questions of N.T. intro- 
duction, its development must be set forth briefly here. Even the Baptist, 
gathering suggestions as he did from O.T. prophecies, conceived at least as 
possible a future race of Abraham, into which non-Jews would be received in 
place of unworthy Israelites (Matt. iii. 9 ; Luke iii.8). In the mouth of Jesus 
this thought became the prediction of a future actuality (Matt. viii. 11 ‘ig wsaig 
9£.; Luke xiii. 28 f., xiv. 21f.; John x. 16, xii. 32, ef. xii. 20; also on the 
negative side, John viii. 33-40; Matt. xv. 13). Jesus spoke of this future 
fellowship as of another ἔθνος in contrast with the Jewish people led by the 
high priests and rabbis (Matt. xxi. 43). There is, of course, no need of proof 
to show that He meant His readers to understand by this, not some other par- 
ticular nation, the Greek, ¢.g., in which ease all non-Greeks, His own disciples 
at that time among the rest, would have been excluded from it, but rather 
the same people of God whom He elsewhere called His Church, and represented 
as a house to be built by Him (Matt. xvi. 18, xviii. 17). The thought that 
the Christian Church, composed of men of various nationalities, and based 
not on birth at all, but on faith in Jesus, was a new people of God, the true 
race of Abraham, or a spiritual Israel, was consequently implanted in His 
Church from the beginning, and was developed by it in manifold directions. 
Indeed, an instance of this is the frequent likening of Christ’s redemption of 
mankind or of His Church to the deliverance of Israel from Egypt (1 Cor. 
v. 7, x. 1ff.; Rev. i. 5f.,v.9f.; 1 Pet. i. 15-20; Jude 5), a comparison which 
found expression also at every celebration of the Lord’s Supper, this feast 
serving as the antitype of the Passover meal. Paul especially developed the 
thought that the Church, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, was the 
legitimate continuation of the people of God which began with Abraham 
(Rom. 4 ; Gal. iii. 7-29; 1 Cor. x. 1) ; or, to put it in another way, that the 
Gentiles, who before were excluded from citizenship in Israel and from the 
sphere of saving revelation, were now, so far as they had become believers, 
incorporated into the holy people (Eph. ii. 11-22), or, like wild olive branches, 
were grafted into the good olive tree (Rom. xi. 17-24). While in these 
passages Paul represents Christianity as the continuation of the O.T. Church, 
being simply an enlargement of Israel through the reception of believing 
Gentiles, in other passages, written from a different point of view, the great 
schism which Jesus produced in His own nation finds its appropriate ex- 
pression. It is, after all, not the Jewish nation, but only a small fraction of 
it, which has united with the believing Gentiles to form a new people of 
God. In contrast to the Jewish people, the vastly greater part of which will 
have nothing to do with the gospel, and, like Ishmael, is begotten according 
to the flesh, since it is connected with Abraham only through bodily descent 
and other externalities. Christianity is like Isaac, who was begotten accord- 
ing to the promise, 1.6., according to the Spirit, but was persecuted by his 
brother (Gal. iv. 21-31). The thought that the Christian Church, in contrast 
to the Jewish people, is the spiritual Israel, is so usual with Paul, that he 
once tacitly presupposes it, and quite incidentally calls the Jewish people 

VOL. I. 


82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with its eultus “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor. x. 18 ; cf. Buttmann, 
Neutest. Grammatik, 81 [Eng. trans. 92]). This spiritual Israel also has: its 
metropolis, which likewise can be termed Jerusalem. It lies, however, not in 
Palestine, but in heaven, where the ascended King of the spiritual Israel is 
enthroned (Gal. iv. 26, cf. Heb. xii. 22), There the members of the true 
Israel are enrolled, even while still living upon earth (Phil. iv. 3, cf. Luke x. 
20) ; there is the proper seat of the commonwealth, of which they are citizens 
even here (Phil. iii, 20), and there they are received if they die before the 
return of the Lord (2 Tim. iv. 18). The reverse side of this view is that 
Christians here have no sure and abiding dwelling-place (Heb. xiii. 14) and 
no citizenship. Peter gave especial prominence to this idea, not only trans- 
ferring to the Gentile Churches all Israel’s titles of honour (1 Pet. ii. 9f., cf. 1. 
15), but also likening their condition in the world to that of those Jews who 
are scattered abroad far from their native land, calling them sojourners in 
distinction from the citizens of the cities and lands in which they dwelt, or 
strangers who tarry only for a time, in contrast to those who live upon this 
earth as if they could remain here always (i. 1, 17, ii. 11; ef. § 38). It is to 
Peter that most of the later Church usage with regard to παροικεῖν, παροικία is 
related: Clem. 1 Cor. (address); 2 Cor. v.1,5; Polye. ad Phil. (address) ; Mart. 
Polye. (address) ; Dion. Corinth. in Eus. H. E. iv. 23.5 ; Epist. Lugd. in Kus. 
v. 1.3; Apollonius in Eus, v. 18.9; Irenzeus in Eus. v. 24, 14, Indeed, the 
connection is traceable even down to our attenuated use of “ parish.” More+ 
over, the concept of the διασπορά is further developed in Iren. i. 10. 1 (Svea map- 
μένη); ii. 11,8; Can. Mur. 77 (GK, ii. 7, 142). Hermas, Sim. ix. 17, in a 
manner quite characteristic of him and yet often misunderstood, applied the 
figure of the twelve tribes to.all mankind as the field of mission work and 
the source of the materials for the building of the Church ; ef. the writer’s 
Hirt des Hermas, 223-232. On the other hand, Hermas represents the Church 
as the true Israel, making Michael Israel’s guardian angel, the chief overseer of 
the Church, Sim. viii. 3. 3; ef. the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, 230 f., 264 f. 
But the thought of the spiritual Israel was developed in still another direction ; 
and here again we must look to the many-sided apostle. Inasmuch as Paul did 
not abandon his belief in the ideal continuance and future revival of his nation 
in its calling as leader in religious history, he was forced to inquire after a 
real ground and pledge of this belief. He found the answer in the fact that 
God, in accordance with the O.T. promise, has even yet left to His people a 
remnant in which the people as a people is preserved for this its calling 
(Rom. ix. 29). Every single Israelite who is converted to Christ is a practical 
proof of the fact that God has not cast off this people for ever ; and there are 
thousands of such Jews. The seven thousand of Elijah’s time is a typical 
expression for their numbers, but falls far below the reality (Rom. xi. 1-7, 
ef. Acts xxi, 20). These Jews who believe in Christ, who through the Spirit 
have received a circumcision of the heart, are the real Jews (Rom. ii. 29, 
ef. Phil. iii, 3), the “Israel of God,” which, when Christians in general are 
referred to, can be especially singled out as a narrower circle (Gal. vi. 16). 
Corresponding to this, the spiritual fatherhood of Abraham in its relation te 
Christianity is twofold ; he is the father of all believing Gentiles, but in an 
especial and more limited sense by reason of circumcision he is the father of 
Christian Jews (Rom, iv. 11 f.). Whether this thought is expressed also in 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 83 


Rev. vii. 1-8 (xxi. 12) is not so easy to determine, There is no need of proof, 
however, to show that it must have been an exceedingly natural thought for 
every Christian of Jewish birth who was as lovingly attached to his people 
as were Paul and James. 

10. (P. 77.) An essentially correct interpretation of the “address” is to 
be found in Thiersch, Die Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, 3te Aufl. 109; a more 
thorough demonstration is given by Hofmann, vii. 3. 8 ff., 159 ff. 


8 4. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE READERS. 


There is no reason to doubt that the readers whom 
James addresses were, without exception, Christians. In 
ii, 1 they are exhorted to hold their faith in Christ without 
respect of persons; and there is nothing to indicate that 
this exhortation is intended for only a part of those to 
whom he is writing. The confession which James makes so 
frankly for himself at the very beginning of the letter (1. 1) 
is likewise their confession; the only question is whether 
they are willing to live in accordance with it. They have 
implanted in them the word of truth, by which God has 
begotten them and the author alike to a new life (1. 18, 21). 
How long they had been Christians, and through whose 
influence they had been converted, is not indicated. 

Even with the exact meaning of the salutation left 
undecided (§ 3, p. 76f.), it is yet clear from it that the 
letter was not intended for a single local Church, but for 
a large number of Churches, widely separated. Where 
the author speaks of elders of the Church, he does so only 
as an example, and means the elders of the particular 
Church where a case of serious illness, such as he has in 
mind, may occur (v. 14). If, as is perfectly possible, 
συναγωγὴ ὑμῶν in ii. 2 means a building and not the 
coming together of the congregation for worship, or the 
congregation as gathered from time to time for worship 
(n. 1), the omission of the article shows that a number of 
sech buildings belonged to the readers. As a matter of 
fact, the plural κριτήρια in 11. 6 indicates that in the region 
where the readers lived there were a number of tribunals, 


84 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Some of the readers lived in eities, others in the country, 
Besides ΩΣ landowners and the day labourers in 
their employ (v. 1-6), there were merchants among them 
whose business ve them from city to city, often requir- 
ing a residence of a year or more (iv. 18-17). On the 
other hand, without assuming at all that James meant 
his reproofs to apply alike to all his readers, one does get 
from the letter the impression that the readers were a 
homogeneous body, representing about the same grade of 
Seen having similar tastes, and exposed to the 
same moral dangers. Theoretical knowledge of the way 
of aed vation is everywhere presupposed: (1. 18, 21, ai, 1, 
iv. 17), and no effort is made to instruct them further in 
this regard. Many of them boast their faith, make 
capital of their religious knowledge (ii. 14, iii. 13), ex- 
hibit a passionate zeal for teaching others, and give free 
rein to their tongues, even yielding bo nude curses in 
their anger at those who prove to be unteachable (i. 18 £, 
26, ili, I-18, n. 2). In fact, among themselves they are 
more inclined to revile and curse than they are to help 
one another by prayer and loving admonition (iv. 11 f, 
v. 16, 19 f.). At the same time they are zealous in the 
fulfilment of formal religious duties (n, 3). There is no 
want of prayer, but an entire lack of the energy of faith 
and sincerity of motive, without which prayer works no 
outward effeet and brings no inward peace (1. 6-8, iv. 
3, 8, cf. v. 15-18). The most serious defect which the 
author discovers, however, is the want of a proper corre- 
spondence between their conduet and the sa content of 
the word which they have heard and know (1. 22-25); 
the faith which they confess with their lips, they do not 
manifest in a life that evidences its truth and vitality 
(ii. 14-26); particularly do they fail in works of merey 
and love (i. 27, u 18, 15 f), in bridling the  tong.e 
(1. 26, 1, 241), and in being patient in suffering (i. 8 £, 
12, v. Wl) Many of those who boast. about their 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 85 


faith could well be put to shame by the good conduct οἱ 
the confessor of another religion—doubtless a Jew. With 
good reason such a one might compare the dead faith of 
the Christian with the involuntary recognition of the 
existence of God by evil spirits (n. 4). The readers are 
constantly charged with prizing too highly the things of 
this world. Among those engaged in commerce. this 
tendency manifests itself in utter disregard of all religious 
restraint (iv. 13-17); those who are landowners rob 
their labourers without merey (v. 4-6); while such as 
have no property are full of vain longings for better 
conditions (iv. 2), and give way constantly to impatient 
sighs and complaints, not only against their oppressors 
(v. 7-11), but even against God (i. 13, iv. 7). This same 
spirit leads to contemptuous treatmont of the poor and 
cringing politeness toward the rich (ii. 1-9). The author 
brands them all “adulteresses,” unfaithful to their cove- 
nant vow to God, and forgetful that in and of itself the 
love of the world is enmity against God, and that the 
Spirit which God has sent to dwell in them is a Spirit of 
jealous love, whose presence precludes all division of the 
heart (iv. 4f.). They all need to be reminded of the 
transitoriness and worthlessness of the things which they 
overvalue (i. 10 f., iv. 14, v. 2f.), and to be made to feel 
the incomparably greater value of the things which God 
gives and promises to them as Christians (i) Whoa 
21, 11, 5, iv. 6,v.7f.). A feeling of general discontent 
seems to have taken possession of the readers, as appears 
from the fact that immediately following the χαίρειν of the 
greeting, indeed with this very word, James begins his 
exhortation that they count it pure joy when they fall 
into all sorts of trials, and that they never on any account 
regard God as the author of the temptation to sin that 
may be involved in such trials (i. 2, 13)... The expression 
shows clearly that the author is not referring to some 
single great distress and danger which affects or threatens 


δ INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


all the readers, but to trials as varied as are their own 
separate conditions or personal aptitudes. 

According to 1. 9-11, one principal cause for the state 
of affairs described was the sharp distinction made between 
rich and poor. It is clear also from the same passage that 
these distinctions were made within the Church; for, in 
his exhortation to the readers, James urges that instead 
of complaining about the difficulties of his lot, and asking 
God’s help only in a half-hearted way, the Christian re- 
joice with a certain feeling of pride; if in humble cireum- 
stances, let him remember the high place that belongs to 
him as a child of God (i. 18); if he is rich, let him glory 
that in spite of wealth he is privileged to be reckoned 
among the poor and lowly to whom the grace of God is 
given (n. 5). In the same way the severe reproof which in 
v. 1-6 is administered to the rich for their luxurious living, 
and to landowners for their heartlessness, is meant for con- 
fessors of the Christian faith. In and of itself it is hardly 
conceivable that James should have directed such an 
earnest and such a practical reproof to non-Christians 
whom he knew it would never reach; in fact, such a 
supposition is ruled out altogether by the clear parallelism 
between the two paragraphs beginning with ἄγε νυν (iv. 13, 
v. 1); inasmuch as iv. 15 shows that the merchants of 
whom he is speaking (iv. 13-17) must have been mem- 
bers of the Church. Moreover, when it is recalled that 
v. 7-9 not only follows the reproof of the landowners, but 
is also a consequence of it (v. 7, μακροθυμήσατε οὖν), and 
when it is further remembered that the suffering which 
the readers are exhorted to endure with patience is the 
oppression of the field labourers just described, the 
brethren mentioned in v. 9 (μὴ στενάζετε κατ᾽ ἀλλήλων, 
ἀδελφοί) must have included the oppressors among the 
readers as well as the oppressed. James does not address 
the rich any more than the covetous merchants as 
brothers, but reserves this epithet until he comes te 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 87 


speak words of comfort to the oppressed (v. 7). He calls 
the oppressed labourer “the righteous,” in contrast to his 
oppressor whom he calls a murderer (v. 6). This is a 
severe judgment, but it is in keeping with the entire 
character of the reproof, which is designed to awaken 
terror. Moreover, the exhortation to lament in view of 
the impending judgment, which we have in v. 1, is found 
also in iv. 9, where without any question the persons 
addressed are Christians, though they are called sinners, 
not brethren. And in a still earlier passage (iv. 2) the 
readers as a body are charged with committing murder 
through their contentions about worldly possessions. Of 
course, this is not to be taken literally, any more than the 
epithet μουχαλίδες in the immediate context (iv. 4) applies 
to a few of his women readers and not to all the readers. 
As the context shows, the expression is certainly em- 
ployed in the well-known figurative sense in which it is 
used in the O.T. and by Jesus (e.g. Matt. xii. 39). The 
strong expression in v. 6 is anticipated by what is said in 
v. 4. Because the landowners withhold or reduce the 
lawful wages of their harvesters while living themselves 
in luxury, they are held like unjust judges to have de- 
prived them of their rights, and like murderers to have 
taken their very life. The same strong comparison is to 
be found also in Sir. xxxi. 21 f. (al. xxxiv. 25), a book 
which seems to have been carefully read by James (§ 6, 
n. 10). These charges of murder and adultery were per- 
fectly intelligible to readers acquainted with the circum- 
stances here alluded to, and who knew how Jesus had 
interpreted the Decalogue. 

The reference in ii. 1-7 is different. Here a case is 
assumed in which two persons come into the place of 
assembly together, the one well dressed and prosperous, 
the other a poor man in soiled garments. Neither of 
them is described as a Christian. The author simply 
pictures the different way in which these two persons are 


88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


received by the Christians as they assemble for worship. 
The one is politely shown to a comfortable place, while the 
other is told in a contemptuous manner to remain stand- 
ing, or to occupy one of the poorer seats. The description 
suits only such visitors at the Christian services, who are 
not members, or not yet members of the Church (n. 6). 
The readers are not reproved because they show prefer- 
ence to wealthy non-Christians over poor Christians, but 
simply because the poor man is mistreated on account of 
his poverty and shabby dress (ii. 6), while the rich man is 
treated with obsequious politeness for no other reason 
than his fine appearance. Such “respect of persons” is 
inconsistent with faith in the exalted and glorified Christ 
(ii. 1), as well as with God’s stated attitude toward the 
poor and the general conduct of the rich toward the 
Christian (11. 5-7). “Hath not God chosen those who 
are poor so far as this world is concerned and in the 
judgement of the world, to be rich in faith, and heirs of the 
kingdom which He has promised to them that love Him ?” 
(n. 7). So God had actually treated the poor as a class 
since the days of Jesus. In every sense of the word the 
gospel had been preached to the poor. On the other 
hand, when he describes the rich as a class, James appeals 
to the daily experience of the readers. It is by the rich 
that they are oppressed and dragged before judgment- 
seats, and it is the rich who blaspheme that worthy name 
by which they are called. Both from the illustration 
with which this whole discussion is introduced (ii. 2), and 
from the reminder that God has chosen His Church chiefly 
from among the poor (ii. 6), it is entirely natural to 
suppose that the comparatively few rich persons in the 
Church are here left out of account. While these latter 
may have manifested more the spirit of the wealthy than 
of the Christian (i. 10, iv. 16, v. 1-6), making their 
poor fellow-Christians feel the superiority of their social 
position (καταδυναστεύουσιν), and while in isolated cases 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 89 


contentions about property (iv. 1 ἢ, v. 4, 6) may have 
led them to prefer charges against their poorer brethren 
before secular magistrates (cf. 1 Cor. vi. 1 ff.), here, where 
the author is describing the treatment which Christians 
were accustomed to receive at the hands of wealthy men 
as a class, the description gets its colour not from the 
conduct of wealthy Christians, but of wealthy non-Chris- 
tians. Only of such could it be said that the chief reason 
why Christians should dislike and not honour them was 
the fact that they blasphemed the name of Jesus, which 
was borne not by themselves, but by the Christians (n. 8). 
Although there is no statement directly to that effect, it is 
easy to see how this blasphemy was uttered in connection 
with the civil processes, in which a malicious hint to the 
effect that the accused belonged to the sect of the Naza- 
renes or Christians must have prejudiced their case in the 
eyes of a non-Christian judge. If such was actually the 
case, no explanation is necessary why it is the rich non- 
Christians who are charged with such blasphemy. It is 
also easy to see how in common life men of wealth and 
position would be likely to express their contempt for the 
Nazarene and His poverty-stricken Church more frequently 
than would the poor (cf. John vu. 48 f.; Luke xvi. 14.— 
Acts iv.) 1,5, v.,47.—-Actsı 116; x1. 29; Gal. 11410; 
1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Rom. xv. 25-31). 

That the readers were Jews is proved neither by ii. 21 
(ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν ; cf., however, Rom. iv. 1 ff; 1 Cor. x. 1; 
Clement, 1 Cor. xxxi. 2) nor by the greeting (above, p. 
76f.); nor does it follow certainly from the use of συναγωγή 
(n. 1), and the employment of the expression “ Lord of 
Sabaoth” (v. 4) in a passage where even a Gentile 
Christian, if he were familiar with the Scriptures, would 
recognise an echo of Isa. v. 9. It is proved rather by 
the general impression which the letter gives of the 
character of its readers. Though its purpose throughout 
is practical, the letter contains no warning against idolatry 


> 


- 


90 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


and the evils associated with it (n. 9), nor against un- 
chastity, a subject dwelt upon at such length and with 
such emphasis in all letters written by Christians to 
Gentile Christians and Christians living among the 
Gentiles. Nothing is said which indicates the proximity 
of the readers to Gentiles and their contact with Gentile 
institutions. Furthermore, there is no mention of the 
relations of slaves to their masters,—relations, the signi- 
ficance of which was altogether different among Gentile 
Christians from what it was among Jews and Jewish 
Christians in Palestine. The non-Christians with whom 
the readers come in contact are Jews, not Gentiles. In ii. 
18 f. this is self-evident (n. 5), and in i. 6 f. it is the only 
natural inference; since it is necessary to assume the 
peculiar relations existing between Jewish Christians in 
Palestine and their chief opponents in order to explain 
naturally why it is just the upper classes who profane the 
name of Jesus by their treatment of those who bear his 
name (see above). Moreover, the sins and weaknesses 
which James denounces are the very ones for which Jesus 
scourged His countrymen, particularly the Pharisees. 
What James wants his readers to get rid of are the 
remnants of inherited faults (n. 2 end). Among these 
are the superficial hearing of God’s word instead of that 
living of it which shows that it has been inwardly 
appropriated ; pious prattle and profession instead of the 
practice of what they believe (Jas. i. 19-26, 11. 14-26, ii. 
13 ; ef. Matt. ‘vit: '21+27, xiii.) 19-22; -xv.'8, xxi. 28-31, 
xxiii. 3); the disposition to dogmatise and proselytise (Jas. 
1.019£., iii. 1~18; ef Matt. vin 3-5, xv. 14,xxi 4, 15 fi; 
Rom. ii. 19-24); the failure to fulfil the real requirements 
of the law, mercy, love, and justice, while paying devotion 
to its letter (Jas. i. 26f., ii, 8-12, 15 ἢ, v. 4-6; cf. Matt. 
ΧΙ. 7, xv. 2-9, xxiii. 23-33; Mark xii. 40); the getting 
of wealth without any thought of God, with the im: 
possible attempt to divide their affections between God 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES ΟἹ 


and earthly possessions (Jas. iv. 4, 13, v. 2; οἵ. Matt. vi. 
19-24; Luke xu. 15-34, xvi. 13); the exercise of prayer 
without faith in God (Jas. i. 5-8, xm, 16 £., v. 16f; ef. 
Matt. vii. 7-11; Luke xi. 5-13, xviii. 1-8); the judging, 
slandering, and cursing of their neighbours (Jas. 111. 9, iv. 
11f.; ef. Matt. v. 22, vii. 1); and the taking of oaths too 
lightly. The examples of oath formule in Jas. v. 12 are 
such as were in use among the Jews, not among the 
Greeks and Romans (n. 10); while the numerous: refer- 
ences to objects in nature are at least suited to conditions 
in Palestine (n. 11). 

If from what has been said above it is reasonably 
certain that the body of the readers to whom the letter 
was addressed were Jewish Christians living among their 
countrymen, this by no means precludes the possibility 
of there having been among them a number of native 
Gentiles and proselytes. Hofmann (vil. 3. 81-84, 159) 
held with good reason that there is reference to these 
in Jas. ii. 25; the lesson from Abraham’s example is 
developed to its completion and finally stated in 11. 24; 
then follows the example of the heathen woman Rahab, 
which neither substantiates what has been said before nor 
develops a new phase of the truth, and appears to be 
dragged in without purpose. It does have point, however, 
if referring to a number of Gentiles who had been received 
into the Jewish Christian Churches, and if designed to 
say: the example of Rahab has the same lesson for them 
that the history of Abraham has for his descendants. 

This being the case, we are able to determine when 
the letter was written, and to answer the question left un- 
answered above (p. 76f.). If by the twelve tribes in the 
dispersion James meant the entire Christian Church, then 
the letter must have been written at a time when as yet 
there were but few Gentile converts, and while these were 
still members of Churches which otherwise were composed 
of Jewish Christians, 1.6. before Paul’s missionary labours 


92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


had resulted in the organisation of a number of Churches 
composed mainly of Gentile Christians, and before the 
Gentile Church began to develop along lines independent 
of the Jewish Christian Church. The same conelusion 
holds also if we assume that James intended by the 
expression to designate the Jewish Christian as the true 
Israel ; for in the membership of the Churches organised 
in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, and Rome, there was 
included among the Gentiles a considerable number of 
Jews who had accepted Christ. These James could not 
ignore when speaking of the twelve tribes in the dis- 
persion. Nor if his letter was meant for them could he 
have remained so entirely silent concerning the very 
peculiar position which they occupied in relation to the 
Gentile majorities in the Churches where they were; 
neither could he have ignored so completely all those 
questions arising out of this situation, which since the 
first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas had agitated 
the minds of Jewish and Gentile Christians alike, and 
occupied the attention of leaders on both sides. If it be 
assumed that the letter was written after the time when a 
faction of the Jewish Church undertook to force the obser- 
vation of the Mosaic law upon the newly formed Gentile 
Church as a means and condition of the acceptance of 
the Gentiles with God, it is impossible, in view of the 
historical situation, to understand the entire silence of 
the letter about the question of the obligatoriness of the 
Mosaic law upon all Christians. Equally difficult οἵ 
explanation is the simple way in which the author speaks, 
on the one hand, of the word with its life-begetting power 
and of the law of liberty (i. 18-21, 25, il. 12); and, on the 
other hand, of justification by works (ii. 14-26), without 
in any way suggesting in contrast the bondage of the law. 
If, now, as is probable, the Gentile Christian Churches in 
Lycaonia were not organised before the year 50 or 51 
(Chron. Survey, Part XI.), we have the latest date at which 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 93 


James could have addressed his letter to the Church while 
it was still entirely Jewish, and confined to Palestine and 
the regions immediately adjoining. Only thus does the 
designation of the readers in Jas. i. 1 become perfectly 
clear. Although the idea expressed in this address can be 
traced back to the preaching of Jesus, and even to that of 
the Baptist (above, p. 81), the definite form which it here 
assumes, if it is to appear natural at all, must have some 
historical explanation. The Churches organised in various 
parts of Palestine and Syria prior to the year 50 were 
colonies of the mother Church in Jerusalem. Up to the 
time of Stephen’s death Jerusalem was practically the 
only centre which the Church had; by the persecution 
of 35 the Christians were driven from Jerusalem and 
scattered even beyond the bounds of Palestine, with the 
result that many of the ties which had bound them to 
the Jewish nation while they remained a part of it, were 
severed. Wherever these Christians went they became the 
nuclei of new Churches, and we know that they travelled 
as far as Cyprus and Antioch. The journey of Peter and 
John to Samaria (Acts viii. 14-24), the more extended 
journeys of Peter (Acts ix. 32-x1. 2), the sending of Bar- 
nabas to Antioch (Acts xi. 22), and the visits to this city 
of other Jewish Christians like Agabus and John Mark 
(xi 27, xu. 25), show that effort was made to hold the 
seattered members of the Church together. And this was 
the purpose for which the Epistle of James was written. 
Under these conditions, how natural that the feeling 
should grow that the Church was another people of God, 
chosen by God through Jesus, the true Israel! How 
natural also that existing conditions should suggest a term 
which should fittingly express the relation of the spiritual 
Israel both to the Jewish nation and to God’s heavenly 
kingdom (n. 12). So James did not employ an obscure 
allegory, which was arbitrarily invented by himself, and 
afterwards spun out by other authors, and applied in a 


94 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


different direction, but actual conditions in the Church at 
the time became of themselves a symbol perfectly in- 
telligible to James’ contemporaries who found themselves 
in this situation. 


‘I. (Pp. 83,89.) According to N*BO, we should read in Jas. ii. 2, eis συναγωγήν 
without the article. For this reason, if for no other, we must reject the asser- 
tion that, in inconceivable contradiction to the salutation, the real destination 
of the Epistle is evidently “a single narrowly exclusive conventicle of Essene 
Jewish Christians” (Brückner, Chronol, Rethenfolge, 293). Further than this, 
ὑμῶν, following as it does an address to the readers which plainly charac- 
terises them as Christians, just as certainly excludes the view that what is 
referred to is a Jewish synagogue, which these Christians yet occasionally 
visit. Something regarding συναγωγή may be found in Harnack on Herm. 
Mand. xi. p. 115, and in.the writer's Forsch. ii. 164. It denotes originally, 
and in profane Greek usually, (1) the act of collecting and assembling the 
meeting, Ex. xxiii. 16, xxxiv. 22; Deut. x. 4; Sir. xxxiv. 3; Ps. Sol. -xvii. 
50 (cf. xvil. 48,'x. 8); of the meetings of Christians for worship, Ign. ad. 
Polyc,|iv..2 ;.Dionys. Al. quoted in Eus. H..E, vii. 11. 17, οἵ. 9.2. Also in 
a heathen inseription published by Foucart, Assoc. relig. 238, not a corpora- 
tion, but a “réunion en P’honneur de Zeus” ; (2) concretely : the assembled 
congregation, commonly for my Ex. xii. 3; Num. xiv. 7, 10, xvi. 19, not 
infrequently also for $32 Num, x. 7. As in our “meeting,” this second 
meaning cannot always be distinguished clearly from the first, eg. Acts 
xili. 43; Herm. Mand. xi. 9, of Christian Meetings: ὅταν ἔλθῃ... eis 
συναγωγὴν ἀνδρῶν δικαίων, and ibid. 88 9, 13, 14, three times more ; cf. also 
the Gnostic Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius, p- 56. 23, cf. p. 53. 17) and ἐπισυναγωγή, 
Heb.x.25. So probably is it to be understood in our passage, though it 
is not impossible that we have here the third meaning, namely, place of 
meeting, Matt. vi. 2, ὅ ; Luke iv. 16, vil. 5; John xviii. 20 ; Acts xviii, 
4, 7, xxiv. 12. Whereas in these and other passages συναγωγή, without any 
modifying word, denotes Jewish meeting-places, the ὑμῶν here would seem 
to indicate that the Christians addressed had their own particular places of 
worship by themselves. An inscription of 318 a.p. (Le Bas- Waddington, iii. 
No. 2558) designates a building as συναγωγὴ Μαρκιωνιστῶν. It does not 
seem to me at all certain that the African Commodian, Instr. i. 24. 11, under- 
stands by synagoga a Christian church, (4) Even aside from the meeting at 
a particular place and time, it may mean in general the religious community, 
association of those with common interests, for my Ex. xii. 19, 47, xvi. 22; 
Num. xvi. 24 (the company of Korah); Ps. xxii. 17; for Sap Ex. xvi. 2,85 
Num. xv. 15, xvi. 47 (al. xvii. 12); cf. 1 Mace. ii. 42 (ovvay. “Acıdaiwv), Vil. 12 
(συναγ. γραμματέων). Quite early, however, συναγωγή was used as the specifie 
designation of the Jewish religious community in contrast to the Christian 
ἐκκλησία. We see this usage at least in process of formation in Rev. ii. 9, 
il. 9; Just. Dial. exxxiv (Λεία ὁ λαὸς ὑμῶν καὶ ἡ συναγωγή, Ῥαχὴλ δὲ ἡ ἐκκλησία 
ἡμῶν). We see it fully established in Commod. Instr. xxxix, 1-4; Apol. 253. 
Eusebius lays stress upon the fact that Jesus called His ( ‘hureh, not συναγωγή, 
but exkAnota (Theoph. syr. iv. 12). On the other hand, the Ebionites in East 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 95 


Palestine called their Church community συναγωγή, and seem also to have 
retained the title ἀρχισυνάγωγοι (Epiph. Her. xxx. 18). The Evang. heros. 
translates ἐκκλησία in Matt. xvi. 18, xviii. 17 by anw”2, ce. συναγωγή (Forsch. 
i. 372, n. 1). The Christian compiler of the Testaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs (Benjamin, 11) terms the Church and the individual congregations 
of the Gentile Christians συναγωγή and συναγωγαὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν. But we find 
the word sometimes used of the Christian Church and its individual con- 
gregations even where we may not assume a direct connection with Palestine 
and Judaism: Just. Dial. Ixiii; Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 14 (ras συναγωγάς, 
λεγομένας δὲ ἐκκλησίας ἁγίας) ; Iren. iii. 6. 1 (here in an interpretation of Ps. 
Ixxxii. 1); Iren. iv. 31. 1 and 2 (ai δύο ovv., the Jewish and the Christian, 
suggested by the story of Lot’s daughters), a combination like that of 
Vietorinus on Gal. iv. 24 (Mai, Script. vet. coll. iii. 2. 38), who, however, uses 
the opposite term: “ecclesiis Judeorum et Christianorum.” In the dis- 
cussion of our passage, we may leave out of account the common Greek usage 
under No. 1, and we should notice that James by no means avoids the word 
ἐκκλησία when he wishes to designate the Church as a corporate body (v. 14). 
When, then, he designates the Church assembly (or place of assembly) by 
συναγωγή instead of by ἐκκλησία (cf. per contra 1 Cor. xi. 18, xiv. 28, 35; 
3 John 6; Diduche, iv 14), and this, too, not in a theological discussion or 
in rhetorical speech, but in the simple description of an external event, this 
may be considered good evidence that we are here on Jewish soil or near 
it. This view is confirmed by the Ebionites of Epiphanius, by the Evang. 
hieros., which arose in Palestine and exhibits many other Jewish expressions, 
and by the compiler of the Testaments, who, whether by nature or by design, 
wrote Greek just like a Jew (under No. 4). Hermas (under No. 2) shows by 
his speech that he is a Jew by birth or education (cf. the writer’s Hirt des 
Hermas, 485-497). It should also be noted that Justin was born in Palestine ; 
that Theophilus (under No. 4) and Ignatius (under No. 1) were bishops of the 
Syrian capital, and that the Marcionite “synagogue ” referred to was some 
miles south of Damascus. Cf. also Epist. Hadriani given in Vopiscus, 
Saturninus, viii. 2, “ Archisynagogus Judeorum . . . Christianorum presby- 
ter”; Lampridius, Alex. Sev. 6, “Syrum archisynagogum.” With regard to 
the failure to distinguish between Syrians and Jews, cf. Origen on Job xlii. 
18 in Pitra, Analecta, i. 390f. 

2. (Pp. 84, 90.) The continuity of thought in iii. 1-18 is unbroken, and 
this fact determines the meaning of particular sentences in it. The cursing, 
iii. 9, can hardly have reference to fellow-Christians, for in that case they 
would have been designated as such (cf. per contra, iv. 11); it refers rather to 
men whom the Christian, obtrusively desirous of being a teacher (iii. 1), would 
like to instruct and convert, so that James is calling to mind simply the 
dignity common to all men by virtue of their creation in the image of God. 
Moreover, in iii. 18-18, the matter under discussion is not, as it is from iv. 1 
on, the behaviour of Christians one toward another, but rather the demeanour 
of the one who, lifted up by the consciousness of his own religious know- 
ledge, desires to teach others, and thus falls into a bitter, disputatious tone, 
failing, however, for that reason to achieve the desired result, namely, the 
righteousness of the person to be instructed (ef. i. 20). The mpairys, which 
is the proper disposition for the reception of the word, is the very attribute 


96 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which is indispensable in the teacher also (Matt. xi..29; 2 Tim. ii. 94 ἢ; 
2 Cor. x. 1; Gal. vi. 1; 1 Pet. iii. 15, towards non-Christians ; Tit. iii, 2, 
“toward all men”; Ign. Trail. iii. 2; ad Polye. ii. 1). In all probability μὴ 
Ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας in iii. 14 is not an idle pleonasm, but (like 
Xenoph. Apol. Soer. 13, οὐ ψεύδομαι κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ) = καταψεύδεσθαί (τὴ 
τινος, “to make a lying statement about a thing or person ” (ef. Ign.„Trall. zus 
Herm. Vis. 1.1. 7; Jos. 6. Apion. ii. 10 beginning, 13 end; Ep. ad togn. iv. 
3; Ep. Lugd.in Eus. H. E.v.1. 14; Hippol. Refut. vii. 20 in.; Eus. v. 28, 
6 and 16; Plutarch. de Superst. 10 end). If this is so, the warning here is 
not simply against lying, but it is presupposed that the person in question is 
speaking about the truth, i.e. saving truth, but that in so doing he makes 
statements that are in contradiction to that very truth. On this view, 
κατακαυχᾶσθε also, which further is modified by κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, is not 
any boasting in general, but a boasting specifically with reference to the 
truth, a bragging about the truth, which, however, at the same time contra- 
dicts it. This untruthfulness is not, however, a theoretical departure from 
Christian doctrine, but is rather practical, consisting in the fact that one who 
claims to be a, knower and teacher of revealed. truth opposes himself to 
others, thereby showing a lack of the wisdom and gentleness which neces- 
sarily flow from the real possession of the truth. Jas. i. 20 bears upon this 
very point. At all events, the translation, “The wrath of man doeth not 
what is right before God,” sie Luther, is incorrect ; for (1) the connecting link 
between i: 17 and i, 18-25 is plainly the concept λόγος ἀληθείας. Consequently 
the subject treated in 1. 19f. cannot be talkativeness and passionateness in 
general, but, rather the evil disposition to teach others the word of God 
instead of allowing oneself to be instructed, thus becoming angry instead 
of waiting for God to give His blessing. (2) The thought involved in such a 
translation would require ὁ ὀργιζόμενος instead of ὀργή, if the passage were 
to be measurably clear. (3) Such a general statement would be very incorrect, 
for there is an anger which is righteous, (4) The evidently intended con- 
trast between ἀνδρός and θεοῦ does not, on this view, receive its proper 
emphasis. . We are not indeed to read with the later MSS. κατεργάζεται, yet 
neither is ἐργάζεται to be taken in the sense of ποιεῖ, a8 in Jas. 11. 9; Acts x. 
35); Matt. vii. 23; rather, as in John vi. 27; 2 Cor. vii. 10, it has the 
meaning of κατεργάζεται (Jas. i. 3). The object of the verb is the thing 
produced. A man’s anger does not bring about God’s righteousness (οἵ. 
Matt. vi. 33, and below, § 7). This is a fruit which is sown in a peaceable 
spirit, and the growth and ripening of which must be waited for with 
patience (Jas. iii. 18). No man can come to believe that he himself can 
achieve righteousness through angry speech ; yet, on the other hand, nothing 
is more common than for heralds of the truth to imagine that they should 
convert their hearers by passionate zeal. It can be therefore only the latter 
error that James is opposing ; cf. Schneckenburger, Beiträge z. Einl. 199 ; 
Hofmann, vii. 3. 35. In Jas. i. 21 περισσεία is used unquestionably in the 
sense of περίσσευμα (Rom. ν. 17), and hence cannot mean excess (Matt. xii. 
34) ; for a man should lay aside not only a certain excess of wickedness, but 
all wickedness. The only meaning possible is therefore “ residue, remainder ” 
(Mark viii. 8). The writer means the old hereditary faults which still cling 
even to those born of God,—the first-fruits of His creatures (i. 18),—in other 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 97 


words, the evil Jewish nature, the “leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” 
(Matt. xvi. 6-12, xv. 1-20). 

3. (P. 84.) Jas.i.26 f., θρησκός θρησκεία, θρησκεύειν denotes ποῦ the pious 
disposition (εὐσέβεια, ὁσιότης, also θεοσέβεια, though this concept inclines 
towards θρησκεία ; cf. Seeberg, Forsch. v. 264£.), but the outwardly displayed 
religion, worship, ceremonies (Philo, Quod deterior, vii, Mang. i. 195, πεπλάνηται 
γὰρ καὶ οὗτος τῆς πρὸς εὐσέβειαν ὁδοῦ, θρησκείαν ἀντὶ ὁσιότητος ἡγούμενος καὶ 
δῶρα τῷ ἀδεκάστῳ διδούς ; ef. Wis. xi. 15, xiv. 16, 18, 27; Jos. Ant. ix. 13.3; 
Col. ii. 18, 23 ; Clem. 1 Cor. xlv. 7); so that it also comes to mean not infre- 
quently a publicly-professed religion together with its worship in distinction 
from other religions and forms of worship: Acts xxvi. 5; Ep. ad Diogn. i. ; 
Melito quoted in Eus. iv. 26. 75 Ep. Lugd. in Eus. v. 1. 63. 

4. (Ὁ. 85.) The words in Jas. ii. 18, ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις, at any rate do not intro- 
duce an objection to the author’s preceding statements to be expected from one 
of the readers or from a like-minded Christian, as is the case in 1 Cor. xv. 35, 
ef. Rom. ix. 19, xi. 19; for the person speaking in ii. 18, 19 agrees with James 
in requiring works and in condemning faith without works ; and the people 
characterised in ii. 14-17 are the ones who are taken to task in ii. 18, 19 
also. On the other hand, James cannot introduce himself, or a Christian 
who agrees with him, as speaking in this way (cf. Rom. x. 18, 19) ; for what 
reason would there be in introducing a third person, when that person has 
nothing to say which James himself could not say just as well? Further, it 
is hard to understand how James could assert of himself so confidently, even 
though in the disguise of a third person, that he, in distinction from the one 
addressed, had works to show ; ef. per contra, ili. 2. Then, too, it would be 
quite uncalled for on James’ part to defend himself against the charge that he 
lacked the faith of which the person addressed boasted. This charge is 
implied in the speaker’s offer through his works to prove his faith, thus 
called in question by his opponent. Finally, in recognising the formal 
orthodoxy of the Christians addressed, James could not possibly have limited 
their creed to their confession of monotheism. For these outwardly profess- 
ing Christians are not content simply to acknowledge the unity of God, 
which the devils also do, or even to bless God as their Lord and Father 
(iii. 9), which the devils do not do, they confess their faith in Christ (ii. 1). 
From all of which it follows that the ἐρεῖ τις of ii. 18 is not an empty and 
purposeless phrase ; rather there is thus introduced into the discussion 
between James and the ris of ii. 14 ἃ speaker who is represented as really a 
third person, and that, too, of another faith. But this third person must be 
a Jew, not a pagan ; for the speaker praises the Christian addressed, even if 
in a sareastie tone, for confessing monotheism, the fundamental dogma of 
Judaism. Not only is it evident that the Jewish Christians, following the 
example of Jesus (Mark xii. 29), held fast to the doctrinal content of the 
“Shema” from Deut. vi. 4-6, which every Israelite repeated morning and 
evening daily ; but there is also no reason to doubt that as persons “ zealous 
for the law” (Acts xxi. 20), they repeated it with their fellow-countrymen 
after their conversion as well as before it. Later Jewish Christians empha- 
sised the μοναρχικὴ θρησκεία 80 much, that the distinguishing mark of Chris- 
tianity came to be regarded as of less importance than the fundamental 
dogma common to Jews and Jewish Christians (Clem, Hom. vii. 12, v.28; 


VOL. 1. 7 


98 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Ep. Petri ad Jac. 1). But besides this, James would have defeated his own 
purpose if he had made the Jew introduced by him speak of the doctrinal 
difference between Judaism and Christianity. Lastly, as to the form of the 
introduction, it goes without saying that the Jew does not begin to speak 
until after ἐρεῖ ris, and hence that the ἀλλά is spoken by James himself. 
After giving his own judgment, he uses ἀλλά to introduce as something new 
and startling the doubly humiliating judgment of the Jew—aAXd, even with- 
out καί, being adapted to this purpose (ef. John xvi. 2; 2 Cor. vii. 11). That 
it is not James himself who is speaking in ii, 18, 19, follows also from the 
fact that in these sentences not a single thought from ii. 14-17 is developed 
further. It is not until ii. 20 that James begins to speak again, and resumes 
the thought of ii. 17. : The assumption of Spitta, Z. Gesch. u. Lit. ii. 79, that 
an objection of the man of faith without works, who has been attacked. by 
James, has fallen out after ἐρεῖ τις, and that James begins to answer this with 
σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις, is not called for by the text, and for positive reasons is 
inadmissible. 

5. (Pp. 86, 90.) Since ὁ ταπεινός and ὁ πλούσιος in i. 9f. form an antithesis, 
the former cannot be a lightly accented epithet of a merely explanatory char- 
acter (the brother, who by very reason of being a brother, is, as everybody 
knows, always poor likewise); it is rather within the class denoted by ὁ ἀδελφός 
(perhaps better without 6, following Cod. B) that the poor is contrasted with 
the rich. On the view that the rich non-Christian is contrasted with the 
poor Christian, the ground upon which the rich man should boast remains 
unclear. If ταπείνωσις denotes the exact opposite of ὕψος, 1.6. lack of moral 
and religious worth, or even lack of the riches of the rich man,—an interpret- 
ation which has no usage at all to support it,—then the same καυχάσθω, 
which is meant very seriously when used with its first subject, must, when 
used with the second, have the sense of a mocking challenge: “ Let the rich 
man boast; if he likes, in his baseness or his miserable riches.” Such a 
rendering is impossible, for the added reason that the argument which 
follows presupposes not an ironical challenge to sinful boasting, but an 
earnest exhortation to glory only in the possessions that endure. Nor 
indeed can ταπείνωσις denote the attitude of humility (cf. Jas. iv. 6-10; 
Sir. iii. 18), for to glory in this would be the worst kind of pride; it 
denotes rather, as might be expected from its position in antithesis to ὕψος, 
the rank and condition of lowliness (Luke i. 48 ; Phil, iii. 21). If the rich 
man is a Christian, of course he also possesses the exalted station of which 
the poor Christian should rest assured; but as it is fitting for the latter to 
emphasise just that side of his condition as a Christian which forms a con- 
trast to his outward situation, so likewise is it for the former (ef. 1 Cor. 
vii. 22 with reference to slaves and free). We need only recall Matt, xix, 
23-26 ; Luke vi. 24, xvi. 14 f., 19-31, to see that the rich man is the very one 
who should be glad and thankful to belong among the confessors of Jesus, 
those who were called oi μικροί by Jesus Himself, and who are despised by 
the world. The reason added in i. 10b-11 is intended primarily to enforce 
the warning to the rich man implied in 10a, but it thus bears at the same 
time upon the positive exhortation, This reason agrees with the context ; 
for just as poverty is a temptation to the poor man, so are riches for the rich 
man. It is also very applicable to the Christian who is rich ; for since he 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 99 


is rich, indeed since he is a man living in the flesh, he is actually like the 
fast fading flower; ef. Jas. iv. 14; 1 Tim. vi. 6-10, 17-19; Psi xe. 5f., 
cili, 15. 

6. (P. 88.) We have evidence that Christian preaching was permitted 
temporarily in Jewish synagogues (Acts ix. 22, xviii. 4-6, xix. 8), and that 
Jewish Christians in Palestine visited the synagogues, the Jews on their part 
resorting to prohibitive measures in order to exclude them (cf. Derenbourg, 
Hist. et geogr. de la Palestine, 354 f.). The perfectly reasonable inference, then, 
is that the reverse was true, and that Christian services were visited by non- 
Christians. Quite aside from such an inference, however, we have direct 
proof in 1 Cor. xiv. 23-25 that this was the case. Whether this was done from 
a religious desire, or from curiosity, or even with hostile intent, is indifferent 
in ἘΝ supposed case. 

7. (P. 88.) It will not do in Jas. ii. 5 to connect πλϑυδίοῦς κτλ. with 
τοὺς πτωχούς as its attribute ; for (1) ἃ δέ or ἀλλά would be necessary with 
πλουσίους ; (2) the men whom God has chosen are not rich in faith before 
and apart from their being thus chosen, and are certainly not heirs of the 
kingdom ; it is only through being chosen that they become so. Conse- 
quently what we have here is the good Greek usage of ἐκλέγεσθαι with a 
double accusative, the εἶναι (Eph. i. 4) not being necessary in such a con- 
struction, cf. Mayor, 79f. It stands to reason that James does not say here 
that all the poor and none of the rich find grace before God, any more than 
we may infer from Matt. xi. 25 that all uncultured people and none of 
superior culture attain to a knowledge of salvation. The self-evident mean- 
ing of general statements such as these, which briefly sum up a multitude of 
individual experiences (1 Cor. 1. 27 f.), is clearly expressed by Paul in 1 Cor. 
i. 26 (οὐ πολλοί). 

8. (P. 89.) The blaspheming in Jas. ii. 7 is not an indirect dishénouding 
of the name of God or of Christ through the unworthy behavour of those who 
confess Him ; for (1) this could not well have been left unexpressed (ef. Eus. 
H. Ε. v. 1. 48, διὰ τῆς ἀναστροφῆς αὐτῶν βλασφημούντων τὴν ὅδόν) ; (2) the 
blasphemers must have been designated as themselves bearers of the name 
of Christ (ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς instead of ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ; cf. Herm. Sim. viii. 6); (3) such 
indirect blasphemy of God or of Christ is always expressed in the passive 
form elsewhere: Rom. ii, 24 (Isa. lii. 5); 1 Tim. vi. 1; Tit. ii.-5; 2'Pet. 
il. 2; Clem. 1 Cor. i. 1 (xlvii. 7); Clem. 2 Cor. xiii. 1-4; Ign. .Trall. viii. 2 ; 
Polye. ad Pll, x.2, “The honourable name,” judging simply from the O.T. 
parallels, from which the expression is borrowed (Isa. xliii. 7; Jer. xiv. 9, 
xy. 16; Amos ix. 12; ef, Acts xv. 17), can be none other than the name of 
God or of Christ. In what form the readers bore this name, whether as 
μαθηταὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (John vii. 3, xvill. 25; Acts iv. 13), or as Ναζωραῖοι 
(Acts xxiv. 5, following the usage Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος, Matt. xxvi. 71; John 
xvill. 5; Acts xxvi. 9; cf. GK, ii. 662f., n. 2, where there is reference also 
to the reviling of the Nazarenes on the part of the Jews), or as Χριστιανοί 
(Acts xi. 26, xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. iv. 16; cf. Mark ix. 41), is as impossible to 
conclude from the expression used by James as to gather from the above 
O.T. passages in what form Israel bore Jehovah’s name. In this passage, 
which would lend itself most inappropriately to such a reference, there is no 
trace of any government persecution of the Christians because of their 


100 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


confession, as there is none in other passages (e.g. i. 2-12) where such refer- 
ence would be quite in place. 

9. (P. 90.) In the matter of worship and similar topics, cf. Acts xv. 20, 
29, xxi. 255,1 Cor. v. 10£., viii. 1-xi. 1, especially viii. 10, x. 7, 14-22; 
2 Cor. vi..15;:Gal. v. 20; 1 John v.21; Rev. ii. 14, 20, xxi. 8, xxii. 15; 
Didache, iii. 4, ν. 1, vi. 3; Herm. Sim. ix. 21.3. Cf. also the reminder of the 
readers’ former worship, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 11, ΧΙ]. 2; 1 Thess. i. 9; Gal. iv. 8; 
1 Pet. iv. 3; Clem. 2 Cor. i. 6, iii. 1, xvii. 1, and the parallels, Col. iii. 5; 
Eph. v. 5; Herm. Mand. xi. 4; Polyc. ad Phil. xi. 2. In the matter of 
πορνεία, cf. Acts xv. 20, 29, xxi, 25; 1 Cor. v. 1-13, vi. 9-11, 13-20, vii. 2, 9, 
x. 8; 2 Cor. vil. 1, xii. 21; Gal. v. 13-21; a iv. 19, v. 8-14; Col. ii. 5; 
1 Thess. iv. 3-5 ; 1 Tim. i. 10; 2 Tim. ii. 22, 111. 6; Rom.i. 94. 97, vi. 19-21, 
ΧΙ. 13; 1 Pet. iv. 3; Rev. ii. 14, 20-24, xiv. 8, xvii. 1 ff., xix. 2, xxi. 8, 
xxii. 15; Didache, ii. 1, iii. 3, v. 1; Herm. Mand. iv! by Clon 2 Cor. iv. 3, 
viii. 6-ix. 4, xil. 5, xiv. 3-5; Pliny, ad Traj. xevi.7. On the other hand, 
James speaks in general only of worldly luxury, i. 27, iv. 1-4 (as to μοιχαλίδες, 
see above, p. 87), iv. 9, v. 1-3, 5. Perhaps in ii. 11 there is a testimony to 
the prevailing honourableness of the readers as regards the conjugal life. 
The command μὴ μοιχεύσῃς was generally observed, the command μὴ 
φονεύσῃς often through hard-heartedness transgressed, cf. iv. 2, v. 6. In the 
matter of the life among the Gentiles, cf. 1 Cor. v. 1, 10 ff., ix. 24, x. 32, 
xv. 33; 2 Cor. vi. 14-18; Eph. iv. 17ff.; 1 Pet. ii. 12-17, iv. 3ff.; Rom. 
xii. 2, xiii. 1-7; 3 John 7; Ign. Trall. iii. 2, viii. 2; Herm. Mand. x. 4; 
Sim. 1. 10, viii. 9.1. In the matter of slaves, ef. 1 Cor. vii. 21 f.; Eph. 
vi. 5-9; Col. 111; 22-iv. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 18-25; 1 Tim. vi. 1f.; Tit. ii Of. ; 
Philem. 10-21 ; Didache, iv. 10f.; Ign. ad Polye. iv. 3 (1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. 
iii. 28; Col. iii. 11); also the writer’s Skizzen, 93-115, especially 102, also 
136 ff., 350, n. 17. 

10. (P. 91.) For the form of oath, ef. Matt. v. 34-37, xxiii. 22, and in 
addition Lightfoot, Op. ii. 2, 93, 359 ; Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr. 1733, pp. 48, 202. 
It is characteristic of the Jewish, in distinction from the Gentile oath, that 
it avoids the name of God. In place of such a sacrilegious formula, Philo 
recommends swearing preferably by the Earth, Sun, Stars, Heaven, and the 
Universe entire (Leg. Spec. i, ed. Mangey, i ii. 271). 

11. (Ὁ. 91) The scorching wind, i. 11 (Luke xii. 55), the early dnd the 
latter rain, v. 7 (providing ὑετόν be an essentially right completion of the 
passage, cf. Deut, xi. 14), fig, olive, and vine eulture (iii. 12) in addition to con- 
siderable agriculture (v. 4, 7), salt springs (iii. 12), unless in the obscure and 
most uncertainly traditioned text there be a reference to ἡ θάλασσα ἡ ἁλυκή--- 
the Dead Sea (Num. xxxiv. 3, 12 ; Deut. iii. 17; Josh. xv. 2,5; ef. Gen. xiv. 3; 
Ezek. xlvii. 9 ff.). On the other hand, we can understand the Mediterranean 
as the source of the conceptions in i. 6, iii. 4, without assuming that James, 
at the time he wrote, was resident in Joppa—a view that Hitzig at one time 
expressed ; ef. for additional points, Hug, Hin. 11.5 511. 

12. (P. 93.) Acts viii. 1, πάντες διεσπάρησαν ; viii. 4, οἱ οὖν διασπαρέντες 
διῆλθον KTA.; Xi. 19, of μὲν οὖν διασπαρέντες διῆλθον ἕως... ’Avrioxeias. The 
connection of Jas. i. 1 with these facts I find first noticed by Georgius 
Syncellus, ad A. M. 5537, ed. Bonn, i. 623. Accordingly we are to consider 
as included in this greeting the communities in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES ΙΟΙ 


Acts viii. 1, 14, 25, 40, ix. 31, 32, 36, x. 34, xxi.8; Gal. 1. 22 ;.1 Thess. ii. 14; 
further, those at Ptolemais and Tyre, in Cyprus, and at Antioch, Acts xi. 1-26, 
xili. 1, xxi. 3, 7, and then the one at Damascus, where it would seem that, 
even before the death of Stephen, there were disciples, Acts ix. 2-25. In fact, 
the community which reassembled in Jerusalem after the persecution that 
followed Stephen’s death is not to be excluded. To be sure, without taking 
into account the half-Jewish Samaritans, Acts viii. 14, and such isolated 
cases as Acts vill. 27, x. 1-11, 18; cf. xv. 7, there were, even previous to the 
first mission tour, not a few Gentile Christians in Antioch, But supposing 
that they numbered into the hundreds, their proportion to the many myriads 
of Jewish Christians (Acts xxi. 20) was never more than 1 to 100, and the way 
in which James gives passing notice to this exceptional class (above, p. 91) and 
then pays no further attention to it, is in perfect keeping with the relations 
existing in the Church up to 50 A.D. 


§ 5. THE PERSONALITY OF JAMES. 


The author introduces himself to his readers by the 
simple mention of his name, which was a very common 
one among the Jews, and by the modest designation of 
himself as a Christian (i. 1). The omission of all reference 
to the occasion for his writing is not explained entirely by 
the fact that what he writes is not a letter, but an address 
thrown into the form of a letter in order the more easily 
to reach his readers, who were widely scattered (n. 1). 
There is no indication as to the grounds on which James 
based his right to address his opinions in any form to the 
entire Church of his time with so much earnestness and 
with so little regard to personal feelings. The tone of the 
letter is not overbearing ; James calls his readers brethren, 
and reckons himself among them, not only when he is 
referring to their experience of divine grace (i. 18), but 
also when speaking of their moral weaknesses and actual 
failures (11. 2, 9). But he speaks as an older brother 
accustomed to receive attention from his brothers when he 
gives advice, and unquestioning obedience when he re- 
bukes them (n. 2). 

Who is this James whose authority is so widely ac- 
knowledged? The opinion that he was the Apostle James, 
the son of Zebedee, is of late origin, and was not very 


102 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


generally held (n. 3). On account of the obvious connec- 
tion between the number of the apostles and the twelve 
tribes of Israel, one would expect that an apostle, in 
addressing the twelve tribes of the spiritual Israel, would 
indicate the fact, that he was one of the twelve apostles. 
Although James the son of Zebedee, who was executed 
very early in the history of the Church, in the year 44 
(Acts xu. 2), was one of Jesus’ intimate disciples, there is 
no evidence that his position was so commanding as to 
render unnecessary any explanation on his part why he, 
and not one of the other apostles, should write his 
opinions to the entire Church. In Acts i.-xii. only Peter 
and John are prominent. Moreover, when this James is 
mentioned, he is always spoken of as one of the sons of 
Zebedee, or as a brother of John (Matt. iv. 21, x. 2, 
XV oly xx. 20, xxvii 37, xxvil. 565 Mark i. 19, di. 17; 
woi875 x. 35 5 Luke v.10; John xxi.'2; Acts xii 2)sor 
this relation is indicated by the context (Mark i. 29 ef. 
Badd ΠΕ τ τ ὑπ 419 68. 8.185, xub Bef nis 1 6-18) χ 9. Ὁ 6.1 
Luke vi. 14, viii. 51, ix. 28, 54; Actsı. 18). What: has 
just been said argues also, and in some respects with even 
greater force, against the assumption that the letter was 
written sometime after the death of James the son of 
Zebedee by the Apostle James the son of Alphzeus ; unless 
this second James of the apostolic circle is artificially 
identified with a third person of the same name. Where 
the name of this second Apostle James actually occurs he 
is always. spoken of as the son of Alphzeus (Matt. x. 3; 
Mark i. 18; Luke vi. 15; Acts 1. 13). On the other 
hand, in spite of the frequency of its occurrence, the 
name James is always deemed a suflicient designation of 
the James who at the latest from the year 44 on was 
the head of the Jerusalem Church and the leader of 
Jewish Christianity: Acts xi 17, xv. 13-21, xxi. 18; 
Gal. ii. 9—according to the correct reading, James is 
mentioned before Peter and John; Gal. i. 12. 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 103 


That, among the Christians of the apostolie age, there 
was one James distinguished above all his contemporaries 
of the same name is strongly attested by Jude 1. This is 
the James who, according to the tradition of the second 
century, was the first bishop of Jerusalem. Although the 
accounts of Hegesippus, Clement of Alex., and later 
authors are partly legendary, so much may be regarded as 
historical: this James never ceased to love his country- 
men and to pray for their conversion ; on account of his 
strict observance of the law and otherwise ascetic manner 
of life, and on account of his faithful attendance upon the 
temple worship, he was held in high esteem, even among 
non-Christian Jews, and, among other titles, bore that of 
“the Just.” Shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish 
War, probably at the time of the Passover in the year 66, 
because of his public confession of Jesus, he was hurled 
from the top of the temple by fanatical Jews, stoned, 
and finally clubbed to death (n. 4). In this account the 
subordination of the distinctively Christian to the Jewish 
elements in the description of James’ character impresses 
one as being original. It was just because of this dis- 
position of his that the orthodox rabbis and Pharisees 
tried to induce him openly to deny that Jesus was the 
Messiah. His unhesitating confession left no doubt as to 
where he stood. Similarly for the Ebionitie account which 
makes James the head of all the Churches centring in the 
Hebrew Church at Jerusalem, there must be some historical 
basis (n. 5). So long as the Church was composed only 
of congregations whose charter members had been mem- 
bers of the Jerusalem Church before they were scattered 
abroad by persecution, and before the missionary work 
among the Gentiles, which began from Antioch, made this 
city a new centre of church life independent of Jerusalem, 
the man at the head of the mother Church must have 
had authority throughout the entire Church. Until this 
independent movement developed, his name was a power 


104 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


even in Antioch, and could be used to intimidate even a 
man like Peter (Gal. ii. 12; regarding the time, cf. Chron. 
Survey, Part XI.). Such a position on the part of the 
writer is presupposed in this letter, which tradition has 
always ascribed to James, the head of the Jerusalem 
Church. 

Tradition is just as unanimous in identifying this 
“bishop” James with James “the brother of the Lord.” 
There is little doubt, therefore, that the writer of this 
letter is the James referred to by Paul in Gal. i. 19 (n. 6). 
As to the sense in which he was called a brother of the 
Lord, there has been difference of opinion ever since the 
beginning of the second century, and after the fourth 
century the question was warmly debated. But it is easy 
to see that it was dogmatic and esthetic rather than 
historical considerations which prevented a general accept- 
ance of the facts as stated in the Bible and in the earliest 
traditions of the Jerusalem Church. It is shown else- 
where (Forsch. vi. 328-363) that this James, his brother 
Jude (Jude 1), together with a Simon and a Joseph, all 
younger brothers of Jesus, were real sons of Joseph and 
Mary (Mark vi. 3; Matt. xiii. 55). After the death of their 
father they lived with their mother (Mark iii, 21, 31-35 j 
Matt. xii. 46-50; Luke viii. 19-21), without, however, 
keeping themselves entirely apart from their brother's 
public work. When Jesus selected Capernaum as the centre 
of His prophetic work in Galilee, His brothers removed 
thither with their mother (John ii. 12; cf. Matt. iv. 13); 
while their sisters, who were probably married, eontinued 
to reside in Nazareth (Matt. xiii. 56; Mark vi. 8). Still, 
Jesus’ brothers were never among His intimate disciples: 
We learn from John vii. 3-10 that six months before Jesus’ 
death His brothers did not believe in Him. But the words 
which this remark of the evangelist is intended to explain, 
bitter as they may seem, are very far from betraying in- 
difference, and certainly do not show any hostility. Since 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 105 


Jesus’ influence on the people in Galilee was already on 
the wane, and the ranks of His faithful followers were 
orowing constantly thinner (John vi. 60-71), the brothers 
impatiently urge the Lord to go back now to Jerusalem, 
which He had avoided for a long time, and there at the 
centre of Jewish life, where He had won considerable 
following earlier (John ii. 23, iii. 22-iv. 3), to remoye all 
doubt, particularly their own doubt, regarding His high 
calling by there performing miracles such as He had been 
doing in Galilee since His withdrawal from Jerusalem. 
Jesus did not follow their suggestion, or, at least, He 
followed it in such a way as to teach them that they 
ought to accommodate their ideas to His. We are unable 
to trace accurately the development of their relation to 
Him. We only know that at the latest within a few days 
after the Resurrection they had decided for Jesus; for 
on the day of the Ascension we find them gathering for 
prayer with their mother and the apostles (Acts i. 14), 
and we have the record of a separate appearance of the 
risen Jesus to James, the brother of the Lord (n. 7). In 
the year 57, Paul mentions the brothers of the Lord and 
the apostles as being married missionaries. Jude was a 
married man, for tradition mentions his grandsons ; and 
this may have been true also of Joseph and Simon. Paul 
could hardly have meant to include James; for though 
the tradition has more to say about James than about any 
other of Jesus’ brothers, it makes no mention of descend- 
ants of his; only distant relatives are spoken of. The 
picture of James as a stern ascetic, so deeply impressed 
upon the memory of the early Church, favours the view 
that he remained unmarried. And then, according to all 
the evidence which we can gather-from the N.T. (Acts 
xy oe Xx a Gale 19,0, 0.012), from the 
tradition of the Church, and from the Ebionitic literature, 
James was a resident of Jerusalem, whereas the persons 
referred to in 1 Cor. ix. 5 were itinerant teachers. 


106 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


In order thus to overshadow every contemporary of 
the same name in the early Church, from the death of 
James, the son of Zebedee, in 44 to the time of his own 
death in 66, James must have occupied a very prominent 
place in Jerusalem; and it is to be remembered that 
this list ineludes not only a certain James the Less (Mark 
xv. 40), but also the Apostle James, the son of Alpheeus. 
Whether the latter died undistinguished at an early date, 
or whether his influence was never widely exerted, we do 
not know, but the fact that his position in the early 
Church was an entirely subordinate one must simply be 
recognised. Just as the bare name Simon stands for 
Simon Cephas, even under circumstances where the 
Apostle Simon the Zealot seems to be present (Luke 
xxiv. 84; Acts xv. 14), so from 44 to 66 and long after- 
ward the name James was always understood as referring 
to the eldest of Jesus’ four brothers. 


1. (P. 101.) As regards the authoritative tone in which the author speaks, 
there is a general resemblance between the Epistle of James and the com- 
munications of Jewish patriarchs (above, pp. 10, 33), the Easter letters of the 
Christian patriarch of Alexandria (GK, ii. 203), or even the Lenten pastoral 
letters of bishops in our own time. In these cases, ecclesiastical custom, 
or the recognised official character of the authors, is sufficient occasion for 
writing. On the other hand, compare the explanations or even apologies in 
Rom. i. 1-16, xv. 14 ff, ;.1.Cor. i. 11 ; 2 Cor. 11. 3, 9, iii. 1, vi. 11-13, vii. 8 ff., 
xi. 1ff., xiii. 10; Eph. iii. 3£.; Col. ii. 1-5 ; Phil. iii. 1 ; 1 θεν. 12; & Bet. 7, 
12; Heb. xiii. 18, 22; Ign. Rom. iv. 3; Eph. xii. 1; Trall. iii. 3; Polye. ad Phil. 
td, ΕΠ: The only remains of early Christian literature which are 
comparable with James in this regard are the Johannine Epistles. 

2. (P.101.) Change of tone is reflected in change of address. ἀδελφοί μου 
ἀγαπητοί; i. 16, 19, ii. 5 ; ἀδελφοί pov, i. 2, ii. 1, 14, iii. 1, v. 12, 19; ἀδελφοί, iv. 
11,v.7,9,10. Until, finally, the name of brother is omitted altogether, iii. 13, 
iv. 1, 13, and the tone becomes that of severest rebuke, ii. 20, iv. 4, ν. 1. 

3. (P.102.) The old Latin translation, the latest and best edition of which 
is that of J. Wordsworth (Stud. bibl. Oxontensia, i. 113-123), based on the only 
existing MS. (ninth or tenth century), has this note at the end, “explicit 
epistola Jacobi filii Zeebedei” (sic). A trace of this same view, for which 
Wordsworth in another passage, i. 144, probably by an oversight, makes 
Jerome responsible, is to be found in the confused lists of the twelve apostles 
and seyenty disciples known as those of Hippolytus and Dorotheus, where it is 
said of James the son of Zebedee, that he preached the gospel “to the twelve 
tribes of Israel in the diaspora.” Then either no other James is mentioned 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 107 


among the apostles, while James the brother of the Lord is mentioned among 
the seventy diseiples without any suggestion that he wrote the letter (Chron. 
pasch., ed. Bonn, ii. 122, 136; ef. Cave, Hist. lit. 1720, p. 107), or, without 
his being made the son of Alpheus, his name is found among the apostles 
between “Judas of James” and “'Thaddxus Judas” on the one hand, and 
Simon Zelotes and Matthew on the other (Lagarde, Const. ap. p. 283). In the 
first printed edition of the Syriac N.T. (ed. Widmanstad, Vienne, 1555), the 
following is found in Syriac on a title-page just before the Catholic Epistles: 
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ we print three Epistles of James, Peter, 
and John, who were witnesses of our Lord’s revelation, when He was trans- 
figured before their eyes on Mount Tabor, and when they saw Moses and 
Elias, who talked with Him. Until it is proved that this statement is found 
in ancient MSS. the entire title must be regarded as the work of the Jacobite 
bishop Moses of Mardin, who furnished the MS. for the edition of 1555. 
Of an entirely different character is the frequent designation of the writer 
of the letter as an apostle. Thus at times he is so called by Eusebius 
(Montfaucon, Patr. coll. nova, 1. 247), in the sixth century MSS. of the Pesh. 
in Wright's Catal. of Syr. MSS. pp. 80, 81, 82, and in the Latin versions of 
Origen, cf. ed. Delarue, ii. 139, 158, 671 (“apostolus est qui dieit”), but never 
in the writings which are extant in Greek. This may be due to Jerome’s 
identification of the bishop James with James the son of Alpheus, or simply 
to the fact that in ancient times the apostolic title was quite freely used (cf. 
Skizzen, 341, τι. 12)—being given to the seventy disciples (Iren. ii. 21.2; Tert. 
ce. Marc: iv. 24 in.)—but especially to authors whose writings were regarded 
with more or less unanimity as belonging in the N.T., as Luke (Hippol. De 
Antichr. 56), Barnabas (Clem. Strom. ii. 31 and 35), Clement of Rome (Clem. 
Strom. iv. 105). In modern times the authorship of the Epistle by James 
the son of Zebedee has been defended by G. Jäger, Z/LTh. 1878, S. 420 ff. 

4. (P. 103.) Cf. the treatise on “ Briider und Vettern Jesu,” Forsch. vi. 
925-363. The title ὁ δίκαιος was given him not only by Christians, such as 
the redactor of the Gospel of the Hebrews (GK, ii. 700, Frag. 18), Hegesippus 
(Eus. ii. 23.18, iv. 22. 4), Clement (Eus. ii. 1. 3f.); but, according to 
Hegesippus, by all from the time of Jesus (Eus. ii. 23. 4), particularly by 
the unbelieving Jews (Ens. ii. 23. 6, 15-17). Probably by the event which 
followed shortly after the death of James, Hegesippus did not understand 
the siege and capture of Jerusalem by Titus (A.D. 70), but the outbreak 
of the Jewish war under Vespasian in the spring of a.D. 67 (Eus. ii. 
23. 18, καὶ εὐθὺς Οὐεσπασιανὸς πολιορκεῖ αὐτούς). A war which not only 
ended with the siege and capture of Jerusalem, but which in its previous 
conduct had been characterized mainly by the investment and capture 
of fortified places (Jotapata, Gamala, Tabor), might very appropriately be 
described as a πολιορκεῖν τοὺς ᾿ἸΙουδαίους ; cf. 2 Kings xvii. 4,5; Eus. H. ΗΕ. 
iv. δ. 2and 8 title; cf. also Chron. ad a. Abrah. 2039 of the entire Hadrian- 
itie war. This statement of Hegesippus is our only authority, since the 
passage in Josephus (Ant. xx. 9. 1) where it is said that “James the brother 
of Jesus, the so-called Christ,” along with several others, was condemned to 
be stoned for breaking the law by a court appointed by the high priest 
Ananus, in the year 62, shows unmistakable signs of interpolation by a 
Christian hand. Besides’ this passage, which ‘is accurately quoted in H. E. 
ii. 23. 21, Eusebius cites another statement of Josephus (ii. 23. 20) which 


BY 


108 INTRODUCTION TO 'THE NEW TESTAMENT 


represents the destruction of Jerusalem as a penalty for the killing of James, 
This statement is not to be found in any of the extant MSS. of Josephus, 
but is given in essentially the same form by Origen, c. Cels, i. 47 (ef. ii. 13), 
and is elsewhere referred by him to the Antiquities of J osephus (Com. in Mt. 
xiii. 55, ed. Delarue, iii. 463). Since Eusebius cites the passage in direct 
discourse, while Origen gives it only in indirect discourse, it is highly im- 
probable that Eusebius took it from Origen. More likely both read it in 
their Josephus, but not in the twentieth book of the Antiquities cited by 
Eusebius in the context, but in the Jewish War, in the fifth book of which 
something similar was found by later readers (Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, i. 463). 
Origen, quoting from memory, made a slight mistake in citing his authority, 
as he does in making other quotations from Josephus (e.g. on Matt. xvii. 25; 
Del. iii. 805). This passage, which is not to be found in existing MSS. of 
the Jewish War, is even more open to suspicion than Ant. xx. 9, 1, which is 
extant. It is on the authority of the latter passage that the Chronicle of 
Eusebius fixes the date of James’ death (a. Abrah. 2077, in the redaction of 
Jerome 2078, i.e. 61 or 62 A.D.), while the date given in the Paschal Chronicle 
(ed. Bonn, i. 460), 69 A.D., is based upon the other apocryphal Josephus 
passage, or upon a wrong interpretation of the statement of Hegesippus. 
The statements of J erome, Vir, Til. ii (cf. xiii), which depend upon Eusebius and 
which are very confused, are worthless. While Jerome seems to think that 
the gravestone of James, erected on the spot where he was executed, beside 
the temple, remained there only until the time of Hadrian, Hegesippus, 
who did not write before 180, says, ἔτι αὐτοῦ ἡ στήλη μένει παρὰ τῷ ναῷ. 
Andreas Cretensis, who lived in Jerusalem in 680, says of James (Anal. 
Hieros. ed, P. Kerameus, i. 12), λαβόντες αὐτὸν ἔθαψαν ἐν τόπῳ καλουμένῳ 
Καλῷ πλησίον τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. In Jerome’s time (Vir. II. ii end) it was 
a matter of common belief that he was buried on the Mount of Olives. 

5, (P. 103.) Ep. Petri ad Jac. 1 ; Clementis ad Jac. 1; cf. Skizzen, 64 £., 342, 
n. 17. Nothing is said in Acts concerning the beginning of the “ episcopate ” 
of James. Just as we learn in Acts xi. 30 without any previous notice of 
the existence of presbyters in Jerusalem, so in Acts xii, 17 we learn that 
“James and the brethren” means the entire Jerusalem Church, Though 
not an apostle, he stands in close relation to the presbyters (Acts xv, 6, 13, 
22f.), and the latter are represented as gathering to him (Acts xxi. 18). 
Clement makes the vesting of James with the episcopate follow immediately 
upon the ascension (see Eus. ii, 1-3, and Forsch. iii. 73, 75, n. 1). Hegesip- 
pus says that James assumed the leadership of the Jerusalem Church, not 
like the bishops of other Churches who became the successors of the apostles 
who founded the Churches, on the death of the latter, but in conjunction 
with the apostles while these still remained for the most part in Palestine 
(Eus. ii, 23. 4, pera τῶν ἀποστόλων, not post apostolos, as in Jerome, Vir, Ill, li). 
More trustworthy seems the statement of Eusebius (ii. 1. 2), which probably 
rests back upon other passages in Hegesippus, that he became bishop after 
the death of Stephen. The changes in the organisation of the Jerusalem 
Church, which we observe from Acts xi. 30 on, were probably the result of 
the temporary dissolution of the Church in the year 35 (Acts viii. 1-4), not of 
the events recorded in Acts xii, As late as the fourth century, in Jerusalem 
was shown the seat in which James was accustomed to sit (Eus. vii. 19. 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 109 


32. 29). Gregorius Barhebr. (Chron. Ecel., ed, Abbeloos et Lamy, i. 62), who 
could not have derived his information from Eusebius, testifies that this was 
true in the time of the Antiochian Bishop Timeus (called by him Timothy), 
circa 270-280 A.D. While the principal reason for James’ promotion to a 
place of commanding influence may have been his personal integrity, there 
was another influence that helped to bring it about. After his death, 
Simeon, another relative of Jesus, was chosen bishop (Heges. ; see: Eus. iv. 
22.4). The grandchildren of Judas the brother of Jesus were considered by 
non-Christians to be of the line of David, and until the time of Hadrian 
occupied prominent positions in the Palestinian Church (Heges. ; see Kus. 
iii, 20. 1-8, 32. 6, ef. iii. 11.12, 19). As late as the third century there were 
still kindred of Jesus in Palestine and outside who were honoured with the 
title δεσπόσυνοι (belonging to the family of the δεσπότης, 1.6. Christ. Cf. 
2 Pet. ii. 1; Jude 4), and who boasted about their nobility (Africanus ; see 
Eus. i. 7. 11, 14). According to the same writer, they had spread from 
Nazareth and Kokaba throughout the world. According to the Syrian 
tradition, three successive bishops of Seleucia, in the third century,—the 
third a contemporary of Porphyrius, the opponent of Christianity,—were 
descendants of the carpenter Joseph (Greg. Barh. Chron. Eccl. ii. 22. ; 
Assemani, Bibl. Or. ii. 395). With these traditions compare the fact that 
after the destruction of the temple and of the high priesthood, which had 
always had a certain show of princely dignity (Acts xxiii. 5), the Jews called 
the Rabbi who, after seventy, stood at the head of the highest rabbinic school 
and court, a prince (se), regarded the office as hereditary, and laid emphasis 
upon the descent of Hillel and his posterity, from David on the maternal 
side. One is reminded also of the so-called exiliarch, the “head of the 
diaspora” in Babylon, and of the Jewish ethnarchs of Alexandria. James, 
and after him Simeon, was such a Nast of the Christian twelve tribes. So, 
when in Clem. Recogn. i. 68, James is called episcoporum princeps in contrast 
to Caiaphas, the princeps sacerdotum, it is not out of keeping with the view 
current in the earliest Jewish Christian Church. 

6. (P. 104.) Ὁ; Wieseler’s hypothesis (ThStKr. 1842, 5. 80 ff., ef; his Kom. 
zum Galaterbrief, ad loc.), that the brother of Jesus mentioned in Gal. i. 19 
was not an apostle, while the James referred to in Gal. ii. 9, 12 is James the 
son of Alphsus, scarcely requires refutation to-day. It would be easier, to 
believe that two different persons are referred to in Gal. i. 19 and Gal. ii. 9, 12, 
if in the former passage mention were made simply of a James, and then later 
of a James further distinguished as ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου. Gal. i. 19 deais with 
an event which took place while James the son of Zebedee was still alive, 
and in the connection it was natural to note that the James in question was 
not an apostle. On the other hand, the events mentioned in Gal. ii. 9, 12 
took place subsequent to the death of the son of Zebedee. 

7. (P. 105.) From 1 Cor. xv. 7 it is not clear whether the James referred to 
isan apostle or not. Nor is the statement of the Hebrew Gospel decisive ; for, 
on the one hand, it represents the James to whom the risen Christ appeared as 
the brother of Jesus, known as “ The Just » . but, on the other hand, it speaks 
of him as partaking of the Last Supper with Jesus, apparently regarding him 
as an apostle (Fragment 18, GK, ii. 700). This Gospel contradicts both Paul 
and the canonical Gospels when it speaks of the appearance as if it were the 


110 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


very first that occurred in the early morning. According to 1 Cor. xv. 7, the 
appearance to James occurred toward the end of the forty days (Acts i. 3, xiii. 
31), and so must have taken place in Galilee, where Jesus appeared to more than 
five hundred brethren before He appeared to James. There ig nothing to indi- 
cate that the brothers of Jesus were present at the Passover during which Jesus 
was put to death. John xix. 26f. is more easy to understand if they retained 
their critical attitude and at the time remained away from Jerusalem. 
Although the Hebrew Gospel varies from the true tradition at this point, it 
does not impress one as being a mere idle tale. Itis supported by 1 Cor. xv. 7. 
The saying of Jesus to James, “ My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of 
Man is risen from the dead,” is beautiful. The vow of James which the say- 
ing presupposes, namely, that he will eat no more bread until he sees the Lord 
risen, is not only thoroughly Jewish (Acts xxiii, 14), but quite in keeping 
with the personal character of James, who was a Nazarite (Heges. ; see Rus. 
il. 23. 5), and there is no reason for questioning its historicity. The 
sentiment expressed insuch a vow is not unlike that of Thomas (John xx. 
24-29, xi. 16). In the very unbelief there is a longing to behold what it is 
not yet possible to believe, 


ὃ 6. THE AUTHOR'S TRAINING AND HABITS OF 
THOUGHT. 


Better acquaintance is to be had with James from his 
own letter than from the scant remains we have of trust. 
worthy tradition. It is due quite as much to James’ way 
of looking at things as to the circumstances of the readers 
to whom he wrote, that he does not feel it necessary to 
develop the faith confessed by him and his readers (11, 
li. 1) in any of its theoretical aspects, but insists as 
strenuously as he can that they make their lives conform 
to the orthodox faith which they profess. That he had 
a profound and vital opinion concerning the cardinal 
doctrines of the Christian faith, is proved by incidental 
references to the glory of Christ (ii. 1), to sin and the 
deep roots which it has in human nature (1,01 4 diveollde ah 44), 
and to the power of God’s word, once rooted in the 
Christian’s heart, to create new life and to save. This 
word is a law of liberty, which the Christian can and 
ought to obey (i. 18,21, 25, n. 1). It is shown further 
by references to the Spirit which God has sent to dwell 
in the hearts of Christians (iv. 5), to the still greater 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 111 


boon which Christians are finally to receive (iv. 6),— 
the heavenly kingdom to be ushered in with the parousia 
of the Lord, of which they are heirs, and to the new 
creation of which they, the children of God begotten by 
the word of His truth, are the first-fruits (1. 12, 18, 14, 
vy. 81) While a man’ like Paul, even in cases where the 
application of religious truth to life was direct, always 
sought to show the relation between the content of the 
Christian faith and its practical application by recalling 
the facts of the gospel history and showing the natural 
development of the practical application from these facts, 
James always begins at once with practical exhortation. 
He is not so much a teacher who develops the truth, as 
he is a preacher who speaks like a prophet (n. 2). A 
man of the logical type of mind and a teacher who had 
been trained in the schools could hardly have failed, im 
a discussion as elaborate as that in Jas. 1. 2-17, to make 
clear to the readers the distinction between the two ideas 
in the word πειρασμός. Nor would such a person have 
been likely to cite Gen. xv. 6 without stating in what 
sense he understood the reckoning of faith there spoken 
of to be righteousness, and without showing wherein this 
idea here expressed differed from his own conception of 
δικαιοῦσθαι. 

Without any extended discussion or argument, James 
shows that he has a vital grasp of the truth, in language 
which for foreibleness is without parallel in early Christian 
literature, excepting the discourses of Jesus. We have 
here the eloquence that comes from the heart and goes 
to the conscience, a kind which was never learned in a 
school of rhetoric. ‘The flow of words (n. 4) seems to be 
just as natural as the succession of ideas (n. 3). . Several 
words do not occur in literature before James. Whether 
some of these were coined by the author or whether all 
of them were in common use in the locality where he lived, 
we do not know. But it is very clear that the author 


[12 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


got his facility in the use of Greek, not in some rhetorical 
school, but from life. His language is comparatively free 
from gross mistakes, and even shows some feeling for the 
euphony and rhythm of the Greek tongue (n. 5). And 
yet on the whole how limited is his command οὗ this 
foreign language. In the entire Epistle there is scarcely 
one periodic sentence, the language used consisting for 
the most part of short sayings, questions, and exclamations. 
There is no good reason for denying that James wrote 
Greek by assuming that the letter was written originally 
in Aramaic (n. 6); nor is it right to make his inability to 
do so an argument against the historical character of the 
tradition concerning James. If the membership of the 
mother Church consisted from the beginning in large part 
of Hellenists who kept on using the Greek language after 
their settlement in Jerusalem (above, pp. 39 f., 42 f.), the 
same is likely also to have been the case in the Churches 
colonised from this centre. Then, besides the native Jews, 
who were called Hellenists, in Caesarea (Acts x.), certainly 
also in Ptolemais and Tyre (above, p. 44), there must have 
been added to the Church a number of Gentiles and prose- 
lytes, who had no more occasion after than before their 
conversion to familiarise themselves with the Jewish ver- 
nacular, Greek being the language of common intercourse 
in those cities; and in Antioch this number must have 
been very large. Now, if an author wanted to be under- 
stood by these Greeks and to reach the heart of these 
Hellenists, it was necessary to address them in Greek. 
And he could do so in the confidence that he would be 
understood by much the larger part of the “ Hebrews” 
living in this extended region. The latter were certainly 
to be found not only in Jerusalem, but also in Lydda, 
Joppa, Damascus, and elsewhere (above, p. 66, n. 12). 
But, writing from Jerusalem in the circumstances that he 
did, while not formally excluding the Christians near him 
from the address, he must have had these far less in mind 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 113 


than the more remote Churches, ineluding those as far 
away as Antioch, who could not have the benefit of his 
oral instructions. We saw, moreover, that James took 
account of the Gentiles who were among his readers 
(above, p. 91). What was there, then, to prevent him 
from adapting the form of his letter to the large number 
of Hellenists among his readers by writing in a language 
which was certainly intelligible to all, and which it did 
not greatly inconvenience him to use? Even the greeting, 
i. 1, shows conscious adaptation to the habits of these 
Greeks and Hellenists ; for, without obscuring the sense 
at all, James could have used a Jewish greeting, as do 
Paul and. the other apostles, translating it into Greek and 
adapting it for Christian use (n. 7). 

To assume that from the position which James occu- 
pied in Jerusalem he would have had no opportunity to 
acquire the facility in the use of Greek which the author 
of this letter had, or that he lacked the ability to acquire 
it, is entirely arbitrary (above, p. 45). Assuming that the 
letter was written between 44 and 51, the author. had 
been from fifteen to twenty years a member, and for a 
number of years the official head, of this Jerusalem Church, 
which very early in its history had more Hellenists than 
Hebrews in its membership. As the head of this Church, 
James must have been familiar with the Greek O.T. 
(above, p. 40), so that it would be entirely natural in 
writing a Greek letter that he should make his quotations 
from the LXX (n. 8). Still the letter is not altogether 
without traces of the author’s familiarity with the original 
text. , James lives and moves in the atmosphere of the 
O.T. Besides the few instances where the O.T. is quoted 
directly (11. 8, 11, 23, iv. 5, 6) and specific references ‘to 
individuals and facts in the O.T. (ii. 21, 25, v. 10f.,.17/£), 
there are numerous passages where the author’s thought 
seems to flow unconsciously in the mould of O.T. language 
(i. 10,1. 7, ii. 9, v. 4,20). One of his quotations is 

VOL, I. 8 


114 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


from a writing unknown to us (n. 9). While the Book of 
Proverbs, written by the Palestinian’ Jesus the son of 
Sirach, is not quoted, the letter does show familiarity with 
a number of his sayings (n. 10), though it would be going 
too far to say that there was any particular mental affinity 
between this author and James. On the other hand, there 
is a resemblance both in thought and in language between 
James’ letter and: the discourses of his brother Jesus which 
have come down to us, which is all the more natural if James 
was not directly under Jesus’ influence during the latter’s 
public ministry, and if the resemblance is due neither to 
artificial imitation of nor to conscious dependence upon 
the discourses of Jesus. There is not a single word ‘of 
Jesus’ quoted, much less anything from the Gospels. And 
yet, although none of the sayings of Jesus are reproduced 
in exactly the form in which they have come down’ to us, 
it is possible to fill the margin of the Kpistle’ with 
parallels of Jesus’ discourses which resemble James more 
closely in thought than’ the parallels from Jewish litera. 
ture, some of which are closer verbally (n. 11). Though 
James may have become acquainted with most of the words 
of Jesus preserved in the oral tradition of the Church by 
hearing them from others, still there were not a few of 
these sayings which he had heard from Jesus’ own lips, 
though often with doubt and disapproval (above, p. 104 ἢ). 
After he became a believer, what he learned from others 
and what he had heard himself fused together in his 
thought, and the impression of the personality of Jesus, 
under the influence of which he had been ever since his 
childhood, made the tradition so vital that it developed 
in him a Christian character which in the early Chureh 
made him seem all but superior to the apostles them- 
selves. | 

Unlike his brothers, he felt no call: to engage in mis- 
sionary work (1 Cor, ix. 5; above, p. 105). Here also the 
letter is in keeping with James’ character, for there is 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 115 


very little of the gospel in it, ‘and of all the N.T. writings 
it is the one least adapted to give us an idea of the sort 
of preaching by which converts were made. It does, 
however, presuppose this preaching. ΤΌ is also in keeping 
with the description which we have of the character of 
James of Jerusalem, that his letter, while presupposing 
the Christian faith, pays little attention to forms of state- 
ment specifically Christian, and that its, teachings have 
the O.T. and Jewish stamp. If this were not the: case, 
we should have to deny that the Epistle was written by 
James, for he was a man who was looked upon as an 
authority by the Jews of his own time and by the 
Ebionites of a later period, such a man that, as he was 
being stoned, Jewish priests are said to have exclaimed, 
“Stop! what do ye? the Just is praying for you.” It 
was possible to be deceived into supposing that James’ 
Christian confession was only an adjunct of his Jewish 
piety, which could be cast off without changing his 
character. But this supposition proved to be mistaken 
(above, pp. 103, 107). 


1. (P. 110.) From the connection of i. 18, 21, 22, 25 it appears that the 
law, whose continued contemplation and fulfilment is urged upon the readers, 
is identical with the word of truth, through which God has given them their 
religious life, making it thus an “implanted word,” or at least is included as 
an essential element in it. . Now, if 1018 self-evident that i. 18, 21 f. refer not 
to O.T. revelation but 'to the gospel of. Christ, it is also plain that i, 25, ii. 
9-12, iv. 11f., refer not to the Mosaic law as such, but to the law contained 
in the gospel. When it is characterised, then, as a “perfect law,” the epithet 
is not loosely applied to divine law in general (Ps. xix. 8), but marks the 
law which is binding upon the newborn, and is implanted in them as a 
perfeet law in distinction from another which is imperfect. This distinction 
is mäde still clearer by. the added phrase, τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας. But since 
“freedom” is not regarded, in the common experience and usage of any age, 
asa natural attribute of “law,” but rather as its contradiction, it is plain 
that James meant his readers to feel in the very form of his expression (οἵ. 
Rom. ix. 30) the contrast between this law and another to which the phrase 
could not apply. There isa law of bondage, also, which for that very reason 
is imperfect.. By this can be meant no other than the Mosaic law, which 
was not implanted in the heart, but inscribed, on tables of stone (Jer. xxxi. 
31-34; Heb. viii. 7-13; Rom. viii. 15; Acts xv. 10), and which, particularly 
im the hands of the Rabbis, had become a heavy yoke of slavery (Matt, xxiii. 4, 


[16 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ef. xi. 29 £., xii. 7) ; while by the same treatment, on the other hand, it was 
reduced in fact and impoverished in spirit (Matt. v. 21-48, xv. 1-20). The 
law contained in the gospel demands not less, but more, than the Mosaic law 
as expounded by the Pharisees. At the very point, therefore, where James 
reminds his readers of the increased responsibility of Christians and the 
seriousness of the judgment which awaits them (ii. 12), he dwells once more 
upon the character of Christian law as a law of liberty. In this he is quite 
in accord with the preaching of Jesus. The fact that this new and perfect 
law of liberty includes commandments from the Decalogue also, and that 
special stress is laid (ii. 8-11) upon the law of love to one’s neighbour, which 
is likewise an O.T. command, is again in agreement with the preaching of 
Jesus, and with the teaching of Paulas well (Rom. ii, 23-27, viii. 4, xiii, 
8-10; Gal. v. 14, vi. 2). When James calls the law of love a “royal law,” 
he cannot mean simply that it was given by a king, for that is true of all 
commands of God and Christ. Nor is there any usage to justify the inter- 
pretation, “a law royally superior to all. others, an all-inclusive law.” He 
means rather that it is a law for kings and not for slaves. In Philo, de 
creat. Princ. iv, Mangey, ii. 364, βασιλικὴ ὁδός denotes the manner of life and 
conduct which befits a king. It would seem that James was so understood 
by Clement, (Strom. vi. 164, vii. 73, cf. GK, i. 323; Mayor, 84)... How 
admirably this suits the context is apparent. The heirs of the kingdom 
(ii. 5), who are themselves kings (Rev. i. 6, v. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 9), ought to be 
ashamed to meet the rich with fawning politeness, offered under pretext of 
due brotherly love, and at the same time dishonour the poor. The reverse 
legalistic attitude accordingly is closely related to the idea expressed in eAev- 
Gepias. As a king’s sons, the disciples of Jesus are free, just as He Him- 
self was ; and if as members of the pre-Christian people of God they perform 
what is there required of them, they are still free nevertheless (Matt. xvii. 
24-27). 

2. (P. 111.) The distinction between διδάσκαλος and προφήτης is by no 
means absolute. In Acts xiii. 1 it is hardly permissible to arrange the various 
names under the two titles separately. By the transition to the first person 
plural in iii. 1, James intimates that he is one of the διδάσκαλοι in the 
broader sense. ‘But the difference between διδαχή and προφητεία was clearly 
felt in the life of the Church till well into the second century, ef. 1 Cor. xii. 
8-10, 28, xiv. 6, 26; Eph. iv. 11 (ef. ii. 20, iii. 5); Herm. Mand. xi. ; Didache, 
x. 7; xi. 3, 7-12 ; xiii. 1-4, cf. Forsch. iii. 298-302 ; Ign. Philad. vii. Although 
1 Cor. xiv. 3, 24f. deals with quite another distinction between prophecy 
and the gift of tongues, its characterisation of the prophetic type of discourse 
is of general validity, and is applicable to James. Andrew of Crete calls James 
a προφήτης (Anal. Hieros. ed. P. Kerameus, i. 3. 7,14. 3); and in referring to 
the Epistle, from which he makes extended extracts, he speaks repeatedly, of 
its prophetic style (iv. 31, v. 24, vii. 28). Luther did not, as is commonly said, 
call James “a straw Epistle” outright, but, contrasting it with John, Romans, 
Galatians, and 1 Peter, he wrote in 1522 what he did not reprint in later 
editions of his Bible : “ Therefore St. James’ Epistle is a right strawy Epistle as 
compared with them ; for it has no real gospel character” (Erlangen, ed. 63. 115). 
There is, nevertheless, both here and in the introduction to James and J ude 
(63. 156 ff.), ἃ degree of unfairness, whieh is as easily accounted for as it is re- 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 117 


grettable. Cf., further, Kawerau, “Die Schicksale‘ des Jas. in‘ 16 Jahr- 
hundert.” (Z/K IV, 1889, 8. 359 ff.). 

3. (Ρ. 111.) Χαίρειν, i. 1, is echoed immediately in πᾶσαν χαράν, the open- 
ing words of the first section, i. 2-18, which set forth and urge the right attitude 
toward the assaults of temptation. The special mention among God’s gifts of 
the regenerative word (i. 18) forms the transition to the second section, i. 19-27, 
which calls for the right acceptance of this word in heart and life. Care for 
widows and orphans, which is mentioned (i. 27) as an example of-the proper 
activity of the word, leads on to the reproof of a wrong attitude toward both 
rich and poor in the third section, 11. 1-13. The contrast between believing 
and doing, pointed out in the very beginning of this section, becomes the 
theme of the fourth section, ii. 14-26. As this passage censures the dead faith, 
which expresses itself in words and not in deeds (ii.'14, 16, 19), it is naturally 
followed by the fifth section, 111. 1-18, rebuking the tendency to instruct 
others (ef. i. 19), and pointing out the danger of sins of the tongue (ef. i. 26). 
In the description of true and false wisdom (iii. 13-18), James does not: lose 
sight of its immediate occasion (see above, p. 95f., n. 2); but the description 
becomes so comprehensive, and passes finally into so urgent a commendation: 
of peaceableness, that it brings to mind in contrast the many disputes among 
the readers, which are dealt with in the sith section, iv. 1-12. The desire 
for the betterment of external conditions, which is noted as the chief ground 
of these dissensions, appears most markedly among the merchants and the 
landowners, but also among the farm: hands, who complain against them. 
To these classes the seventh section, iv. 13-v. 12, with its three’ subdivisions, 
refers. Not only Job, however, but Elijah is an example to be considered. 
The Christian is not simply to endure in patience what is well-nigh unen- 
durable ; prayer offers to the individual and to the Church a means for the 
relief of earthly suffering and the cure of moral. hurt which transcends even 
the natural order. This is pointed out inthe eighth section, v:. 13-20. Thus, 
at the close, as at the beginning of his Epistle, James treats of earthly suffer- 
ing, patience, and prayer. 

4. (P. 111.) Mayor, clii-cciv, presents a comprehensive examination’ of 
the language of James, and concludes, not improperly, that it contains 
fewer formal violations of good usage than any other N.T. book, except 
perhaps Hebrews. This is by no means to assert, however, that Paul 
had not far greater facility in the use of Greek, or that the style of James 
could be confused with that of a classical writer. There are only three 
periodic ‘sentences of any extent in the whole letter (ii. 2-4, 15-16, iv. 
13-15). The first two are similarly arranged ; the third (and perhaps the 
second also) is not correetly carried out. The genitive absolute participle, 
the accusative with infinite, and the optative, are entirely lacking. ' The 
use of the particles is exceedingly limited, e.g. ἄν (iii. 4, v. 7, spurious; 
only iv. 4, ὃς ἐάν), μέν (only iii. 17; never μέν---δέ), ἄρα, ἐπεί, ὥστε, do not 
occur, iva appears but twice (i. 4, iv. 3). Rare words are aveXeos, ii, 13 
(instead of ἀνελεήμων, LXX), altered to dvitews by the Antiochians ; ave- 
μίζεσθαι, 1. 6; ameipaoros, i. 13, of persons=untested, or above temptation 
(differently, Jos. Bell. Jud. v. 9. 3, vii. 8. 1), next again in Clem. Strom. vii. 
§§ 45, 70, Const. Ap. 11. 8, in an apocryphal citation ; ἀποσκίασμα, i. 17,—it 
is perhaps a matter of chance that this is not found till the later Church 


118 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Fathers, for Plutarch has ἀποσκιασμός ; δαιμονιώδης, ii. 15, first reappearing 
in the Jewish Christian Symmachus, Ps. xci. 6, δίψυχος, 1. 8, iv. 8; Clem. 
1 Gor. xi.ı2, also in an apocryphal citation, xxiii, 3, cf. Clem. 2 Cor. xi. 2 
(διψυχεῖν and διψυχία some twenty times in Hermas) ; Opnoxds, i. 26, only’ 
in grammarians and lexicographers ; πολύσπλαγχνος, v. 11, recurring for the 
first time with its derivatives, Herm. Vis. ἵν. 8. δ; Sim. v.7.4 (cf. the writer's 
Hirt des Hermas, 330, 399, 487), and Clem. Quis Dives, xxxix ; προσωπὸ- 
λημπτεῖν, ii. 9 (together with the more common προσωπολημψία, ii. 1, ef. Rom. 
ii, 11; Col.iii. 25; Eph. vi. 9); χαλιναγωγεῖν, 1. 26, 111: 2, cf. Herm. Mand. 
xii, 1.1; Polye. ad Phil. v. 3; Lucian, Tyrannic, 4; χρυσοδακτύλιος, 11. 2, 
otherwise unknown. 

5. (P. 112.) With regard also to paronomasia, alliteration, rhythm, ete. 
Mayor, excv ff., is well worth reading. In many passages he finds something 
of a “ Miltonie organtone,” and in others a volcanic fire glowing through 
the words. Τύ is still a question whether πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ wav δώρημα 
τέλειον, 1. 17, is an hexameter, known and quoted by James, as, for example, 
Ewald, Das Sendschr..an die Hebr. u. Jak. Rundschreiben, 190, and Mayor, 53, 
think probable, or one accidentally formed with a permissible use of the 
short final syllable of δόσις in the arsis. The analogy of Heb. xii. 13 (ef. 
Winer, § 68. 4) favours the latter view, as does the circumstance that the 
line contains only a subject and no predicate. The conjecture that it was a 
one line adage, “Every gift is good, and every present perfect,” in the same 
sense as “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” (H. Fischer, Philoloqus, 
1891, p. 378), needlessly charges James with a decidedly ill-timed use of a 
somewhat flippant proverb. 

6..(P. 112.) The almost forgotten hypothesis of an Aramaic original 
(Berthold, Hist. krit, Hinl. vi. 3033 ff.) has been revived by J. Wordsworth 
(Stud. Bibl. Oxon. i. 141-150). He does not base the theory upon an enumera- 
tion of errors and obscurities in the Greek text which would be explained by 
the reference to an Aramaic original, but on the Latin translation of the Cod. 
Corb., which presupposes, he says, a Greek original very different from the 
text otherwise transmitted. Then the existence of two Greek texts so 
divergent is to be explained on the ground that they are two independent 
versions of an. Aramaic original, and this in turn is confirmed by corre- 
spondences between the Latin Corb, and the Pesh. Now, these correspond- 
ences amount to no more than those between Corb. and other versions and 
Greek MSS. (ef. eg. Tischendorf on Jas. ii. 25), and would be significant only 
in case one could assert and prove that the Pesh. contained not a translation 
of James but the original. The only point which might demand attention, 
“ namely, the translation of ἱμάτια by res, Jas. v. 2, as an indication that the 
Syriac word used in the Pesh. was here the underlying term, is after all of 
no consequence; for, as Mayor, cevii, shows, Rufinus, Eus. ii. 23. 18, translates 
ἱμάτια in the same way. The originality of the Greek text’ is established 
not only by the lack of proof to the contrary, but by the unconstrained 
manner of the Epistle, which, if it. were not in the original language, would 
imply a mastery of the translator’s art unparalleled among the ancients. In 
i, 1, 2 the paronomasia between χαίρειν and χαρά, 80 essential to the thought, 
would (have to be ascribed to the translator. For nothing could have stood 
in an Aramaic original but the obv of the Pesh., which excludes the possi- 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 119 


bility of assonance, and which, in connection with the usual N.T. salutation, 
would have been rendered by εἰρήνη, and not χαίρειν, by any ancient trans- 
lator ; see the following note. 

7. (P. 113.) The Jews of the Hellenistic period considered the Gentile 
χαίρειν an equivalent for the Semitic salutation of peace; cf. Jerome, p. 23 
above, n. 4. This appears even in the LXX, Isa. xlviii. 22, lvii. 21, cf. Luke 
i. 28 ; then at the opening of letters, not only those from Gentile rulers to Jews 
(ad. Est. viii. 13, Swete, 77°=vi. 1, Fritzsche, 62, 63 ; 1 Mace. x. 25, xi. 30), but 
also letters from Jewish high priests to Gentiles (1 Mace. xii. 6; Jos. Ant. xii. 2. 6, 
according to Aristeas). 2 Macc. 1. 1 shows a combination of Jewish and Greek 
forms in the intercourse between the Jews of Palestine and those of Egypt, first 
χαίρειν and then εἰρήνην ἀγαθήν (more skilfully in Barn. i. 1, χαίρετε. . . ev 
εἰρήνῃ). In the second letter, 2 Macc. i. 10, a thoroughly Greek expression, 
χαίρειν καὶ ὑγιαίνειν, see shape, p- 78, n. 2. The Semitic greeting, Dan. 111. 31, 
vi. 25 (ef. Ezra v. 7), which Gamaliel also uses (see above, p. 33, n. 18), is trans- 
lated by LXX and Theodotion pretty literally εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη, cf. 1 Pet. 
i.2; 2 Pet.i.2; Jude 2. εἰρήνη alone in closing, 1 Pet. v.14; 3 John 15, 
There are also strictly Jewish expansions, like that of ap. Baruchi, Ixxviii. 2, in 
the letter to the nine and a half tribes beyond the river (Ceriani, Monwmenta 
S. et Prof. v. 2. 168): p25 mm snow ax xom, ef. Gal. vi. 16; Jude 2, ἔλεος καὶ 
εἰρήνη. After χάρις, with its resemblance in sound to χαίρειν, had estab- 
lished itself in connection with εἰρήνη, ἔλεος might still be added, 1 Tim.i.2; 
2 Tim, i. 2 (Tit. 1. 8.) ; 2 John 3. James contents himself with the simplest, 
because he knows that the more ceremonious greeting of the Israelite may 
degenerate into empty formality (cf. John xiv. 27), and that the Greek 
salutation, though not exactly the expression of a serious conception of life, 
may be lifted to a higher plane of thought. John, who incidentally assumes 
the customary use of yaipew in the spoken intercourse of Christians (2 John 
10 f.), does not hesitate to appropriate the specifically Epicurean form, 3 John 2, 
ef. p. 78, τι. 2. Bengel, Gnomon on Acts xv. 23, “Non semper utuntur fideles 
formulis ardentissimis.” It is noteworthy that, except for the letter of a 
Gentile, Acts xxiii. 26, this χαίρειν occurs elsewhere in the N.T. only in Acts 
Xv. 23, in a document sent at James’ suggestion to the Gentile Christians of 
Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, Other resemblances between Acts xv. 13-29 and 
James have been noticed (Schneckenburger, Beiträge zur Einl. 209; Mayor, 
iv), 6.5. Acts xv. 13, ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ ἀκούσατέ μου, cf. Jas. ii. 5; Acts xv. 17 
(Amos ix. 12), eb’ ovs ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, cf. Jas. ii. 7; Acts 
xv. 29, ἐξ ὧν διατηροῦντες ἑαυτούς, cf. Jas. 1. 27, ἄσπιλον τηρεῖν ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ 
κόσμου. Such similarities tend constantly to confirm the tradition, which 
ascribes the origin of both letters to the same period and the same circle. 

8. (P. 113.) In Jas. ii. 23, Gen. xv. 6 is cited according to the LXX with 
the passive ἐλογίσθη, and not the active construction of the original. The 
connective δέ, which is well attested, also, in Rom. iv. 3, and recurs in Clem. 
1 Cor. x. 6, Just. Dial. xeii, appears as early as Philo, de Mut. Nom. xxxiii, 
Mangey, i. 605, and then in the text of Lucian, ed. Lagarde. Lacking X and B 
for Gen. xv. 6, it is hard to say whether καί or δέ is original in the LXX. 
Jas. ii. 8= Ley. xix. 18, LXX ; but this could scarcely have been translated 
otherwise. One can hardly determine from Jas. ii, 11 the arrangement of 
the Decalogue to which James was accustomed. The order of the command- 


120 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ments as James uses them is based upon their content (see above, p. 100, π΄ 9) 
un instead of οὐ, Ex. xx. 13 ff., was an amendment of style, ef. Luke xviii. 20, 
καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν θεοῦ γεγονότας, Jas. iii. 9, is derived from Gen. i. 26, LXX. 
Jas. iv. 6= Prov. iii. 34, but differs materially from the Hebrew, to which the 
substitution of Θεός for κύριος brings it no nearer. If we grant that Jas. 
i. 10f. is’manifestly based on Isa..xl. 6-8, ἄνθος χόρτου is an agreement with 
the LXX against the Hebrew (‘flower of the field ”). The same is true of 
Jas. v. 4, if Isa. v. 9 is, in the main at least, its foundation. But in one 
passage, at any rate, and perhaps two, the case is different. Jas. v. 20 (cf. 
1 Pet. iv. 8) has affinities with the Masoretie text of Prov. x. 12, but none 
with the LXX. Jas. 11. 23, καὶ φίλος θεοῦ ἐκλήθη, does not indeed purport to 
be part of the citation from Gen. xv. 6, but it is introduced as an undoubted 
fact, that is, as one to be found in the O.T. It is derived from the original 
of Isa. xli. 8; 2 Chron. xx. 7, whereas the LXX in both passages, in different 
forms, makes the one “loving” God into one “loved” by Him. Still the 
application of this term to Abraham need not necessarily be accounted for 
by personal acquaintance with the original text. James might also have 
learned it in the synagogue, like Philo, who, in quoting Gen. xviii. 17 (de 
Sobr: xi. ed. Mangey, i. 401) inserts after Abraham’s name τοῦ φίλου pov, to 
which there is nothing in the Hebrew to correspond. In another citation of 
the same passage (Leg. All. iii. 8 Μ. 1. 93) he has, instead of this, rod παιδός 
pov, like the LXX. The epithet occurs also in the Book of Jubülees (xix. 10, 
xxx. 21, ed. Rönsch, 24 f., 56 f., 420f.), which was probably written in Palestine 
in the first century. It is doubtful whether this term was in the thought 
of so early a writer as Apollonius Molon (circa 80 B.c., according to Schürer, 
iii. 402 [Eng. trans. 11. iii. 252]) when he explained the name Abraham 
etymologically as πατρὸς φίλος (Eus. Prep. ev. ix. 19. 2, cf. Hilgenfeld, 
Hinl. 542). τ Symmachus, at ἃ later period, translated Isa. xli. 8, τοῦ φίλου 
pou (Field, Hexapla, ii. 513), and seems then to have been followed by the 
Antiochian recension of the LXX (Holmes-Parsons on 2 Chron. xx.'7). 
9. (P. 114.) The formula ἡ γραφὴ λέγει (without ὅτι, moreover), as well as 
the fragmentary and obscure form of the saying Jas. iv. 5, forbid the view of 
Hofmann, vii. 3.111 f.,and Mayor, 131, that this is simply a free combination 
of ΟἿ᾽. ideas: (Ex. xx. 5, xxix. 45; Deut: xxxii, 21; Isa. Ixiii. 10). The 
saying does indeed ally itself with that O.T. line of thought (cf. 1 Cor. x. 22; 
Rom. x. 19) of which μοιχαλίδες; iv. 4, is already just a suggestion, but in such 
a way that we recognise that it: must have been taken from a connection 
unknown to us. |“ Enviously (jealously) does that spirit long (love its object) 
which He (God) has made to dwell in us,” Spitta, 117-123, conjectures that 
the saying is taken from the Book of Eldad and Modad cited by Hermas, 
Vis. 11. 3.4... Resch, who does not 'considerit an anachronism that James 
should already quote gospels ‘as Seripture, is positive that we have here a 
citation from a Hebrew gospel (Agrapha, 256). It is to be hoped that Spitta’s 
proposition (118 f.) to connect πρὸς φθόνον with ἡ γραφὴ λέγει in the sense 
of περὶ tod POdvov(!) will not meet with approval. Kirn, ThStKr. 1904, 8. 
127 ff., would read πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ef. Ps. xlii, 2 ; Eccles. xii. 7. The change of 
subject between ἐπιποθεῖ and κατῴκισεν need not surprise us in a quotation 
thus removed from its context. Otherwise we should not hesitate to read 
κατῴκησεν" with the Antiochians, 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 121 


10. (P. 114.) Jas. i. 5=Sir. xli. 22, μετὰ τὸ δοῦναι μὴ ὀνείδιζε, cf. 
xviii, 17, xx. 14, always of human beings. Jas. i..13f.=Sir. xv. 11-20. 
Jas. i. 19=Sir. iv. 29, μὴ γίνου ταχὺς (al. τραχὺς, θρασύς) ἐν γλώσσῃ cov 
(in contrast with slothfulness in. works); v. 11, γίνου ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει 
σου καὶ ev μακροθυμίᾳ φθέγγου amorpıoıw (and gentle in answering), cf. 
vi. 33-36. Jas i. 20 (p. 96 above)=Sir. i. 19 (al. 22), οὐ δυνήσεται θυμὸς 
ἄδικος. δικαιωθῆναι κτὰ., Jas. 1. 25=Sir. xiv. 28. Jas. ii. 1-6=Sir. x. 19-24 
(22, ἀτιμάσαι πτωχόν Jas, 11. 6). Jas. iii. 2=Sir. xiv. 1, μακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς 
οὐκ ὠλίσθησεν Ev στόματι αὐτοῦ ; cf. xxv. 8, xix. 16, Tis οὐχ ἥμαρτεν ἐν rn 
γλώσσῃ αὐτοῦ. Jas. iii. 9 (to be considered with its context)=Sir. xvii. 3, 4. 
Jas. v. 3=Sir. xxix. 10, 11 (ἀργύριον μὴ ioOjro .. . χρυσίον), οἵ, xii. 10. 
Jas. v. 4, 6=Sir. xxxi. (xxxiv.) 22f. (al. 25f.), cf. iv. 1-6. Jas. v. 13 ff.=Sir, 
xxxviii. 9-15. There is not enough material to determine whether James 
had read the Hebrew original of Sirach, or the Greek translation, or both. 
The parallels from Wisdom, and those from Philo diligently collected by 
Schneckenburger, Annotatio in Epic. Jac. 1832 (in his comments on the 
several passages) ; Siegfried, Philo, 310-814; Mayor, 1, are useful for illus- 
tration, but are by no means sufficient to show that James was acquainted 
with these writings. With regard to Philo, cf. Feine, Jakobusbrief, 142-146. 
Parallels from Greek philosophical literature, especially that of Stoicism 
(Mayor, Ixxix ff.), are even less pertinent. One might rather undertake 
to show that Epictetus had read James. Hilgenfeld, 539, A. 2, saw in 
Jas. iii. 6 (τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως) a “conclusive” proof that James was 
familiar with the conceptions of Orphic mysticism. In that case, as it was 
the progress of souls contemplated in the doctrine of metempsychosis which 
was spoken of in Orphic phraseology as κύκλος γενέσεως, and occasionally 
also (with a reference to the wheel of. Ixion) as τροχὸς γενέσεως (Lobeck, 
Aglaophamus, 798 ff.), we must suppose that James seized upon a phrase 
which he did not understand, without making the least use of the correspond- 
ing idea. But James uses γένεσις here just as in i, 23, and he compares 
human existence to a wheel, because he is thinking of it in its constant 
activity. The tongue, though itself a very unstable member (iii. 8), stands 
amid the members (καθίσταται ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν) as the centre of the body, and 
in relation to it may be likened to the hub or axle of a wheel which con- 
tinually revolves about it. Cf. in addition also the gloss:after Sir. xx. 30 
(in Fritzsche on margin) ἀδέσποτος τροχηλάτης τῆς ἰδίας ζωῆς. It is remark- 
able that, in connection with the Orphic suggestions in James, no one has 
adduced also the line in Clem. Strom. v. 127, δαίμονες dv φρίσσουσιν (Jas. 
ii. 19), and the oracle of Apollo of Miletus in Lact. de Ira, xxiii, and the 
Egyptian incantations (Pap. mag. Lugd., ed. Dieterich, JbfKPh., Supplement, 
Bd. xvi. 800; Neue griech. Zauberpap., ed. Wessely, Denkschr. der Wiener Ak. 
xlii. 2. 65). i 

11. (P. 114.) James’ affinity with the discourses of Jesus can be but imper- 
fectly indicated by means of figures. The less immediate parallels are placed 
in parentheses. Jas..i. 2= Matt. v. 12 (Luke vi. 28. is furtherremoved on 
account of ev ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ). Jas. 1. 4=Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13. Jas. 1.. 5 ἦν, 
17= Matt. vii. 7 (αἰτεῖτε καὶ δοθήσεται tpiv)-11, xxi. 21 (μὴ. diaxpiOjre)-22 
(Luke xi. 9-13; Mark xi. 23). Jas. 1. 22-25= Matt. vii. 21-27; Luke: viv 
46-49. Jas, i. 26f.= Mark xii. 40 (Matt. xii. 7, xv. 2-9, xxiii. 2-4, 23-26), 


122 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW 'TESTAMENT 


(Jas. ii. 1-4= Mark xii. 38 f. ; Matt. xxiii. 6-12.) © Jas. ii. 5= Luke wi. 20, 24, 
xl, 21; Matt. v. 3. (Jas. ii. 8, 10f.=Matt. v. 19 ff., xix. 18f., xxii. 868, 
with the synoptic parallels, and with reference to the conceptions ἐλευθερία 
and βασιλικός, p. 116, note 1, above.) Jas. ii. 13=Matt. v. 7, xviii. 23-37 ; 
Luke vi. 33. (Jas. iii. 1= Mark xii. 40, λήμψονται περισσότερον κρῖμα.) Jas. 
111..10-12-- Το vi. 43-45. (Jas. iii. 18= Matt. v. 9.) Jas. iv. 4= Matt. vi. 
24; Luke xvi. 13 ; and for μοιχαλίδες, Matt. xii. 39 ; Mark viii. 38. Jas. iv. 9 
= Luke vi. 25. Jas. iv. 10=Matt. xxiii, 12 ; Luke xiv. 11, xviii. 14. Jas. iv. 
l1=Matt. vii. 1; Luke vi. 37. Jas. iv. 12= Matt. x. 22. (Jas. iv. 17=Luke 
ΧΙ. 47.) Jas. v..2f.=Matt: vi. 19. (Jas. v.84.=Matt. xxiv. 33; Mark xiii. 
29.) Jas. v. 12=Matt. v. 33-37, xxiii. 16-22. Jas. v. 17= Luke iv. 25 (with 
regard to the note of time, which is not to be traced directly to the O.T., 
cf. Hofmann, vii. 3. 148). The correspondence between Jas. v. 14 and Mark 
vi, 13 indicates a close connection with the earliest days of Christianity. We 
have nothing to do here with the sacramental use of oil in the ancient Church j 
James stands, like Jesus, on the soil of J udaism, cf. Spitta, 1441, Those 
sayings deserve special consideration, to which certain of James’ readers 
appealed in a way that he disapproved. Since προσωπολημπτεῖτε, Jas. ii. 9, 
maintains the connection with ii. 1, we are to infer from ii. 8 that to justify 
obsequiousness toward persons of prominence, in spite of their own generally 
hostile attitude, appeal was made to Ley. xix. 18, that is, of course, to its 
meaning as interpreted by Jesus, Matt. v. 43-47, according to whom: the 
command is not rightly fulfilled) till it includes love to enemies, In Jas, 
11. 14 it is implied that the persons whom the writer would oppose fall back 
upon the proposition ἡ πίστις wou σώζει (σώσει, σέσωκεν) pe, cf. Matt. ix. 22; 
Mark v. 34, χ. δῶ; Luke vii. 50, viii. 48, 50, xvii. 19, xviii. 42 (viii. 12), 
It has been repeatedly pointed out that: those elements in James which 
remind us of the Gospels are closely related to Luke (Nösgen, ThStKr. 1880, 
8.109; Feine, Vorkanonische Ueberlieferung des Lucas in Ev. u. der AG, 132; 
the same, Jakobusbrief, 70 ff., 133 f.), but it cannot be said that the points 
of contact with Luke outnumber those with Matthew. The only inference 
which: can be drawn is that Luke, even in what is peculiar to his Gospel, 
follows early Palestinian tradition. The same is true of the Fourth Gospel, 
for James presents noteworthy resemblances to this Gospel also ; ef. P. Ewald, 
Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage, 58-68 ; Mayor, Ixxxiv. ff. Jas. i, 18= 
John iii. 3 [ἀποκυεῖν -- γεννᾶν, which even in John iii. 4 is applied primarily 
to the function of the mother ; βουληθείς, ef. Johw iii. 8, ὅπου θέλει, and the 
denial of any other θέλημα, John i. 13. ἄνωθεν καταβαῖνον, Jas. 1. 17, may 
also remind us of John iii. 3, 13 (vi. 33, 50), and λόγῳ ἀληθείας of John xvii. 
17]. Jas. i. 25=John viii. 81 ἢν [Jesus’ word, or the truth contained in it, 
is the means of freedom to him who abides in it; add the blessing of the 
doer, John xiii. 17.] Resch, Agrapha, 131 ff., 255 ff., claims to have found 
extra-canonical sayings of Jesus in Jas, i. 12, 17, iv. 5, 6, 7, especially Jas. 
i..12, on account of the alleged formula of quotation, But as James left 
ἐπηγγείλατο without an expressed subject, and ὁ κύριος. OF κύριος OT 6 θεός was 
plainly inserted later by way of supplement, it is impossible to assume that 
Jesus, of whom, except for i. 1, he has ποῦ yet spoken, is the intended subject. 
Cf. rather Jas. ii. 5 and Zee. vi. 14 LXX,°6 στέφανος ἔσται τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν 
αὐτόν. The crown of life, like the erown of righteousness (2 Tim. iv. 8) and, 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 123 


the crown of glory (1 Pet. v. 4), is a general term for the reward of the 
persistent and victorious fighter. The assertion that, because this phrase 
appears also in Rev. ii. 10, James must have read the Apocalypse, or that he 
refers directly to the promise of Jesus found in that passage: (Pfleiderer, 
Urchristentum, 867), needs no further refutation. Brückner, who declares 
this to be unquestionable (Chronol. Reihenfolge der Briefe des NT, 989), 
adduces even more trivial resemblances. All we can say is that James and 
Revelation show a certain similarity in their point of view; cf. Spitta, 
Offenbarung des Johannes, 521; Feine, Jakobusbrief, 131, According ‚to 
Brückner, 291, and Pfleiderer, 867, James’ dependence on Hebrews is also 
indisputable, since Jas. ii. 21, 25=Heb. xi. 17, 31, and Jas. iii. 18=Heb. 
xii. 11; further parallels in Mayor, cii. According to Holtzmann (Z/WTh. 
1882, S. 293), James more than once presents itself as a direct answer to 
Hebrews. Cf., further, M. Zimmer, “Das schriftstellerische Verhältnis des 
Jakobus zur paulin. Lit,” Z/WTh. 1893 (year 36, vol. ii.), 481-503 ; and 
agdin, on, the other hand, Feine, NJbfDTh. iii. 305-334, 411-434. On the 
Epistle’s relation to Romans and to 1 Peter, see $ 7. 


8.7. THE, EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


Between the time of the composition of the letter, as 
determined in the preceding paragraphs, and the time 
when James came to be recognised generally as’a part of 
the’ N.T. Canon, there is an interval of more than three 
hundred years, ef. Grundriss,’ 8. 21, 48, 45, 53, 56, 61, 68, 
70, and below nn. 4-6. The Latin Church did not receive 
it into its N.T. until after the middle of the fourth century, 
and then only gradually. The Churches in Mesopotamia 
and adjoining regions did not include any of the so-called 
Catholic Epistles in the Syriac Bible which they used. In 
the Peshito, James takes its place in the Canon for the 
first time along with 1 Peter and 1 John. The recollee- 
tion of this fact still survived in‘the time of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, who, against the authority of his own Church, 
the Greek Church of Antioch, went back to the original 
Syriac Canon, claiming that James and the other Catholic 
Epistles ought- not to be‘included in the Canon. The 
Alexandrian Church is the only one which, as far as the 
sources enuble us to determine, can be proved always to 
have included James in the Canon along with a number of 
other Catholic Epistles on a basis of equal authority with 


ı24° INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the rest. In the case of the Churches in Jerusalem and 
Antioch, this can be shown to be probable. All this is not 
so strange, if the fact is taken into consideration that the 
N.T. Canon was composed of the books coming down from 
the apostolic age which were adopted as lectionaries in the 
religious services of the Gentile-Christian Church, and. if 
it is admitted that James was addressed to the Church in 
the year 50, while its membership was still almost entirely 
Jewish. | 
That this is the right date for the composition of the 
letter, is confirmed by the clear traces of its influence 
upon the Christian writers of the period immediately 
following the year 50. Assuming that the letter reached 
Antioch while Paul and Barnabas were still engaged in 
teaching there, or during their first missionary journey, it 
is not likely that Paul would have failed, to read the letter 
of a man of such recognised authority as James. And, it 
can be proved that he had read it, with care... It has, of 
course, been very often claimed that Jas. ü. 14-26 was 
written in opposition to Paul’s doctrine of justification by 
faith, or to counteract the degeneration of Christian, life 
resulting from teaching of this kind. But, in order, to 
maintain the first position, it is necessary to, assert, that 
James misunderstood Paul’s doctrine in, ἃ. way almost 
incredible, or that he perverted it wilfully, and then 
undertook to refute it by.a cowardly trick (n. 1). < But 
such a supposition contradicts the impression which every 
unprejudiced reader gets from the letter regarding the 
intellectual and moral, character of the author. What 
James opposes in 11. 14-26 is not a doctrine, but a 
religious profession which was unhealthy and not genuine. 
Equally untenable is the other assumption, that what 1s 
here said is directed against a practical abuse of Paul's 
doctrine of justification. It is a well-known fact that the _ 
effect of the gospel preaching in the apostolic age, as well 
as later, among those superficially affected by it, was to 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 125 


produce moral apathy rather than to stimulate moral 
energy. All the apostles sounded a note of warning 
against it, or testified against it (Gal. v.13; 1 Pet. 1. 16 ; 
Jude 4; 2 Pet. i. 1 ff, ef. 1 John i. 6, ii. 4; Rev. ii. 14, 
20-24; 1 Cor. vi. 9-20), defending Christianity against 
the charves made on this ground by non-Christians (Rom. 
iii. 8, ef. vi. 1). It is true that at different times Paul’s 
letters have been misinterpreted and misused (2 Pet. iii. 
16), particularly by Valentinus and his school. That, 
however, these Gnostics paid little attention to the 
doctrine of justification by faith, is proved by the con- 
ceited way in which they despised those who were no 
more than believers. We know that Marcion, who pro- 
fessed to be a faithful disciple of Paul, combined with his 
fanatical hatred of the O.T. ethical views of an ascetic 
kind. But how could either the error of Valentinus or of 
Marcion have induced a man in his senses to write what 
we have in Jas. ii. 14-26? That neither Marcion nor 
any of the great Gnostic teachers could have taken such 
an attitude, goes without saying. The tendencies which 
they represented had nothing whatever to do with Paul’s 
doctrine of justification on the ground of faith; and, 
besides, it cannot be proved that it was Paul’s particular 
doctrine, and not the common Christian teaching about 
redemption by grace and the consequent freedom of the 
Christian, which was abused by thoughtless believers 
and slandered by non-Christians. Finally, what James 
opposes is not libertinism, but the moral indolence which 
went along with the consciousness of faith and of orthodox 
profession. According to James, his readers were con- 
victed of the worthlessness of their faith and: their 
confession not by the immorality of their living, but by 
their lack of good works. When he represents’ them as 
speaking (ii. 14), it is not a Pauline formula which he 
puts into their mouth; he makes them say, rather, that 
they have faith, meaning that their faith saves them, If 


126 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


this was based upon any formulayat all, it must have heen 
some such saying as the one used so. often by Jesus, 
“Thy faith hath saved thee” (above, p. 122, n. 11). 
Although, in view of what has been said, opposition to 
Paul’s. doctrine of justification, and opposition to any 
tendency. supporting itself by false appeals to Paul’s 
teaching, is out of the question, it is not to be denied that 
a relation exists between Jas. ii. 14-26 and Rom. iv: 1 ff, 
(n. 2). .The statement in Rom. iv. 2,'that Abraham was 
justified by works, thereby obtaining something of which 
he could boast, is introduced as the opinion of someone 
else. The statement contradicts Paul’s, conclusion that 
the; manner in which Christians obtain righteousness and 
life excludes all boasting (iii! 27). Or if Paul held ‚both 
views to: be correct, then Abraham must have had:-a 
religion. different from the Christian’s. But if this be the 
case, then the question is raised whether Paul and the 
readers who have agreed with him in. the. preceding 
exposition are not forced to admit that they are apostates 
from the religion of Abraham, and without any vital 
relation to him. Moreover, there 15. nothing in the ‚pre- 
ceding context which leads up to this statement, to the 
discussion of which the whole of chap.\iv. is devoted. It 
is not one of those apparent: conclusions from the pre; 
ceding discussion, which Paul so often introduces’ in order 
to: strengthen the position already developed. by refuting 
supposed inferences from it. Neither is 1ὖ ἃ familiar 
sentence taken from the O.T., for the statement is con- 
trasted emphatically with Scripture (iv. 3)... From what 
source, then, was: this proposition taken? In Jas. 11,21 
we have the statement that. Abraham, was justified by 
works, and in ii: 23 the title of distinction which Abraham 
thereby obtained is given. In the same passage, Gen. xv.'6 
is quoted just as it is in Rom. iv. 3, with’ the same text 
and at the same length (above, p. 119, n. 8). Paul does not 
dispute the application which James makes of Gen, χνυ 6, 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 127 


nor does he question directly James’ thesis. But from the 
Scripture passage which James had used incidentally, and 
left without definite explanation, he develops his own 
thesis, namely, that Abraham’s significance for the history 
of religion rests upon the fact that in the Genesis account 
his righteousness is reckoned as faith, and so his justifica- 
tion is on the ground of faith. ‘There is no conflict at all 
between Paul and James; Paul takes up the thought 
where James left it, and develops it further. The con- 
ception δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (Rom. 1. 17, 111. 21, x. 8, cf. 2 Cor. 
v. 21; Phil. 11.9) did not originate with Paul. It goes 
back to Jesus (Matt. vi. 33), starting from his deserip- 
tion of the difference between true righteousness and 
the human) makeshift for it; the righteousness of the 
Pharisees. James uses: the same contrast (i. 20, above, 
p. 96). Paul merely puts emphasis upon the thought 
suggested in θεοῦ, and so develops a new idea. Is it 
merely by accident that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (Rom, i. 17) occurs 
for the first time just after Paul has called the gospel a 
δύναμις εἰς σωτηρίαν (Rom. i. 16), and that it is just before 
he makes the statement that the word of the Christian pro- 
clamation is τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι (1. 21), that James speaks 
of the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (1. 20)? There is also a very close 
connection between Rom. v. 3f. and Jas. i. 2-4, especially 
if καὶ καυχώμεθα ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν be taken as a hortative. 
Not only is there exact verbal correspondence between 
Paul’s εἰδότες (Jas. γινώσκοντες) ὅτε ἡ θλῖψις ὑπομονὴν 
κατεργάζεται and Jas. i, 8, but the passage in Romans 
throws light upon. the meaning οἵ James’ somewhat 
obscure language. ‘I'he expression, “ways by which your 
faith is tested,” must certainly mean the same as 
“manifold trials,’ or, according to Paul, “ tribulations.” 
Finally, the question is raised in the mind of a thought- 
ful reader by Jas. i. 4, how the ὑπομονή is to persist to the 
end and to be made perfect. It was this that suggested 
to Paul the writing of Rom. v. 4 Even the word δοκιμή 


128 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


is a reflection of James’ δοκίμιον. Anyone’s character may 
be described as tested or proved when the means of 
testing it are rightly and patiently endured: Further 
more, although the thoughts expressed in Rom. vii: 23; 
ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου ἀντιστρατευόμενον τῷ 
νόμῳ κτλ., and Jas. iv. 1, ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμῶν τῶν στρα- 
Τευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν, show differences, they 
are essentially the same, and neither of them is obvious. 
Now, if these parallels prove that Paul had James in 
mind when he wrote Romans, then it may be the 
more readily admitted that there are indications of a 
use of the same in other passages where the dependence 
cannot be: absolutely proved (n. 2). Altogether, a letter 
which. left ‚Paul unsatisfied with its conclusion about 
Abraham’s justification, and: which influenced him to take 
up the passage Gen. xv. 6 and discuss the subject. with 
far greater thoroughness (Rom. iv. 3-24) than he had 
done «heretofore (Gal. iii, 5-7), must have made a deep 
impression upon him. 

Butiit is important to bear in mind that Romans is 
the only one of Paul’s letters which shows traces. of 
James’ influence. 1 Peter was written in Rome, probably 
in the year 63 or 64 (§ 39). Granted that the resemblance 
between this letter and James is such as to necessitate 
the assumption that one of them depends upon the other, 
it is easy to see that throughout it is Peter who elaborates 
James’ short suggestions, expands his pithy sentences, and 
tones down the boldness and abruptness of his thought 
(n. 3). Chronologically, the next document which ‘shows 
clear traces of the influence of James is the letter, sent 
probably about the time of Domitian’s death (Sept. 96), 
from the Roman Church to the Corinthian Church, which, 
according to ancient and unanimous tradition, was written 
by Clement, the head of the Roman Church (n.'4). In 
the Shepherd, written during Clement's lifetime by 
Hermas, a lay member of the Roman Church, there are 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 129 


a number of passages from James which are made, as it 
were, texts for extended remarks (n. 5). If we leave out 
of account those parts of the Church where James was 
early accepted into the Canon, and the later periods when 
James was commonly quoted, these are all the clear 
evidences which we have of the influence of the Epistle 
upon Christian literature (n. 6). Not only do these refer- 
ences to James in Romans, and its use in 1 Peter, confirm 
the conclusion already arrived at, that James was written 
in or before the year 50; but if the organisation of the 
Roman Church was due in no small measure to the in- 
fluence of Jewish Christians who came from Palestine and 
settled in Rome, and if during the first decades of its 
history its membership was composed largely of Jewish 
Christians ($ 23), then there is nothing strange about the 
fact that it is this series of writings prepared in Rome in 
the years 63-64 and 96-100 which betray acquaintance 
with James, and that ıt is in Romans that Paul refers to 
this Epistle. It was among the Christians there that he 
could assume acquaintance with James’ teaching, and he 
is wise in making the reference that he does to his 


Epistle. 


1. (P. 124.) It is well understood that Paul developed and defended his 
doctrine that men are justified not by the works of the law, but through faith 
in Christ, in opposition to the Judaistic demand that the Gentiles should 
submit to circumcision, and with it to the whole Mosaic law, if they would 
become Christians in full standing, and partakers of salvation. For anyone 
who knew anything whatever of the great struggle of the decade 50-60, this 
position defined with historical precision the works of the law, to which 
Paul denied justifying efficacy. On the other hand, the faith to which Paul 
does ascribe this efficacy is more fully defined in his designation of it in his 
most polemic Epistle (Gal. v. 5, ef. Tit. iii. 8), as the faith which works 
itself out through love. All misunderstanding as to the ethical consequences 
of his teaching is precluded by his unconditional requirement of the observ- 
ance of God’s commands (1 Cor. vii. 19 ; cf. Rom. viii. 4) or the fulfilment of 
the law of Christ (Gal. vi. 2), by his insistence on the avoidance of all vicious 
life as a condition of blessedness (1 Cor. vi. 9 f.; Gal. v. 21; Rom. viii. 5-13), 
and by his expectation of a judgment awaiting Christians, when inquiry 
shall be made into their actual conduct (2 Cor. v. 10; Rom. ii. 6 ff., xiv. 10; 
1 Cor. iv. 3-5). The faith, however, to which James denies saving efficacy is 

VOL. 1. 9 


130 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


not only not the faith which he praises elsewhere (i. 6, v. 13-18) as the vital 
strength of prayer, unfailing in its operation, and for which he elaims that 
its possessor is rich in the midst of outward poverty (ii. 5). To James’ 
mind the “empty” man (ii. 20, κενός, contrasted with πλούσιος, ii. 5, ef. 
Luke i. 58) is rather the man who says he has faith, while at the same time 
he has no works to show for it. It is true that James calls this inactive 
faith faith also, but only in the way in which the speaking of charitable 
sounding phrases is called love in 1 John iii. 18, that is to say, a love with 
word and tongue as over against love in deed and in truth. James neglects 
here, as in the similar instance in which the words πειρασμός, πειράζεσθαι 
denote very different things (i. 2-15, see p. 111 above), to distinguish with 
precision between true and false faith. But he is careful not to deny saving 
power to all faith, The question μὴ δύναται «rA., ii. 14, like the question 
τί τὸ ὄφελος, is dependent upon the particular conditions stated, as indeed 
αὐτόν for ἄνθρωπον shows. Moreover, he puts it beyond question that this 
λεγομένη πίστις has nothing in common with what he himself considers 
faith, further than the name. It is an intellectual conviction, which even 
the devils may possess. It is to true faith what sympathising words are to 
really helpful love (ii. 15 f.), what the corpse is to the body (ii. 17-26). Now, 
Just as this faith to which James denies all saving efficacy bears no resem- 
blance to that which Paul sets forth.as the condition and means of justifica- 
tion, so is it too with the works which James represents as the basis of 
justification and those works of law to which Paul denies any such value. 
The offering of Isaac and the reception of the spies by Rahab are anything 
but the fulfilment of legal requirements ; rather are they heroic acts of faith : 
and James expressly emphasises (ii. 22) the fact that faith was involved in 
them, and in them found its realisation. On the other hand, he makes not 
the slightest attempt to represent them ingeniously as works of law, by 
characterising them, for example, as the fulfilment of some exceptional com- 
mand of God, and thus the rendering of obedience. How could a man of 
sound intelligence imagine that ii. 14-26 was any refutation of Paul? Even 
the fact that James makes use of the very passage (Gen. xv. 6) with which 
Paul supports his doctrine of justification, is no proof that he was familiar 
with the latter’s treatment of it. On the contrary, it would then be incom- 
prehensible that James should not have made an attempt, at least, by a 
different exposition of the passage, to invalidate Paul’s very obvious deduc- 
tions. James gives no interpretation of the passage at all, but is satisfied to 
represent the fact to which it testifies as a presage of Abraham’s subsequent 
justification by his works, without so much as hinting what he understands 
by this imputation of faith as righteousness. We may conclude, however, 
from the context that James was not in the habit of designating this imputa- 
tion (which he himself adduces from Gen. xv. 6 without any modifying 
addition) as δικαιοῦσθαι. It was absolutely wrong to infer from the mere 
use Of δικαιοῦσθαι ἔκ twos by both James and Paul, that one was dependent 
upon the other. Neither of them invented the verb, and the prepositional 
connection is the most natural one ; cf. Matt. xii. 37, and similarly κρίνεσθαι, 
Rev. xx. 12 (Luke xix. 22). Certainly James conceives the good conduct, 
which he considers indispensable, as a fulfilment of law (i. 25, ii. 8-11, 
iv. 11f.). But, in the first place, Paul does so also, and, in the second place, 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 131 


James characterises the law he has in mind, in direet contrast to that given 
by Moses aud interpreted by the rabbis, as the law of liberty, the law im- 
planted in Christians in and with the gospel, to be fulfilled by them in 
kingly freedom (above, p. 115f.). How could a James, or a pseudo-James, 
imagine that to demand the fulfilment of such a law was to oppose Paul? 
To the question at issue between Paul and the Judaisers with regard to the 
attitude of Gentile Christians toward the Mosaic law, James does not devote 
a single word, even where he refers to the Gentiles among his readers (ii. 25, 
above, p. 91). As little does he touch upon the closely related question, 
how far Jewish Christians were under obligation to observe the Mosaic 
law, or were justified in so doing. The only passage which could possibly 
be referred to Jewish ceremonial (i. 26f., p. 97, n. 3) criticises all over- 
rating of ritual piety. To infer from this that this James, utterly unlike the 
James of history, was opposed to the continued participation of Jewish 
Christians in the temple services and to the Mosaic regulation of life, would 
be as preposterous as to ascribe a like attitude to Jesus on the ground of His 
denunciations of the Pharisees. Nor does it need to be proved that James 
could not have directed a polemic against the legal observance of the Jewish 
Christians in this indirect and casual way. For him and his readers it was 
a matter of course, and was assailed by no one, not even Paul. A polemic 
against those δοκοῦντες θρησκοὶ εἶναι is entirely consistent with legal observ- 
ance on one’s own part, cf. Matt. xxiii. 23, 111.15. If, as tradition tells us 
(above, p. 103), James’ manner of life was strictly, even exaggeratedly, 
legal, and he was himself, therefore, a θρησκός, this only gives the more 
weight to his warning against the over-estimation of θρησκεία, just as Paul’s 
argument against the over-estimation of the gift of tongues is emphasised by 
the fact of his own facility in that particular (1 Cor. xiv. 18). That the 
author of James was an enthusiast for the law of the same type as the 
Judaisers of Galatians, is certainly unthinkable ; but neither does the James 
of history occupy any such position. With regard to his attitude toward 
missionary work among the Gentiles, Paul (Gal. ii. 4, 9) distinguishes him 
as clearly from the false brethren whose proceedings made the action of the 
council necessary, as does the account in Acts xv. 13-29. Any reasonably 
careful exegesis of Acts xv. 21 shows that James sets aside effort for the ex- 
tension of the Mosaic law and of the legal manner of life as a task which 
has no claim upon him and the mother Church. Moiojs . . . τοὺς 
κηρύσσοντας αὐτὸν ἔχει does not mean simply κηρύσσεται, but calls for a 
corresponding clause in contrast, as in John v. 45, ἔστιν ὁ κατηγορῶν ὑμᾶς 
Μωῦσῆς, ef. John viii. 50. It is as unsafe to conclude from Gal. ii. 12 that 
James would have disapproved Peter’s participation in the meals of Gentile 
Christians (though Feine, ii. 89, is still of this opinion), as to hold Peter 
responsible for the conduct of his partisans at Corinth. The disinterested 
wording of the statement made by the elders gathered with James in 
Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 20, ὑπάρχουσιν, not ὑπάρχομεν), suggests that in their 
judgment the legalistie zeal of Jewish Christians was a one-sidedness which 
should be treated with forbearance, rather than that the speakers themselves 
oceupied that standpoint. Even in Hegesippus’ account there is no hint 
which might be interpreted as Judaistie in the historic sense of the word. 

2. (Pp. 126, 128.) The present writer presupposes as the reading of Rom. 


132 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


iv. 1f., τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; εὑρηκέναι ᾿Αβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα---εἰ 
yap’ ABpaap ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἔχει καύχημα--- ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρὸς θεόν; with v. Hengel, 
v. Hofmann, and others, I hold that ri οὖν ἐροῦμεν undoubtedly constitutes an 
independent question, as in vi. 1, vii. 7, ix. 14 (ef. iii. 5, vi. 15, viii. 31 ; 1 Cor. 
x. 19), and that, taken with the following question, which requires a negative 
answer, it yields this meaning: “ Are we, then, compelled by the foregoing 
discussion to adopt some such conclusion as follows?” The sense is not sub- 
stantially altered by the omission, with B, of εὑρηκέναι (to which supply “we” 
as subject). Klostermann, Korrekturen zur bisherigen Erklärung des leömerbriefs, 
1881, S. 121, 129, made a decided advance in the interpretation of the pas- 
sage by pointing out the parenthesis indicated above, But the question 
whether Paul and his readers who followed him must now admit that 
Abraham was indeed their physical but not their spiritual ancestor, was’ pos- 
sible only in case the readers were, like the writer, actually sons of Abraham 
κατὰ σάρκα (see § 23 below). I agree with Spitta, 209-217, in the opinion 
that Paul has James in mind; but I fail to find any satisfactory evidence that 
Paul could have assumed such an attitude only toward a Jewish writing, and 
therefore that he knew James as the work not of a Christian, but of a Jew 
(210, 211, 217). The way in which James is referred to in Rom. iv. 2 pre- 
supposes that the readers, or many of them at least, knew and esteemed the 
authority which had put forward this proposition. How could Paul assume 
this in the case of an obscure Jew whose private composition had by chance 
come to his notice? Why does he avoid combating the statement outright as 
erroneous, and let it stand as in some measure valid, or at least uncontra- 
dicted, unsatisfactory as he regards it? In Rom. iii. 28, too, we can find no 
polemic against James, for James had by no means ascribed justifying efficacy 
to the ἔργα νόμου with which Paul was dealing. In spite of his acquaintance 
with James, Paul could, here as in Gal. ii. 15-21, express the conviction that 
a man becomes just through faith independently of works of law, as the out- 
come of the common, experience of all sincere Christians of Jewish origin. 
In so doing he by no means asserted that this thesis was continually on the 
lips of all Jewish Christians, a Peter or a James ; in that case he would have 
had no need to write Romans. He lays down his proposition in Rom. iii. 28 not 
as a generally recognised Christian doctrine, but as a conclusion reached by 
elaborate arguments and deductions. It is the conclusion at which he him- 
self has arrived, and every reader who has followed him with assent thus far 
must finally come to the same. It is the same “we” as in Rom. iii. 9, iv. 1, 
vi. 1,ete. According to this view, Rom. iv. 2, not iii. 28, is the point at which 
we may trace Paul’s reference to James. In addition to the passages already 
mentioned, compare Rom. ii. 1, xiv. 4 with Jas, iv. 11 ff. ; Rom. ii. 13, 21-29 
with Jas. i. 22-25, ii. 9, ili. 1,,iv.;11 (ποιητὴς νόμου); Rom. viii. 2 ff. 15 
with Jas, i, 25, ii. 12 (law of liberty); Rom. viii. 7, 8 with Jas. iv. 4-7 
(ἔχθρα τοῦ θεοῦ. . . τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκισεν ἐν ὑμῖν... ὑποτάγητε τῷ θεῷ); 
Rom. xii. 8 (6 μεταδιδοὺς ἐν ἁπλότητι) with Jas. i. 5. M. Zimmer (loc. cit.) 
and Mayor, xcii.-xev., give more than exhaustive lists of points of contact 
between James and the Pauline Epistles. Von Soden in his guarded treat: 
ment (Jb/PTh. 1884, S. 163) mentions as indications of the writer’s literary 
acquaintance with the Pauline letters, only Jas. i. 13=1 Cor. x. 13 (where 
however, ἀνθρώπινος has by no means a contrasted θεῖος), and Jas. ii. 5= 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 133 


1 Cor. i. 27, in addition to passages from Romans. Spitta, 217-225, concludes 
that aside from Romans there are but few passages in Paul’s letters which 
could suggest any direct dependence upon James, but does not account for 
this marked difference between Romans and the other Pauline Epistles. 

3. (P. 128.) Spitta (183-202) is the latest writer to maintain the de- 
pendence of 1 Peter upon James. Brückner, Z/WTh. 1874, S. 530 ff., Chronol. 
Reihenfolge, 60-66 ; Pfleiderer, 868, and others, have attempted to prove the 
converse. We may decide confidently for the first-mentioned view, if for no 
other reason than that the author of 1 Peter, in his attitude toward other N.T. 
books as well, particularly toward Romans and Ephesians, shows himself as 
one whose tendency is to appropriate the ideas of others without possessing any 
marked literary individuality of his own (see § 40 below). No one can deny 
that James has a consistent style, with a bold and even rugged character of 
its own. To come to details, a superficial comparison of 1 Pet. i. 6f. with 
Jas. i. 2-4 shows unmistakable similarities: 1. ἀγαλλιᾶσθε -- πᾶσαν χαρὰν 
ἡγήσασθε; 2. λυπηθέντες ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς -εὅταν ποικίλοις περιπέσητε 
πειρασμοῖς ; 3. τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως. But while James, following 
Jesus’ example (Matt. v. 12; Luke vi. 22f.), calls upon those who suffer to 
regard their still continuing trials even now as a matter for rejoicing, 1 Peter, 
at least in the beginning (for contrast iv. 13a, 16), tones down the thought to 
this, that, over against the tribulations which seem now to have their right, 
there will be joy for the Christian at the Parousia. For the connection of ev 
6 with ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ, the contrasted ἄρτι, and the comparison of i. 8 and 
iv. 130, make it certain that ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, i. 6 and ver. 8, have a future sense, 
even if it may not be permissible to construe ἀγαλλιᾶσθε directly as an 
Attic future = ἀγαλλιάσεσθε (cf. Schmiedel-Winer, Gramm. $ 13, A. 5; 
but also A. Buttmann, Ntl. Gramm. 8. 33 end [Eng. trans. p. 38]). Note, 
further, the difference in the use of τὸ δοκίμιον. James used it, as Paul also 
understood him to do (p. 128 above), in the sense of a means of testing 
(=dorıpeiov, cf. Orig. Exh. ad Mart. 6, ed. Berol. viii. 1, δοκίμιον οὖν καὶ 
ἐξεταστήριον τῆς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἀγάπης νομιστέον ἡμῖν γεγονέναι τὸν ἑστηκότα 
fal. eveornköra] πειρασμόν). In] Peter, on the other hand, the word is treated 
as the neuter of the adjective doriwos=dörıpos (cf. Deissmann, N. Bibelst. 
86-90 [Eng. trans. 259-262]), “the tested, genuine,” and so practically= 
δοκιμή, “approvedness.” But if 1 Peter is convicted here of dependence upon 
James, one cannot escape the feeling that James was before the writer’s 
thought from the very beginning. It is not that the word διασπορά, 1 Pet. 
i, 1, Jas. i. 1 is peculiarly significant, but the constant transfer to the 
Christian Churches of the characteristics of Israel, and especially of the Jews 
living in the diaspora (§ 38), seems like an amplification of the thought sug- 
gested in three words in Jas.i.1. The idea of being born of God (Jas. i. 18) 
reappears in more detail in 1 Pet. 1. 23-25, and in addition the passage 
Isa. xl. 6-8, which is only hinted at in Jas. i. 10f., is utilised here in more 
extended quotation. As Jas. (i. 19 ff.) follows the mention of new birth with 
the exhortation to attend repeatedly to the word whose quickening power 
has been thus experienced, so we find in 1 Peter. Cf. Jas. 1. 21, διὸ ἀποθέμενοι 
πᾶσαν. .. τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι with 1 Pet. ii. 1, ἀποθέμενοι οὖν πᾶσαν. 
εἰς σωτηρίαν. "While James speaks of this constant need of receiving the word 
in terms which would apply equally well to the first acceptance of the gospel, 


134 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Peter takes pains to bring out the distinetion by adding to James’ figure of 
birth through the word a reference to the readers as newborn babes, Even 
the admonition to put in practice that which has been heard (Jas. i, 22-25) 
follows soon enough, in 1 Pet. ii: 11ff. It is applied by Peter in substance 
only, with entire independence and in a way adapted to the circumstances of 
his Gentile readers, but there are echoes of James even here: 1 Pet. ii, 16, 
eXevdepoı=Jas. 1. 25, τῆς ἐλευθερίας ; 1 Pet. ii. 11, ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν σαρκικῶν Emı- 
θυμιῶν αἵτινες στρατεύονται κατὰ τῆς ψυχῆς -- 985. iv. 1, ἐκ τῶν ἡδονῶν ὑμών τῶν 
στρατευομένων ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ὑμῶν. Prov. iii. 34 is cited in 1 Pet. v. 5 pre- 
cisely as it isin Jas. iv. 6 (ὁ θεός instead of κύριος, LXX); with itis connected 
(1 Pet. v. 6) the admonition to humility which follows more briefly in 
Jas. iv. 10, and finally in 1 Pet. v. 8, 9 the exhortation to resistance of the 
devil, which Jas. iv. 7 inserts between the quotation and the admonition just 
mentioned. Thus we have again quite a complex of ideas and expressions 
in which the two Epistles coincide. If Jas. v. 20 follows in the main the 
Hebrew text without regard to the LXX (above, p. 120), the similarity of 1 Pet. 
iv. 8 cannot be accidental, 1 Peter, however, which adopts from the original 
the ἀγάπη omitted by James, has again (as in i. 24) gone back directly to the 
O.T. passage suggested by James’ reference, and thus given a different turn 
to the thought. It is plain that the author of 1 Peter was well acquainted 
with James, and had read the letter reflectively. The fact that he often alters 
its antiquated—strictly speaking, its primitive Christian—style to the more 
developed modes of expression current in the Churches founded, and thus far 
trained, by Paul and his associates, does not justify Spitta’s argument (201) 
that he knew James only as a Jewish, not as a Christian, writing. The 
absence of all allusion to the section Jas. ii. 14-26 no more calls for explana- 
tion than does the fact that 1 Peter has no echo of the thundering rebukes 
addressed to the merchants (Jas. iv. 13-1 7) and the landowners (Jas. y. 1-6). 
It is perfectly evident that not everything that James had to say to. believers 
of his own race (e.g. v. 12) would apply to the Gentile Christians of Asia 
Minor, For these the section ii, 14-26 was quite useless; it could not be 
transformed into the language of the Pauline Churches without perverting it to 
its opposite, while the appropriation of it but in part could only have con- 
fused such readers, and frustrated the main object of the Epistle as set forth 
in 1 Pet. v. 12. 

4. (P. 128.) Clem. 1 Cor. x. 1, ᾿Αβραὰμ 6 φίλος προσαγορευθεὶς πιστὸς 
εὑρέθη ἐν τῷ αὐτὸν ὑπήκοον γενέσθαι τοῖς ῥήμασιν τοῦ θεοῦ. 17. 2, ἐμαρτυρήθη 
δὲ μεγάλως ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ φίλος προσηγορεύθη τοῦ θεοῦ. The mere designation of 
Abraham as a “lover of God” would not show that Clement had read. Jas. ii, 
23 (above, p. 120f.); but, like James, he speaks (twice, indeed) of the bestow- 
ment of this title as an historical event, and emphasises the proof of Abraham’s 
faith through acts of obedience (x. 1), while in the same connection (x. 7) 
he cites Gen. xy. 6 quite as it appears in Jas. ii. 23, and recalls similarly the 
offering of Isaac (x. 6). When Clem. xxx. 2, like Jas. iv. 6 and 1 Pet. v. 5, 
quotes Prov. iii. 34 with ὁ θεύς, instead of κύριος as in the LXX, there is, besides 
a dependence on James or 1 Peter, still a third possibility, namely, that in 
early times there may have been a text of. the LXX with ὁ θεός. That in 
reality Clement followed James appears from the fact that immediately after- 
ward in xxx, 3.he writes ἔργοις δικαιούμενοι, καὶ μὴ λόγοις ; and it is the more 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 135 


certain that this goes back to Jas. ii. 21, 24, since there, too, works are con- 
trasted with a λέγειν, Jas. 11. 14, 16. The same contrast is drawn in Clem. 
xxxviil. 2 (ὁ σοφὸς ἐνδεικνύσθω τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐν λόγοις, GAN ἐν ἔργοις 
ἀγαθοῖς) in a way which reminds us of Jas. iii. 13, cf, ii. 1ff. That an 
admirer of Paul acquainted with his Epistles should venture at all to speak 
of justification through works, could hardly be explained unless he were 
emboldened by another authority. Clement was aware, too, of the difference 
between Paul’s type of teaching and James’, for it cannot but appear that he 
was undertaking to reconcile the two when, shortly after the reference to 
James (xxx. 3), he attributes Abraham’s blessing to the fact that he exercised 
righteousness and fidelity through faith (xxxi. 2, cf. Jas. 11.22, ἡ mioıs συνήργει 
τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ), then maintains that the devout of all ages have been 
justified not of themselves, but by the will of God ; not through their works, 
but through faith(xxxii.3f.); and, finally, in setting forth the necessity of works 
arrives at the formula (xxxiv.4): προτρέπεται οὖν ἡμᾶς πιστεύοντας ἐξ ὅλης τῆς 
καρδίας ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, μὴ ἀργοὺς μηδὲ παρειμένους εἶναι ἐπὶ πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν: Cf, 
Lightfoot, St. Clement, ii. 100. Similarly Clement combines the πίστει of 
Heb. xi. 31 with the ἐξ ἔργων of Jas. ii. 25 when he writes (xii. 1), διὰ πίστιν 
καὶ φιλοξενίαν ἐσώθη Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη. The like could be said of Clem. xlix. 5 
(ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, ἀγάπη πάντα ἀνέχεται, πάντα μακροθυμεῖ κτλ.) 
as compared with Jas. v. 20 and 1 Cor. xiii. 4, 7, were it not that the word 
ἀγάπη points primarily to 1 Pet. iv. 8 (p.134above). But itis highly probable 
that Clement was influenced at the same time by Jas. v. 20 also, since in 
1. 5 he mentions love, as James does, as a means of obtaining forgiveness of 
sins for oneself. 

5. (P. 129.) On Hermas and James, cf. Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, 1. 
339 ; the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, 396-409; GK, i. 962; Hofmann, vii. 3. 
175f.; Taylor, JPh. xviii. 297 ff. As early as in one of the Greek catenz 
(Cramer, viii. 4), Herm. Mand. ix. is quoted in connection with Jas.i.6. The 
assertion often heard, that the proofs of the dependence of Hermas, upon 
James are not forthcoming, is valueless so long as one will not take the 
trouble to refute the thorough presentation of the actual facts, which cannot 
well be repeated here, and whose place, moreover, cannot be supplied by a 
table of citations (like that in Feine, 137). In answer to Pfleiderer’s verdict 
(868) that Hermas is the earlier of the two, it is quite sufficient to remark 
with Mayor (exliii.f.) that one might with as good right declare Quintus 
Smyrnzeus older than Homer, or any present-day sermon older than its text. 

6. (P. 129.) We are probably to assume that James was known to Irenzeus 
(GK, i. 325); the Marcosians (Iren. i. 13. 6), whose leader belonged in Syria, 
and was principally active in Asia Minor (GK, i. 729, 759) ; Justin (@K, i. 576; 
Mayor, 1xi.), who became a Christian in Ephesus and wrote in Rome. It is 
possible, too, that the echoes of James found in the old sermon known as Clem, 
2 Cor. are not all to be accounted for by the large dependence of the preacher 
on Clem. 1 Cor.and on Hermas, but are derived from an independent acquaint- 
ance with James. Clem. 2 Cor. iii. 4-iv. 3 is quite in James’ spirit. Further, 
ef. Clem. 2 Cor. xv. 1, xvi. 4, and ii. 5—7 with Jas. v.19f. In the case of xvi. 4, 
however, 1 Pet. iv. 8 and Clem. 1 Cor. xlix. 5 (see above, n. 4) come still closer. 
Of. also Clem. 2 Cor. xx.3 with Jas. v. 7. Mayor, liv.—lvi., gives a long list of 
correspondences between, Test. XII Patr. and James. Nothing is absolutely 


136 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


conclusive, and until greater certainty is attained with regard to the time and 
place of this book in its present form, more definite testimony, even, would be 
of little value. In the pseudo-Clementine literature, which esteems the bishop 
James so highly (above, pp. 103, 108 f. n. 5), we look for more points of contact 
with James than we find. Kern, 56-60, and Schwegler, i. 413, 424, have 
decidedly exaggerated the kinship of ideas which they maintain. Even Feine, 
too (81 f.), adduces parallels, which on closer examination show only the radical 
difference between James’ thinking and this Ebionitie tendency (see also § 8, 
n. 4). The chief points deserving consideration would perhaps be these: the 
modification of Matt. v. 37 in conformity with Jas. v. 12 in Clem. Hom. iii. 
55, xix. 2—especially iii. 55 (ef. xvi. 13), the mention of those who say ὅτι ὁ 
θεὸς πειράζει, and appeal to the Bible for support, with which ef. Jas. i. 13. 
Further, in Hom. v. 5 it is said of the demons, that they, when exorcised by 
the names of the higher angels, φρίττοντες εἴκουσιν; cf. Jas. ii. 19 and p- 121, 
n. 10. Reminders of Jas. i. 18 may perhaps be found in Hom. ii. 52 Σ BLMT, 
of Adam, ὁ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ κειρῶν κυοφορηθείς. 


$ 8. DIVERGENT VIEWS. 


Of those who accept this as the letter of James the 
Just, there are always some who hold that he wrote it 
toward the end of his life, somewhere about the time of 
Paul's imprisonment in Rome (n. 1). But the chief 
ground on which this assumption rests, namely, James’ sup- 
posed polemic against Paul, or against an abuse of Pauline 
doctrine, is itself an untenable hypothesis (above, p. 125 f.); 
while, if it be held that the letter was addressed to the 
entire Church at a time when the Church was still almost 
entirely Jewish (above, p. 92), it is absolutely necessary 
to give up the hypothesis with the dating of the Epistle 
that it involves. Even granting that it is possible exe- 
getically to take Jas. i. 1 as an address to Jewish 
Christians outside of Palestine, there is no reasonable 
explanation of the entire absence of reference in the letter 
to the relation which in the year 60 many, in fact most, 
of these Jewish Christians sustained to their more 
numerous Gentile Christian neighbours and to. their 
Gentile surroundings. Equally inexplicable is the letter’s 
entire silence about the significance of the Mosaic law, 
a question which, if the testimony of the times can be 
trusted, was still agitating the minds of all affected by it 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 137 


(n. 2). That all these great questions should be passed 
over in a letter written in the year 60, particularly in a 
letter in which the fulfilling of the law, and of the entire 
law, is repeatedly spoken of, and the proposition polemie- 
ally maintained that men are justified by works and not 
by faith alone, in which, moreover, there is shown a 
grasp of the readers’ practical situation, is historically 
impossible, to say nothing of the cowardice it would 
evidence on James’ part to ignore so completely the well- 
known author of the principles which he combats. In 
fact, it is impossible to explain how such Pauline watch- 
words and interpretations of particular passages of Scrip- 
ture (Gen. xv. 6) could come to exert such a dangerous 
influence among James’ immediate associates, among men 
who were zealous for the law (Acts xxi. 20; Gal. ii. 12), 
and in circles which mistrusted Paul, and sought every- 
where to arouse the same mistrust in others. If, on the 
other hand, contrary to his agreement with Paul (Gal. 
ii. 9), James presumed to warn Gentile Christian Churches 
quite outside his own acknowledged sphere of influence 
against misunderstanding or abuse of Pauline formule, 
he must at least have done so directly by a fundamental 
setting forth of the true doctrine, and not by a few 
incidental, furtive hints. 

Such a halting, weak, and cowardly polemic would be 
more comprehensible if it had come from someone who, 
unwilling in his own name to vouch for his convictions, 
preferred to assume deceptively the mask of James, long 
since dead. For this reason the majority of those who 
hold James to be the product of the post-Pauline develop- 
ment of the Church, admit frankly that it is pseud- 
epigraphic. The earlier Tiibingen school found in this 
letter a presentation of a toned-down Jewish Christianity, 
tending toward the Catholic Christianity of about 150. 
This presentation they understood to have grown 
out of the opposition to Paul’s doctrine of justifica- 


138 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tion conceived as detrimental to practical Christianity 
(n. 3). But a Jewish Christianity of this sort is a 
phenomenon, the reality of which cannot be proved 
historically ; it is wholly imaginary, constructed from 
writings declared to be pseudonymous without any care- 
ful investigation of their historical character. The real 
Jewish Christianity of the post-apostolic age, the Jewish 
Christianity which, according to the testimony alike of 
Ignatius, Barnabas, and Justin, and of the Ebionitic 
literature, concerned itself about Paul and the general 
progress of the Church, never ceased to insist that 
Gentiles should observe the Jewish law, with allowances, 
to be sure, but always this particular law, and the Jewish 
manner of life determined by it. Nor did this Jewish 
Christianity ever cease to hate and to persecute Paul on 
the ground of his hostility to Jewish institutions, and on 
the ground that he taught men to disregard the law, at 
the same time ignoring his doctrine of justification, which 
was looked upon as a harmless theory. These objections 
hold also against the theory of Weizsiicker, who dates the 
letter after the death of James, assigning it to the time 
when the Church was leaving Jerusalem. He regards it 
as a product of Palestinian Jewish Christianity at the 
time when this had begun to develop in the direction of 
Ebionitism ; Jewish Christianity, ‘‘shut up against Gentile 
Christians,” “ with no course open but that of resignation,” 
takes up Paul’s teaching, adopts very essential ideas from 
it, and at the same time subjects its principal doctrine to 
“a mild, almost conciliatory criticism,” but nevertheless 
rejects it most decisively (n. 4). According to Pfleiderer 
(865-880), James has very close affinities with the Shep- 
herd of Hermas, both being products of the “ practical 
catholicism” of the post-Hadrianic age; it combats, the 
intellectualism of the Gnostics or Pneumatics (Jas. Π]. 5), 
the antinomianism of Marcion (iv. 11), and the tendency 
to worldliness on the part of the more well-to-do Chris- 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 139 


tians. In view of the situation in the Roman Church, 
the condition of which he had primarily in view, but in 
view also of the general situation in the Church at large, 
to which the letter was addressed, the author condemns 
Paul himself with those who had fallen into all sorts of 
errors, ostensibly because of the emphasis they put upon 
the idea of faith and upon Paul’s doctrine of justification 
(above, p. 125£.). While Pfleiderer very quietly passes 
over all those facts, which, as we saw, point to the Church 
of Palestine and the adjoining regions as the home of 
author and readers, von Soden (HA, ui. 2. 160 ff.) con- 
tends there are things in the letter which indicate the 
Jewish origin of author or readers. 

There is thus great diversity of opinion as to the 
conditions actually presupposed by the letter; but all 
who believe that it could not have been written by the ᾿ 
distinguished James of Jerusalem are very generally 
agreed that it was meant to pass as his work. The 
perfectly artless way, however, in which the author 
introduces himself is very much against this assumption 
that the letter is a literary fiction. A later writer, 
passing himself off for James the Just, if he were like 
other writers of this kind whose work is preserved. in 
literature, would certainly have called himself the brother 
of the Lord, or the head of the Jerusalem Church, or have 
indicated in some way that he was the great contemporary 
of the apostles. He would have been all the more likely 
to do so, because there was more than one James of dis- 
tinction in the early Church (n. 5). Such a writer would 
never have begun his letter with an address so simple and 
so nearly like those used in secular literature, when he had 
before him apostolic writings of earlier date in which was 
a fixed model for the sort of greeting which might be 
appropriately used by. an apostle or by one of apostolic 
rank, In keeping also with the simple dignity of its 
beginning is the entire literary character of the letter, 


140 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the peculiarity of its style, and the elear impression which 
it gives of the character of the writer. In the literature 
of the early Church, admitted to be pseudepigraphic, 
there is nothing that can be even remotely compared 
with James. And in cases where opinion is divided as 
to whether a writing is spurious or genuine, the character- 
istics mentioned always argue strongly in favour of 
genuineness. A class of pseudo-writers possessing origin- 
ality and genius, and able to write in a dignified, crisp, 
and pithy style, has never existed. Nor, as a rule— 
certainly not in the literature of the early Church—are 
these pseudo-writings without some discernible purpose, 
which explains why a particular röle is assumed. If, for 
the purpose of teaching or rebuking his contemporaries, 
someone found it advantageous to pass himself off as 
the distinguished James, then the end which he had in 
view must have been such that the personality of James, 
as the recollection was retained in the tradition, would 
have lent especial weight to what he said. But the con- 
tents of the Epistle are absolutely against this presup- 
position. It does not bring out a single one of those 
characteristics by which James is distinguished in history 
and legend; there is nothing to suggest the brother of 
the Lord, the first bishop of Jerusalem, the Israelite 
clinging with tenacious love to his people and to the 
temple, the strict observer of the law who was in high 
favour with the Judaistic party, and the ascetic, severe 
beyond what the law required of him. All that does 
appear is the strong personality of an earnest Christian 
who might have had these peculiarities. Moreover, ancient 
pseudepigraphie writings are never free from tell-tale 
anachronisms, things which can be avoided only through 
the aid of archzeological science, which at that time was 
unknown. No anachronisms have been discovered in 
James (n. 6). The thing which strikes one as peculiar 
about the Epistle is not the evidence of its late date, but 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 141 


the absence of clear indication that the author and readers 
had drunk of the new wine of the gospel at all. 

This impression is at the basis of the hypothesis 
recently advanced by Spitta, which he thinks solves all 
the difficulties. | According to Spitta’s theory, James is a 
purely Jewish writing, dating from either the first century 
after or the first century before Christ, and given the 
superficial appearance of a Christian writing simply by 
the later addition of the phrases καὶ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
(i. 1) and ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (ii. 1, n. 7). This letter has 
come down to us only through Christian channels, and in 
Christian circles has always passed as the work of a dis- 
tinguished Christian of the apostolic age. Moreover, 
according to the text of the letter as we have it, the 
author calls himself a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
indicating also that a belief in the same Lord Jesus or 
in His glorification is an essential part of his readers’ 
faith. For these reasons it has always been regarded as 
a product of Christian thought. If Spitta is right, it 
simply shows how little real progress the art of criticism 
has made in spite of its long history ; but when he (p. 8) 
calls the opinion which heretofore has prevailed a hypo- 
thesis built wpon rotten foundations, it only goes to show 
how far he himself is from standing upon the foundation 
of a criticism that is sound and just. Anyone trying 
to judge from the point of view of sound criticism can 
readily see that this new hypothesis, supported as it is by 
exegesis for which the word bold is mild, has not been 
worked out by its author into a clear, historically 
grounded view. If it were, how possibly could Spitta 
compare the work of this supposed Christian interpolator 
with the interpolations and verbal changes in Jewish 
writings known to have been introduced by Christian 
hands (p. 56)! Books like the Jewish Sibyllines, the 
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Ascension of 
Isaxch, and many others which have been handled in this 


142 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


way, were originally written with a view ‘to deceiving 
the credulous. It was the honourable names of remote 
antiquity and of Israel's past that made these works inter- 
esting, and made them seem credible, first to Jews and 
then to Christians; and it was this that brought about 
their adaptation to the changed conditions and the differ- 
ent religious point of view of the Christian reader. No 
attempt was made to give them the appearance of Chris- 
tian writings, but the desien was, rather to make these 
supposed representatives of bygone ages and of different 
stages of religious development prophets of Christian 
truth. Or, take the case of a work by an author of dis- 
tinguished name, such as the author of the Jewish James 
is supposed to have been. The person who changed 
Josephus’ Antiquities so as to make it a witness for Christ, 
apparently inserting also the remark about the death of 
James, the brother of Jesus, was not foolhardy enough 
to attempt the making of the Jew Josephus over into a 
Christian. On the contrary, everything depended upon 
Josephus’ remaining a Jewish historian of the time of 
Jesus, whom by his insertion the interpolator designs to 
make an impartial witness of the wonderful greatness of 
Jesus. ‘The interpolator was careful to make Josephus 
retain his historical Jewish character. This manifest 
intention on his part is not affected in the least by the 
fact that he did not understand that character better, and 
that he was not able permanently to deceive persons 
trained in methods of historical criticism. The Latin 
writer who slipped the name Jesus into the place of the 
original Christ in the Jewish apocalypse known as the 
Fourth Book of Ezra (vii. 28), had no idea of making this 
alleged Ezra a disciple of Jesus in spite of the distin- 
guished name which he bore, and in spite of the ehron- 
ology; he simply meant to make a work which passed 
for that of the original Ezra still more beautiful and still 
more edifying to Christian readers, by putting into Ezra’s 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 143 


mouth an unmistakable propheey conceming the Jesus 
whom the Christians accepted as Messiah. The procedure 
of the Christian interpolator of James would, however, 
have been just the reverse. For by the insertion of 
seven words he is assumed to have deceived the Christian 
world in all ages, learned as well as unlearned, concerning 
the religious character of James. Taking the work of a 
Jew named James, a person entirely undistinguished in 
history, and inserting these seven words, but leaving it 
otherwise unchanged, the interpolator leads every unsus- 
pecting reader to say at once, as a matter of course, 
“This was written by a Christian.” If the writing 
seemed to him to be good reading for Christians, as it was, 
why did he treat it in a manner different from the way 
in which the Proverbs of Jesus Sirach or the Wisdom of 
Solomon were treated in the early Church? If he felt it 
necessary to subject it to a Christian revision, why did he 
content himself with adding to it two Christian con- 
fessions which only serve to make its pre-Christian or 
un-Christian character all the more glaring? The work 
of this supposed interpolator is as inconceivable as it is 
unparalleled. Indeed, the character of the entire hypo- 
thesis may be judged from the fact that its author does 
not feel under any necessity whatever to tell us the 
motives for the interpolation, nor to indicate the con- 
ditions under which it was made. 

If Paul was acquainted with James when he wrote 
Romans in Corinth at the beginning of the year 58, and 
if Peter was familiar with the work when he wrote from 
Rome to Christians in Asia Minor in 63 or 64, at that 
time the letter must have been already widely circulated 
in the Church. But this makes it extremely improbable 
that a Christian interpolation made subsequently should 
have had the general acceptance in the Church which, 
from all we know of the history of James in the Chureh, 
must have been accorded it. Moreover, the manner in 


144 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which Paul refers to James shows that it was known by 
him and by the Roman Christians of that time to be the 
work of a distinguished Christian teacher (above, p. 126 £.). 
But the assumption that this Christian interpolation was 
made as early as 50-60, during the lifetime of James of 
Jerusalem, and the supposition that even Paul was de- 
ceived by it, hardly requires refutation. Furthermore, 
the impression which we get of the Jewish writing and of 
its author after these seven words are stricken out, is in 
the highest degree fantastical. Without any apparent 


_ authority for doing so, a Jew addresses the entire Jewish 


nation, or, as Spitta understands the “address,” all the 
Jews in the dispersion, in the superior tones of fatherly 
advice and of prophetic condemnation. Possibly before 
the destruction of the temple this might have been 
done by a high priest in Jerusalem, or, after the year 
70, by the recognised head of one of the schools, as 
Gamaliel the younger. Earlier than this, such a letter 
might have been sent in the name of the whole body of 
Jews in Palestine, represented by the Sanhedrin, through 
the autocratic head of this body (n. 8). But for a Jew 
named James, with no other credentials than the claim to 
be the servant of God, to have written such a letter, 
would have been to expose himself to ridicule. Generally, 
persons not in any recognised position of authority who 
felt called upon to preach to their fellow-countrymen in 
this way, preferred to suppress their own names entirely, 
and to write in the name of Solomon, or Enoch, or Ezra, 
or Baruch, or even of the Sibyl or Hystaspes. Moreover, 
it is an error to suppose that a letter with these contents 
could have been addressed by a Jew to his countrymen. 
To begin with, there were no twelve tribes in the dis- 
persion, so that the words ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ (i. 1) must 
also be a Christian interpolation (above, pp. 74f, 79). 
The idea of divine birth through the word of truth, 2.e. 
through the soul-saving word of divine revelation read 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 145 


and preached in religious services (i. 18-21, n. 7), made 
its first appearance upon Christian soil. So also did the 
conception of a moral law, which, as distinguished: from 
the imperfect law that had been in force heretofore, is 
perfect; and in contrast to a law which compels and 
enslaves, is ἃ law of liberty; which, finally, in view 
especially of its principal commandment—love for one’s 
neighbour, is called a law for kings (i. 25, ii. 8, 12; above, 
p. 115f.).. Although it is true that quite independently 
of Christianity the Jews esteemed faith very highly, the 
thought that one may be rich in such faith even in this 
world, and an heir through faith of the promised kingdom 
of God, is a Christian thought (ii. 5). It needs also to 
be proved that, before Jesus’ time (Matt. v. 12), and inde- 
pendently of Him, a Jew could have exhorted his readers 
not only to endure suffering and temptation with patience 
and hope, but to discover in them as well a source of pure 
and proud rejoicing (Jas. i. 2, 9). But, what is most 
significant, the folly combated in Jas. ii. 14-26 of sup- 
posing that faith of itself, without being manifested or 
proved by works, can save, is a possibility only as the 
preaching of Jesus is presupposed ; while the careful proof 
of the proposition that a man is justified in consequence 
of works and not of faith alone, by which this folly is 
combated, would have been superfluous for Jewish 
readers. So, then, the entire result of this bold attempt 
to interpret James as the product of Judaism before it 
came into contact with the gospel, is simply to re-emphas- 
ize the thought how deeply this first piece of Christian 
literature is rooted in the soil out of which it sprang 
originally, namely, the Jewish Christian Church of Pales- 
tine. Its genuinely Israelitish character, and the absence 
from it of that ecclesiastical language with which we are so 
familiar, and which was a development out of the Pauline 
gospel, are the strongest possible proofs of the correctness 


of the interpretation which led us to assign the letter to 
VOL, I. Io 


146 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


a time prior to the apostolic, council, and. of the truthful- 
ness of the tradition which ascribes its composition to 
James of Jerusalem. 09 
It was at the suggestion of this same James that the 
apostles and elders of the mother Church, gathered. in 
Jerusalem in the winter of 51-52, sent the communication 
preserved in Acts xv. 23-29 to the Gentile Christians in 
and about Antioch. It is of interest to note that the 
discourse of James, preserved in this passage, which re- 
sulted in the communication to the Churches, shows very 
striking resemblances to the letter which James had 
written in his own name only a few years—perhaps only 
a single year—before (above, p. 119, n. 7). Regarding 
the genuineness of this document, it will be necessary to 
inquire in connection with the question about the sources 
of Acts. All the other writings originating in the Pales- 
tinian Church and meant for this Church belong to a 
date considerably later, and take for granted the inde- 
pendent development of the Gentile Christian Church 
concerning which we get our information from the letters 
of the great apostle to the Gentiles (n. 9). | 
1. (P. 196.) For example, Kern, Kommentar, 65 ff., 82 ff.; Wiesinger, 36 ff.; 
Feine, 57 ff., 89f. The last named, without entering on a discussion of the 
idea and wording of the salutation, claims that the Epistle was originally a 
discourse addressed by James to “the Palestinian Church ” (the local Church 
of Jerusalem, more properly), a homily which he afterwards allowed to eireu- 
late in the form\of ἃ, letter among “ the believing Jews of the dispersion,” or 
also among the mixed congregations, in Syria probably, composed of both 
Gentile and Jewish Christians (95, 97, 99). The local colour would thus be 
explained by the original destination of the document, and the alleged inap- 
propriateness of its “address” by its subsequent use. But how shall we ex- 
plain the thoughtless indolence which led James to set down his opinions in 
a form quite unsuited to the wider audience, or, if the homily was already in 
writing, to have it copied mechanically without adding a few words at least 
to indicate to the new readers that he was submitting to their consideration 
a discourse originally intended for quite different people? Other letters, 
indeed, were soon enough current beyond the circle to which they were first 
addressed, without the addition of a new heading (ef. Col. iv. 16 ; Polye, ad 
Phil, xiii, 2). But in this case we are asked to suppose that James confined 


his efforts in a new edition to the preparation of an address which, in its 
general terms, as Feine himself holds (97), did not correspond at all tc 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 147 


the actual destination of the Epistle now in view, Compared with: this 
it would be almost preferable to accept Harnack’s bold hypothesis. (TU, 
ii, 2, 106-109), that in this, as in other general Epistles, the salutation is a 
false heading attached later, because the authority of the old writing could 
be maintained only by connecting it with the name of an apostle. Apart 
from the absence of positive proof of such a state of affairs, this conjecture 
must be set aside, first, because the celebrated James was not considered an 
apostle in the second century or for some time thereafter. In the second 
place, whoever sought to preserve or heighten the dignity of the Epistle by 
attaching the false heading, would either have pointed to the well-known 
James by describing him as the brother of the Lord, or bishop of Jerusalem, 
or the like, or else have assigned the authorship to one of the two apostles 
of that name, in which case he would have had to designate him as such. 
In the third place, the connection between χαίρειν, Jas. i. 1, and πᾶσαν 
χαράν, i. 2 (see p. 117, n. 3 above), shows that both greeting and text’ are from 
the same hand; cf. Spitta, Der zweite Brief d. Petrus, 26-30, 475. The 
attempt to evade this difficulty by declaring (Harnack, 108) that in this 
instance only the words Ἰάκωβος . . . δοῦλος are a later insertion, and what 
follows is genuine, cannot be justified by the bold assertion that a greeting 
which does not mention the writer’s name is just as complete as the opening 
of the Epistle of Barnabas or the Didache, which have no greeting at all. 
Harnack has recently (Chron. 485-491) declared the entire greeting to bea 
label attached towards the close of the second century, and the whole letter 
a compilation, prepared probably before 150, from various discourses of an 
unknown but “ vigorous” teacher. 

2. (P. 137.) From the period following the apostolic council and the 
heated controversy in Galatia, indications of the continued friction between 
Jewish and Gentile Christianity in many various forms are to be found in 
such passages as 1 Cor. xvi. 22 (i, 12, iii. 16-23, ix. 1f., xv. 115 ef. § 18); 
2 Cor. 1. 17-iv. 6, v. 11-16, xi. 1-xii. 13; Rom. ii. 11-iii. 8, iii. 29-viii. 17, 
xiv. l-xv., 13, xv. 25-33, xvi. 4; Col. ii. 6-111. 11, iv.10 f. ; Phil: i 14-18, 
ili. 2 ff.; 1 Tim. i. 3-11; Tit. i. 10, 14, iii. 9—Acts xxi. 18-26.—Ign. Magn. 
vili-x ; Philad. vi-ix ; Smyrn. i (cf. the writer’s Ignatius v. Ant. 359 ff.) ; Barn. 
ii. 6, iv. 6, ix.-x. 15 ; Just. Dial. xlvi-xlviii (GK, ii. 671); the Anabathmoi of 
James, Epiph. Her. xxx. 16=Clem. Recogn. i. 55-71, and the whole pseudo- 
Clementine literature. 

3. (P. 138.) Baur, Paulus,? ii. 322-340 (all thought of genuineness already 
set aside on account of the writer’s familiarity with the Greek language and 
modes of thought, 335); Christentum der drei ersten Jahrh. 122 f. (somewhat 
earlier than the Pastoral Epistles). Schwegler, i. 418: “In any case it was 
not written earlier than the Clementine homilies” [which cannot be shown 
to have existed before the third century]. Schwegler’s remark (i. 437), that 
the view that James was not opposing Paul directly, but a misconception of 
the Pauline doctrine, was “in itself a most absurd hypothesis,” did not deter 
Baur from adopting that view in his presentation of the subject. 

4, (P. 138.) A more definite impression than that outlined above cannot 
be gained from Weizsacker’s shifting and altogether inconclusive reasonings 
(Apost. Zeitalter, 364-369, 671). When we read that Jas. iii. 6 shows the 
writer's acquaintance with Greek literature, and that iii. 1 ff. warns “against 


148 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


all sorts of wisdom-teaching” (366), Hilgenfeld’s treatment of the passage 
(Hinl. 535 f.,539, n. 2, see p. 121 f. above) seems to be regarded as an adequate 
exegetical foundation. Yet Weizsäcker goes even beyond Hilgenfeld, in his 
claim (368) that not merely false wisdom is combated in Jas. iii, 1-13, but all 
striving after wisdom of any sort. It would be folly to argue against such 
wisdom as this, and useless to point to Jas. i. 5, iii. 17. It is alleged further 
(367), that James’ attitude toward rich and poor is Ebionitic, and presupposes 
that Ebionite modification of the first part of the Sermon on the Mount 
which, we are told, appears in Luke. Now the cardinal principle of Ebionism 
is (Clem. Hom. xv. 9) πᾶσι τὰ κτήματα ἁμαρτήματα, Whereas James follows 
Jesus (Matt. xiii. 22) in considering the cares of poverty no less a temptation 
than the deceitfulness of riches, and urges the wealthy Christian not to 
dispose of his goods, but to make his boast of lowliness (i. 2-11, see p. 86). 
In Jesus’ usage the conception of πτωχοί is derived, as we know, from 
Isa. lxi. 1 ; οἵ, Luke iv. 18, vii. 22 ; Matt. xi. 5; also Matt. v.3; Luke vi. 20, 
and accordingly, even without the explanatory τῷ πνεύματι, Matt. v. 3, it 
corresponds to the Hebrew omy, cf. ZKom. Matt.2 177 ff. Those who cannot 
see this should at least take account of the fact that the Ebionites saw fit 
to substitute πένητες, a word of quite different signification, for the scriptural 
πτωχοί, and then again, afterward, were obliged to guard by arbitrary addi- 
tions against too gross a misconception (Clem. Hom. xv. 10, ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν 
πιστοὺς πένητας ἐμακάρισεν). Again, we are told (366) that the Epistle has 
no “dedication,”—in spite of the opening greeting,—because “the address 
mentions only an ideal body like the one hundred and forty and four 
thousand of Rev.”! In this way the “address,” which may not be counted 
a “dedication,” is left without any explanation whatever; and, further, 
Weizsäcker overlooks the fundamental difference, that James addresses the 
twelve tribes of his people as his brethren, and discusses with no little 
thoroughness their social, moral, and religious condition, with which, of 
course, Rev. vii. 1-8 has nothing to do. Neither Weizsäcker nor Hilgen- 
feld, whose view is that the letter was written by an Eastern Jewish Christian 
in the reign of Domitian (540 f.), explains why the “facile” use of Greek 
(which, in their judgment, makes the composition of the letter by James 
impossible) should be more conceivable in the case of a Jewish Christian 
of Palestine in the episcopate of Simeon than it would be some twenty to 
forty years earlier, circa 45-50 A.D. 

5. (P. 139.) We have a spurious letter of James (translated from the 
Armenian by Vetter, LR, 1896, 8. 259), which begins, “James, bishop of Jeru- 
salem, to Quadratus,” etc. ; ef. also Clement, ed. Lagarde, 3, Πέτρος Ἰακώβῳ τῷ 
κυρίῳ καὶ ἐπισκόπῳ τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας κτλ. ; 6, Κλήμης Ἰακώβῳ τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ 
ἐπισκόπων ἐπισκόπῳ, διέποντι δὲ τὴν [ev (2)] Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἁγίαν Ἕβραίων 
ἐκκλησίαν κτὰλ., and the other recension (Patr. Ap., ed. Cotelerius-Clericus, 
1724, i. 617), “Clemens Jacobo, fratri Domini et episcopo episcoporum,” ete. 
Cf. also the spurious letters of Paul, @K, ii. 584, 600, and the letter of John 
in the writer’s Acta Jo, Ixiii. 2. On the curious self-concealment of the author 
of Protevang. Jac. see GK, ii. 775. 

6. (P. 140,) It is hardly necessary to say anything about the comfortably 
arranged meeting-places (ii. 2) and the Church organisation (v. 14) which, we 
are sometimes told, shows an advanced stage of development ; see Hofmann’s 


THE EPISTLE: OF JAMES 149 


brief and excellent remarks, vii. 3. 157 f. In particular, the confidence with 
which healing efficacy is attributed to prayer, without leaving a place for the 
physician, as in the parallel passage Sir. xxxviii. 9-15, points to high 
antiquity. As to the use of oil, above, p. 122, π. 11. The opinion repeatedly 
expressed that such distressing conditions as James censures might indeed 
appear in Christian communities thirty, sixty, or one hundred, but not 
twenty years after Jesus’ death, cannot be historically substantiated. We 
have no right to think of the Jewish Christians, among whom even before 
35 there were such murmurings as are reported in Acts vi. 1, and such 
occurrences as that described in Acts v, 1-11, as above all need of serious 
reproof, Certainly not, when perhaps only a few months after the composi- 
tion of this letter, men among them were asserting themselves to whom Paul 
denied all right to be in the Church (Gal. ii. 4), and whom James, disowned 
as unwarranted disturbers (Acts xv. 19, 24). If the errors which James 
rebukes are thoroughly Jewish (p. 90f.), then, as uneradicated vestiges 
of pre-Christian thinking, they are most comprehensible at an early period. 
Paul found, more practical. heathenism to correct in the newly founded 
Church at Corinth than the leaders of the post-apostolie time found in their 
Churches. The historical picture of the early Churches, whether of Jewish 
or of Gentile origin, becomes unintelligible only when the rebukes ad- 
ministered to individuals and for individual misdeeds are generalised, and 
we assume in preachers of such deep moral earnestness as James or Paul, 
Isaiah or Jesus, the equanimity of an ethical statistician. 

7. (P. 141.) Spitta supports his hypothesis in a commentary on James 
(14-155), the value of which lies in its citation of parallels from Jewish, 
especially Jewish-Greek, literature, not in its interpretation of the text. The 
latter can be illustrated here in a few examples only, but in passages which 
are fundamental to the conception of the book as a Jewish product. With 
regard to the “address,” see above, pp. 73, 80, n. 8. Spitta understands 
i. 18 not of the new birth of the Christian, but of the creation of mankind 
(45). But that the creative word of God should be referred to as “a word 
of truth” instead of being characterised in accordance with the power which 
is shown in creation (cf. Heb. 1. 3; Wis. xviii. 15; Clem. 1 Cor. xxvii. 4; 
Herm. Vis. i. 3. 4), is hardly credible in itself, and is contrary to the 
usage both of the Old Testament, where the “word of truth,” signifies the 
revelation given to Israel (Ps. cxix. 43, cf. vv. 30, 86, 138, 142,160), and of 
the New (Eph. .1..18.; 2 Tim. 11. 15; John xvii. 17; οἵ, Clem. Hom. Epist. 
Petri, ii.). "The impossibility of this interpretation appears from the con- 
text, since the word spoken of in i. 18 must be identical, as Spitta himself 
recognises (48, 50), with that which is read and heard in public. worship, 
1, 19-25. But the assertion that James tacitly identified this soul-saving 
word with the word of creation, is one which the exegete should not venture, 
unless the text somehow indicated this mistaken conception ; and even then 
the choice of phrase in i. 18 would be as unmeaning as it is unparalleled. 
In order to make it possible to refer ii. 14-26 to controversies within 
Judaism, and to prepare for that, conception of πίστις as Jewish orthodoxy, 
which in commenting on, iis, 14 (72) is put forward as a matter of course, 
we are asked to understand, the word in the same sense in i. 6, where it 
plainly denotes the spiritual attitude of the worshipper (ef. v. 15), against 


150 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


whose lack of childlike trust in God even i. 5 is directed. For proof of the 
incredible we are pointed to i. 7, according to which the doubter also 
expects to receive something from God,—as if one who was certain that he 
should obtain nothing from God by prayer could be called a doubting 
petitioner, or would still pray at all. The very fact that he wavers between 
fear and hope, between desire and distrust, makes him a διακρινόμενος. 
With regard to ii. 14-26, exegetical agreement is practically out of the 
question, as Spitta (79) without sufticient reason assumes a lacuna’ at an 
important point (see p. 98 above). But he has not succeeded in finding 
in Jewish literature a single example of the view opposed by James, that 
faith saves of itself apart from works. Even in the passages from 4 Esdr. 
which he cites (75), which indeed have sometimes been taken as showing 
traces of contact with Christian thought, there is nothing in the least similar 
—not so much as an antithesis between works and faith. While Spitta' (54) 
explains τέλειος as an attribute of the law, i. 25, in contrast with the laws of 
heathen nations, he overlooks the contrast much more sharply emphasised 
by the very wording of the passage, which calls this law the law of freedom, 
and thinks he has accounted for this Christian idea as Jewish by referring to 
the well-known Stoic phrases about the wise and virtuous which are found 
in Philo, and to the saying of a certain rabbi Joshua of the third century 
after Christ in the Appendix to the Pirke Aboth vi. 2: “No one is free but 
him who devotes himself to the study of the Thorah.” So also does he fail 
to comprehend the use of the same term in ii. 12; for the idea that the law 
is there spoken of as a law of liberty because it puts forward no impossible 
requirements, and in order to represent the judgment as reasonable or 
lenient (70), is plainly at variance with the phraseology of ii. 13 (ἡ γὰρ κρίσις 
ἀνέλεος κτλ.» ποῦ ἡ δέ, or, better, ἀλλά). Then, too, aside from the possibility 
of explaining the contents of James from the Jewish standpoint which he 
claims to have established in his commentary, Spitta holds that the seven 
words which mark the writer as a Christian may be recognised as disturbing 
interpolations. Though Christians are often enough referred to in the 
N.T. now as servants of God (1 Pet. ii. 16; Tit. i. 1; Rev. xix. 2) and now 
as servants of Christ (Gal. i. 10; 1 Cor. vii. 22; Rom. i. 1; Phil. i. 1 ; Rev. 
i. 1, ii. 20), the combination of the two terms in Jas. i. 1, being a solitary 
instance, is said to be suspicious. But if Paul and the author of Revelation 
used the two conceptions interchangeably, why might not James combine 
them, just as in 2 Pet. i. 1 we find the two titles servant and apostle of 
Christ united ? These latter Paul commonly uses by turns (Gal. i. 1, 1 Cor. 
i. 1 on the one hand, Phil. i. 1, Tit.i. 1 on the other), in combination but 
once (Rom. 1. 1), and even then in a form unlike that of 2 Peter. We see 
from 1 Cor. viii. 6 and Eph. iv. 5 f. how little fear the early Christians had 
that they might appear either to be serving two masters or obliged to choose 
between two, God and Christ. In faith, in worship, and in service, God and 
Christ for them were one. This finds striking grammatical illustration in 
1 Thess. iii. 115° Rev. xxii. 3; and for the same reason 6 κύριος is not 
infrequently a title which stands above the distinction between God and 
Christ, 1 Thess. iii. 12; Rom. x. 9-15. Until examples are brought forward, 
we cannot believe that a Jew without office or honours would have ‘intro- 
duced himself to his readers as a “servant of God”; and no one will find 


THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 151 


passages like Ezra v. 11, or the use of the formula “thy servant” in prayer, 
Ps. xix. 12, Luke ii. 29, at all comparable. In Spitta’s opinion (4f., cf. 
Vorrede, iv), the difficulty which ii. 1 has presented to expositors arises 
from the fact that the original text τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου τῆς δόξης (to be 
understood of God) has been obscured by the interpolation of ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ (in the sense of 1 Cor. ii. 8). But how are we to conceive that an 
interpolator, whose important object was to make a Christian book out of a 
Jewish writing, which, according to Spitta, had already been read and highly 
esteemed by Paul and Peter, should have used no other means to that end 
than the introduction at one point of four words which make the passage 
“unique’-in early Christian literature, and at the other point of three words 
which constitute a crus interpretum, when it would have been child’s play to 
avoid both? Here, too, the difficulty of the text is an indication of its 
originality. Moreover, we cannot see why the words should not be trans- 
lated, as by the Peshito, Grotius, and Hofmann, “the faith in the glory of 
our Lord Jesus Christ.” .For the order of words, cf. Jas. ili, 3 (τῶν ἵππων 

. στόματα) ; Acts iv. 33 (according to B and Chrysost., ἀπεδίδουν τὸ 
μαρτύριον ol ἀπόστολοι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ [Χριστοῦ] τῆς ἀναστάσεως) ; and for 
πίστις τῆς δόξης, cf. εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης, 2 Cor. iv. 4; 1 Tim. 1.1] ; ἐλπὶς τῆς 
δόξης, Col. i. 27. 

8. (P. 144.) In addition to the writings of Gamaliel, which have been 
mentioned several times (p. 33, n. 18), cf. 2 Macc. i. 1 and 10; also a com- 
munication which the Jews of Jerusalem at) the time of Simon ben Shetach 
and king Alexander Jannai (104-78 B.c.) addressed to the Jewish community 
of Alexandria in order to bring about the return of Judah ben Tabai 
(reputed to be the Nasi of that period) who had fled thither, Jer. Chagigah, 
77d; Sanhedrin, 23c; and in the same connection, Joel Müller, Briefe wm. 
Responsen in der vorgeondischen jüdischen Literatur, Berlin, 1886, S. 7, 21— 
a book in general well worth reading. See above also, p. 106, n. 1. 

9. (P. 146.) The letters of recommendation, by means of which the 
Petrine’ party introduced themselves in Corinth (2 Cor. iii. 1), would be 
properly considered, if they were extant, among the literary products of 
Jewish Christianity. Of the documents which have been preserved, 2 Pet., 
Jude, and Matt. belong here, but probably not Heb. 


() 


IM. 
THE. THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL. 
§ 9. PRELIMINARY CRITICAL REMARKS. 


Ir is impossible to investigate the letters commonly 
attributed to Paul without discussing a great many 
different: opinions. It seems best, therefore, in order to 
avoid repetition, to preface the investigation proper by a 
general survey of the history of the various attempts 
which have’ been made to criticise the Pauline letters 
cmb ig aa Ä 
As early as the year 150, Marcion (GK, i. 585-718, 
ii. 409-529), who held that Paul was the only one of 
those called apostles who really preached an uncorrupted 
gospel, found. the collection of Pauline letters in use) by 
the Church at that time to be in need of a thoroughgoing 
criticism. There is no hint, however, that Marcion’s view 
regarding the origin of any one of these letters differed 
from that of the Church, or that he regarded any one of 
them as wrongly attributed to Paul, or as an intentional 
forgery in Paul’s name. Besides the nine letters addressed 
to Churches, he included in his Apostolicon, or collection 
of Pauline letters, designed for use in the independent 
Church which he organised, the Epistle to Philemon. The 
Epistles to Timothy and to Titus were not in this collec- 
tion. Whether Marcion was familiar with them, and for 
some reason rejected them, is a disputed question. But 
we do know, from the form which he gave the ten letters 


that he did accept, as well as from the statements of his 
152 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 153 


opponents, that he held the form of the Pauline letters 
current in the Church at that time and later to be the 
result of a systematic interpolation, Jewish in spirit, and 
made after the Church had been degenerated by Jewish 
influences. He undertook to restore the genuine text by 
cutting out a number of longer sections and shorter para- 
graphs, by the addition of a few sentences and words, 
most of which were taken from other passages of Paul’s 
letters, and by slightly emending the text in numerous 
places. Marcion was in possession neither of the sources 
nor of the historical information necessary for such a 
critical operation; nor did he profess to be. The only 
criterion which he used, and which sufficed for his Church 
several centuries afterwards, was his preconception ‘of 
what was genuinely Christian and so genuinely Pauline. 
It is readily seen how it was easier for the Church to 
refute Marcion’s criticism of the Pauline documents, lacking 
as it did all historical basis, than it was for it to get rid 
of the fundamental idea upon which this criticism was 
based, namely, the irreconcilable contradiction between 
Christianity and Judaism, —an idea which has sinee come 
to the front more than once in a variety of forms. What 
critical investigations of Paul’s letters were made by the 
early Church was not the result of historical or linguistic 
inquiry into the letters themselves, but simply of ‘the fact 
that. the differences in tradition and: opinion which had 
long existed in different parts of the Church ‘entered 
gradually into the consciousness of the Church at large. 
Thus from the third century we have such a’ process 
taking place with reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
which ‚was regarded as) Pauline and canonical in some 
sections, but not by any means in all. So also in the 
fourth century a similar process took place with reference 
to Philemon, which was not included in the collection of 
Pauline letters used by ithe Syrian) Church (GK, ii. 
997-1006)., Whether or not the appearance of spurious 


154 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Pauline letters, two of which are mentioned | in” the 
Muratori Canon, particularly whether the acceptance and 
subsequent rejection. of an apocryphal Third Epistle to the 
Corinthians in the Syrian Canon, occasioned critical dis- 
eussion, we do ποῦ know. Though in discussions of! this 
kind occasional. reference was made ‘to’ the style and 
contents of the) questionable letters, the discussion of 
such references belongs rather in the history of the’Canon 
than in a history of the theological investigation of the 
Pauline letters:; still more 80. the statement of the con- 
clusion with which the entire Church was finally satisfied. 

The tradition regarding the Pauline letters, which in its 
essential points existed even before Marcion’s time, which 
was substantially accepted by him, and which, after some 
question had been raised: with reference to a few ‘points, 
finally prevailed through the entire Church, remained prac- 
tically unquestioned up to the beginning of the last century. 
The question of the origin, sources, and trustworthiness of 
the Gospels had been heatedly discussed for decades before 
there was the least question about the genuineness of any 
of the Pauline Epistles. Doubts expressed by Evanson in 
his critique of the Gospels in 1792 made little impression 
(n. 2). «When, in 1807, Schleiermacher asserted with great 
positiveness that 1 Tim. was spurious, serious-minded 
people asked “ whether perhaps the whole was not a mete 
lysus ingenü, a game of wit and ingenuity, just to see 
how far critical Pyrrhonism could be carried and still 
retain a, semblance of truth” (n. 3). When, however, F. 
Chr. Baur, a man whom) no one could suspect of joking 
about things scientific, subjected all the extant Pauline 
letters to criticism in the light of his new and compre: 
hensive theory about the development of Christianity in 
the apostolic age, concluding that only Gal., 1 and 2 Cor.) 
and Rom, (excepting chaps. xv. and Xvi.) were genuine, 
the whole Pauline, question became one of the utmost 
importance (n.4). It was a great mistake on the part 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 155 


of those who found that they could not follow Baur in his 
rejection of Pauline Epistles, or who could not accept his 
results regarding them all, that they raised no question 
about the genuineness of the Epistles which Baur did 
accept, although Baur and his followers never attempted 
any proof for their positive critical conclusions... Since no 
effort was made by critics to set forth the reasons which 
compelled historical investigators to accept some of Paul’s 
letters as genuine historical documents, or to show the 
scope of these reasons, we are not surprised when Bruno 
Bauer declares that: all the Pauline Epistles are spurious, 
written between the years 130 and 170; and when a later 
school of Dutch erities, working independently of Bauer, 
question and finally deny the genuineness of all the 
Pauline writings (n. 5). The. position of the critic is' not 
an enviable one, who, by denying the genuineness of all 
the documents associated with a distinguished name, and 
the essential trustworthiness of all the early traditions 
concerning these documents, deprives himself of a fixed 
and common standard by which he may test what seems 
doubtful. What is spurious can be tested only with 
reference to what is acknowledged to be authentic, and if 
criticism is to obtain any positive results, it must be based 
upon historical data acknowledged to be trustworthy. 
We need not inquire whether it is from this consideration 
primarily, or because of the irresistible impression that 
the character of the life portrayed in the Pauline letters 
is such as could not have been produced second-hand, 
that criticism of the sort which simply denies everything 
is not making headway at the present time. 
Consequently, at the present time all the more atten- 
tion is being paid to that type of criticism of which 
Marcion is still the best example. “When in doubt about 
any point, the critic satisfies his own mind by assuming an 
interpolation, and so. avoids depriving himself of the 
necessary basis for the critical process, as he would do if 


156 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


he denied the’ genuineness of all his traditional sources 
and facts. Attempts: in this direction were’ made‘ by 
Herm. Weisse and F. Hitzig in Germany: More recently 
this method has been pursued chiefly in Holland (n. 6). 

‘Another method followed by many is that suggested 
first by J. 8. Semler... Certain inequalities which are 
thought to, exist between different parts of the same 
letter, it is assumed, can be explained by supposing that 
when the» separate letters were first copied, or when 
they were gathered into a collection, either by oversight 
or intention, parts became dislocated and: confused, so 
that sections were) united in a single document which 
originally did not belong together. ' Inasmuch as we have 
not the means at our command for restoring the text of 
Paul's letters, and the N.T. text generally, so that every 
sentence and every word is established beyond all doubt, 
the process of text criticism is largely identical with the 
process, of the higher, literary, and historical criticism. 

The more important of the critical attempts made 
along these various lines we shall have occasion to notice 
in conhection with the investigation of the separate 
Epistles. Here a few considerations of ἃ more general 
character may be stated briefly. 

1. The early date of all Paul’s Epistles, except that of 
the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, is comprehensively 
and strongly attested by Marcion’s Apostolscon. That 
Marcion,, who withdrew from the Roman Church and 
became the head ofa separate organisation, probably in 
the year 144, did not himself write any one of the Pauline 
letters in his collection, is clear from the fact that, in the 
year 180, the Catholic Church accepted.all the ten docu- 
ments in Mareion’s Apostolicon as Pauline, and used 
them, in their religious services: Now it is simplyim- 
possible to suppose that any of these could have been 
borrowed from this “firstborn son of Satan” by a Church 
whose}, bishops and their faithful followers summarily 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 157 


rejected Marcion’s teaching and treatment of the apostolic 
writings. The probability is that Marcion accepted these 
ten letters as Pauline from the Church in which he grew 
up, and, after making some changes in them, adopted 
them in his own Church. His acceptance of the Pauline 
origin of these letters, his criticism of single points in the 
tradition regarding them, e.g. regarding the traditional 
address of the Ephesian letter (§ 28), the belief which led 
him to make a new recension of the text, namely; that all 
the copies of the Pauline letters extant in his time con- 
tained a text which had been corrupted by the Church, 
finally his abandonment of the attempt to base his text 
recension on old and uncorrupted documents, all go to 
show that in 140-150 there was no suspicion in the 
Church of the recent date or sudden appearance of any of 
the Pauline letters. That these Epistles should have been 
written during Marcion’s lifetime, or after the year 110, is 
therefore out of the question. 

2. A comparison of Marcion’s text of the Pauline letters 
with the text used in the Church, shows that Marcion 
found a number of readings which, in the course of the 
transmission of the text in the Church, have been re- 
placed by other readings. But, leaving this difference 
out of account, it is clear that in plan, general contents 
and compass, the Pauline letters which Marcion had before 
him were substantially the same as the letters which 
have come down to us. He found chaps. xv. and xvi. 
already a part of Rom., and chaps. 1.- χη]. of 2 Cor. form- 
ing a single letter. Hence it follows that all important 
changes in the order and structure of the letters must 
have been made before the year 110. 

3. Difference of opinion still exists regarding the date 
of a great many early Christian writings, e.g., that of the 
letters of Ignatius, the Hpistle of Polycarp, the Epistle 
of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache. 
Even a work which is so thoroughly attested, and which 
can be so definitely dated as Clement’s so-called First 
Epistle to the Corinthians, is sometimes brought down 


158 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to a later period. But, allowing for this uncertainty, we 
have still a sufficiently large number of Christian writings, 
admittedly belonging in the period between 90 and, 170, 
from which to form a definite idea as to the thoughts 
which were uppermost in the mind of the Church during 
this period, and the spiritual forces which were at work, 
Perhaps it would be too, much to say that this literature 
shows a general decline from the high standard of 
apostolic Christianity, especially from, the strikingly 
original teachings of Paul. But so much is clear, that 
there is nothing in the literature of 90-170 comparable in 
character to what we find in the letters of Paul accepted 
by Marcion, or to the ideas which these letters were 
meant to refute. How little this age was in a position 
even to understand Paul's thoughts, is quite as evident in 
the case of Marcion and of the school of Valentinus as 
in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the earlier 
apologists, such as Aristides and Justin. It is absurd to 
suppose that a Christian living in the year 100 or 130, 
with interests so different from those of his age, and so 
superior to his contemporaries in the compass:and depth 
of his thought, should. have given no expression to his 
ideas except under a false name, and in letters dated back 
into the past. The Pauline letters must therefore have 
been written prior to the period of transition between the 
first and second centuries. 

4. Before a denial of the genuineness of this collection 
of letters, or of separate parts of the same, can command 
general assent, it must be shown to be made in agreement 
with the principles derived from a careful study of the 
literature of the early Christian Church, which is acknow- 
ledoed to be pseudepigraphic. |. Here we have, besides the 
apocryphal letters of Paul already mentioned, some other 
letters (n. 7), some fragments of the ancient “ Preaching 
of Peter,” the apostolic legends of the second and third 
centuries, and the pseudo-Clementine literature. ΑἹ] 


THE ‘THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 159 


these are similar in character to the pseudo-Pauline litera- 
ture. The conclusion of an unbiassed comparison must 
always be, that even the least important and the most 
suspected of Paul’s letters show characteristics altogether 
the opposite of those in this literature, which, leave no 
intelligent reader in doubt as to its fictitious character. 

5. It has not always been clearly realised what difh- 
culties are in the way, not so much of the composition of 
letters of this kind, as of their successful forgery and 
circulation. From 2 Thess. ii. 2; 111.17, it may be 
inferred that even in Paul’s lifetime, letters were put into 
circulation which were falsely attributed to him; but it 
is to be remembered at the same time that the forgery 
was almost immediately detected (§ 15). Then, as now, 
spurious letters, if written with any expectation of 
permanently deceiving people, could not be put into 
circulation until after the death of the alleged author and 
readers. With the exception of Philem., 1 and 2 Tim., 
and Tit., however, Paul’s letters are addressed to Churches 
which had a continuous life. Though there is proof 
enough of the fact, if it were necessary to adduce it (n. 8), 
it goes without saying that up to the close of the first 
century there were Christians living in Corinth and else- 
where who had been members of the Church during Paul’s 
lifetime. 1 confess that I cannot conceive how a letter, 
purporting to be Paul’s, and addressed to the Corinthians, 
the Thessalonians, the Philippians, or the Colossians, 
could have been actually written and put into circulation 
between the year 80 and the year 100, and yet have been 
received and accepted in these various localities. Then 
the older members of these Churches must have made 
themselves believe that the letter, which now came to 
light, had been sent to them by the apostle himself thirty 
or forty years before, and yet had been entirely lost sight 
of up to this time. 

Special difficulties arise from the occurrence in many 


160 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of these letters of a great many significant personal refer 
ences (1 Cor. i. 14-16, xvi. 15-17 ; Col. iv. 9-17 5 Philem. 
ΤΕ. 10; Phil. i 25-80, ἵν: 2 ἢ. '189’Rom. 'xvil 15:99} 
Even if, as is extremely improbable and contrary to what 
is usual in pseudepigraphic literature, the forger was well 
enough acquainted with conditions in the several Churches 
to employ only names of‘ persons’ who were actually 
members of these Churches during Paul’s lifetime, and to 
assign them their proper röles, such very personal remarks, 
greetings, warning exhortations, and injunctions of | the 
apostle, which never reached’ the persons for whom they 
were intended, must have been read by these‘ persons, 
or if they were dead, then by their relatives, with the 
greatest interest and with no little astonishment. Every 
mistake which the writer made in these matters—and a 
person writing thus in Paul’s name could hardly have 
avoided making some— tended during the generation 
after Paul’s death to make the forged letter appear in the 
highest degree ridiculous, at least in the Church to which 
it was addressed, and so absolutely to preclude its accept- 
ance by such a Church. And as a matter of fact, so far 
as we know, this was actually the fate of the spurious 
letters put out in Paul’s name. And these spurious 
letters were certainly written later than the canonical 
letters of Paul, even assuming that the latter are spurious, 
at a time when one might expect the Churches to which 
these letters are alleged to have been sent by Paul to be 
more easily deceived. The third letter to the Corinthians 
never found acceptance in Corinth, but only in the far 
East, among the Syrians and Armenians. LHarly Chris- 
tians in Alexandria and Asia Minor seem never to 
have known anything about the spurious letters to the 
Laodiceans and Alexandrians. The first mention made of 
them is by a Roman writer, and in the case of the letter 
to the Alexandrians this is the only mention. ‘Such com- 
pilations could never be widely accepted, for the reason 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 161 


that the Churches to which they are allesed to have 
been sent, and from which alone they could be success- 
fully circulated, never did and never could accept 
them. 

6. The same reasons which make it improbable that 
the spurious letters to the Churches purporting to be from 
Paul were put into circulation between the time of the 
apostle’s death and the time of Marcion, argue just as 
strongly against the assumption that the letters which 
Paul did write to the Churches were materially altered 
during the same period. Such alterations are usually 
associated with the gathering up of Paul’s letters into a 
collection, and changes generally supposed to have been 
made in the text are explained as due to the fact that the 
letters were circulated only in the form of a collection. 
Such a hypothesis presupposes that up to the time when 
the letters were collected, and so passed into general 
circulation, they remained quite unnoticed and were not 
much copied. But this in turn, an assumption of itself, 
is improbable, and contrary to plain facts. That Paul’s 
letters made a profound impression at the time when they 
were written, and did not remain without influence until 
they were accepted by the Church as Holy Scripture, is 
clear from the N.T. itself. Besides Paul’s own hints 
(2 Cor. x. 9-11) and that of 2 Pet. iii. 15 f.,—a passage 
generally assigned to a much later date (§§ 42, 44),—we 
have as proof the fact that the author of 1 Peter, which 
was written in Rome, certainly before the close of the first 
century and probably in 63 or 64, had read Ephesians 
and Romans, and was influenced by them in the com- 
position of his own letter (§ 40). What is expressly 
enjoined in one case in Col. iv. 16 must have happened 
in other cases where there was no express direction, and 
Churches which were in communication with one another 
must have exchanged the apostle’s letters very soon after 
they were received. It is hardly likely that Paul’s letters 


VOL. I. II 


162 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


created less interest than the hastily written Epistles of 
Ionatius to the Churches in Asia Minor, for which request 
was made of the bishop of Smyrna by the Church in 
Philippi shortly after the martyr passed through that 
eity (Pol. ad Phil. 13). Moreover, we know that in the 
post-apostolic age Churches made a great deal of any 
special relations they had had with particular apostles, 
and letters addressed to them were regarded as being 
of special importance (n. 8). An idea like this, which 
determined the whole development of the Church, could 
not have grown up suddenly, nor could it have been the 
immediate effect of the introduction of a collection of the 
letters of Paul or of any apostolic writings. If, as is more 
probable, the making and general circulating of such col- 
lections presuppose an interest in the apostles and the 
writings they left behind them, then there is no reason to 
doubt that before the collection was made, which Marcion 
found in existence, Paul’s letters to the Churches had been 
much copied and circulated. In particular, there is no 
reason to doubt that in the Churches which could boast 
that they had been the first to receive them, such letters 
were not forgotten. But in that case it is next to im- 
possible that in the process of gathering Paul’s letters to 
Churches into a collection, which afterwards passed into 
general circulation, material changes should have been 
made in the text. Such alterations must have been made 
before the letters began to be copied and circulated in this’ 
way; but at that stage in their history such alterations 
are not at all likely to have been made. 

In making these general statements, the purpose has 
been to establish a certain degree of confidence in the 
tradition according to which nine of the N.T. writings 
are letters of Paul addressed to different churches, and 
to create a general mistrust of attempts of one sort and 
another to replace this tradition by theories which do not 
themselves hang together. 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 163 


1. (P. 152.) The present writer has discussed several aspects of the 
matter more fully in the Z/KWuKL, 1889, 5. 451-466, “Die Briefe des 
Paulus seit fünfzig Jahren im Feuer der Kritik.” 

2. (P. 154.) E. Evanson (The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received 
Evangelists and the Evidence of their Authenticity Examined, Ipswich, 1792,.—a 
work not to be found in Erlangen or Munich, but cited on the authority of 
Hesedamm,—ef. n. 6, p. 1) accepted of the Gospels only Luke, omitting 
chaps. i. and ii.; and of Paul’s letters rejected Rom., Eph., Col. as spurious, 
questioning also Titus, Phil., Philem. 

3. (P. 154.) With regard to SCHLEIERMACHER, see below, $ 37, n. 1. 
The opinion quoted in the text was expressed by H. Pranck (and in the 
name of other scholars also), Bemerkungen über den ersten paulin. Brief an 
Tim., Göttingen 1808, S. 256. 

4. (P. 154.) F. Cur. Baur (1792-1860) began his critical work on the 
N.T. with an essay on the Christ party in Corinth (TZfTh. 1831, S. 
61ff.). A criticism of the Pastoral Epistles followed (1835, see 8 37, n. 1), 
and various essays which are to be regarded as preliminary studies for 
his Paulus (1845, 2nd ed. in 2 volumes, published by Zeller, 1866-1867). 
H. THIERSCH in his Versuch zur Herstellung des histor. Standpunkts Für die 
Kritik der ntl. Schriften, 1845, a work issued at about the same time, and still 
worth reading, could not, of course, take Baur’s Paulus into consideration, 
and touched upon the criticism of the Pauline Epistles only in his chapters 
on the heresies mentioned in the N.T. and on the Canon. J. Cur. K. v. 
Hormann, however (1810-1877), in his last and unfinished work, Die heilige 
Schrift NT’s zusammenhängend untersucht (i.-ii. 3, 1862-1866, 2nd ed. 1869- 
1877 ; ili.—viii. 1868-1878 ; ix.-xi. published by Volck, 1881-1886), chose as 
the starting-point in his historical and exegetical investigations of the N ΕΣ 
primarily the Pauline Epistles, in opposition to Baur (i. 60). 

5. (P. 155.) Br. Bauer, Kritik der paul. Briefe, 3 parts, 1850-1852 ; 
Christus u. die Césaren, der Ursprung des Christentums aus dem römischen 
Griechentum, 1877, S. 371 ff. Doubts of the authentieity of Galatians were 
expressed by A. Prerson in Holland, De Bergrede, etc., 1878, p. 99 ff. A.D. 
LoMAN, Questiones Pauline in ThTjd. 1882 ff., and R. STECK, Der Gal. nach 
seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst krit. Bemerkungen zur den paul. Hauptbriefen, 
1888, followed with greater confidence and more detailed argument, with 
some dependence also on Bauer. In opposition to Steck, cf. J. GLOEL, Die 
jüngste Kritik des Gal. auf ihre Berechtigung geprüft, 1890, and the writer’s 
essay (S. 462-466), mentioned in n. 1 above. 

6. (P. 156.) Cur. H. Weisse, Beiträge zur Kritik der paul. Briefe an die 
Gal., Röm., Phil., Kol., published by Sulze, 1867. F. Hırzıg, Zur Kritik paul. 
Briefe, 1870, belongs here also, on account of his hypothesis with regard to 
Col. and Eph. (S. 11-33, see § 29 below). The same Prerson who gave the 
first impulse in Holland to the denial of the genuineness of all the Pauline 
Epistles (n. 5), had at the time remarked on the possibility that their 
difficulties were to be ascribed to an interpolator. While Loman went 
further in the first-named path, Prerson, in collaboration with the philologist 
Naser, pursued the second: Verisimilia. Laceram conditionem NTi exemplts 
ulustrarunt et ab origine repetierunt A. Pierson et 5. A. Naber, 1886. The 
obscurities and contradictions of this account of the origin of the Epistles, 


164 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


as based upon able Jewish writings appropriated and redacted by an 
ignorant Churchman, may be due in part to the fact that two different minds 
were at work in this critical effort, as well as (supposedly) in the writings 
with which it deals. Cf in opposition Kunnen, Verisimilia? ThTjd. 1886, 
S. 491-536, and the present writer’s essay (S. 458 ff.) mentioned in n. 1 above, 
Another work to be mentioned here is D. VOLTER’s Die Komposition der paul. 
Hauptbriefe, 1. Röm. u. Gal., 1890, in which a genuine Romans (i. 1a, 7, v. 
6, 8-17, v. and vi., xii. and xiii., xv. 14-32, xvi. 21-23) is extracted from the 
shell of the traditional Epistle, which is held to have acquired its present 
form by a fivefold interpolation and the addition of a letter addressed to 
Ephesus, Rom. xvi. 1-20. Galatians, according to this critic, has suffered 
only minor interpolations ; but even so is the work not of Paul himself, but 
of a Paulinist of a later period. On Völter’s treatment of Philippians see § 32. 
C. CLEMEN, Die Einheitlichkeit der paul. Briefe an der Hand der bisher mit bezug 
auf sie aufgestellten Interpolations- und Kompilationshypothesen, 1894, gives 
an outline of all attempts in this direction. Worth reading, also, is the 
pseudonymous essay of an American theologian, Der Röm. beurteilt u. gevier- 
teilt, eine krit. Untersuchung von CARL HESEDAMM, 1890 [Romans Dissected, 
by E. D. M‘Realsham=Charles M. Mead]. 

7. (P. 158.) With regard to spurious letters by James and to James, 
see above, p. 148, n. 5; spurious Pauline Epistles, GK, ii. 565-621. The 
principles referred to above the present writer has already developed, and 
supported by examples, in his Ignatius, 529 ff., especially 537-541; and to 
some extent, indeed, in his Hirt des Hermas, 70-98. 

8. (Pp. 159, 162.) Clem. 1 Cor. xliv. 3-6, the presbyters appointed by the 
apostles at Corinth, some of them still living. Fortunatus, chap. Ixv.=1 Cor. 
xvi. 17, see ὃ 18, seems to have been one of these. On the relations of the 
several Churches to the apostles and on apostolic letters, see Clem. 1 Cor. xlvii.; 
and on chap. v. see § 36 below ; also Ign. Eph. xi. 2, xii. 2; Rom. iv. 3; 
Polye. ad Phil. 111. 2, xi. 3; ef. GK, i. 807, 811 ff., 839. 


§ 10. THE HISTORICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS AND THE 
OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


Since it is impossible to determine beforehand what is 
understood by Γαλατία, to the Churches of which the letter 
is addressed (i. 2, iii. 1), the only thing to do is to gather 
from the letter itself what historical information it has to 
give with reference to the origin and early development 
of the Churches to which it was sent, the relation Paul 
sustained to these Churches, and the occasion which led 
to the composition of the letter. 

These Churches had been established by Paul’s own 
preaching (i. 8). From him they received the gospel 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 165 


(i. 9). He recalls now with sorrow the labour he had 
bestowed upon them (iv. 11), and remembers with a feel- 
ing of sadness the joyful reception he had had among 
them when for the first time he came to them with the 
preaching of the gospel (iv. 13-15). He calls them his 
own children, with whom he is again, like a mother, in 
travail (iv. 19); speaking manifestly in the same sense in 
which, addressing another Church, he speaks of himself as 
their father who had begotten them (1 Cor. iv. 15). "This 
does not, of course, preclude the possibility of Paul’s having 
had the support of one or more helpers in his work among 
the Galatians (cf. 2 Cor. i. 19). That this was actually 
the case is proved by the plural εὐηγγελισάμεθα (1. 8, 
n. 1). When in iv. 13 f. Paul says that it was on account 
of physical illness that he first preached the gospel among 
the Galatians,—an illness that might have made him repul- 
sive to those who heard his preaching,—of course he does 
not mean to say that this was the primary motive of his 
preaching, but only that it was this circumstance that 
kept him in this region for a sufficient length of time 
to preach the gospel to these particular persons (n. 2). 
From this same passage we learn also that Paul after- 
wards revisited the Galatian region and preached the 
gospel there a second time. In those instances where 
Paul reminds the Galatians of something that he had said 
to them previously, there is no way of determining abso- 
lutely whether it is to be referred to the first or to the 
second visit. . On the first visit he must certainly have 
declared that scandalous living excluded one from the 
kingdom of God (v. 21, ef. 1 Cor. vi. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 2, 
11; 2 Thess. iii. 10). But he preached the gospel also 
on his second visit, and so had occasion to re-emphasise 
this primary rule. It may not have been until his second 
visit to the Galatians that he had occasion to warn them 
against permitting themselves to be circumcised, and 
against preachers of a false gospel (n. 3). Even if he 


166 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


did warn them on the second visit, the occasion for 
it could not have been the condition of the Galatian 
Churches, still less so if the warnings are to be referred 
back to the earlier visit; for the letter begins with a 
strong expression of surprise that the Galatians had 
turned away so quickly from the real and the only 
gospel of Christ, and had suffered themselves to be per- 
suaded by certain troublesome preachers to accept a cari- 
cature of the gospel. This introduction and the tone of 
the Epistle throughout show that shortly before writing 
Paul had been surprised by the report of the first appear- 
ance of these teachers, and of the rapid success of their 
work, Consequently they must have come among the 
Galatians in the interval between Paul’s second visit and 
the writing of this letter, and they must have been still 
ab work when he wrote. This latter point is proved by 
the use of present tenses in i. δ ἢ TV bee 
Throughout the letter these false teachers are distinguished 
from the memhers of the Churches addressed, and charged 
with being their seducers (ὦ “Foitliy ΧΗ 29-31, 
v. 7,10, 12, vi. 128). There is no hint anywhere that 
they belonged in the Galatian Churches (for this distine- 
tion ef. 1 Cor. xv. 12; Acts xx. 30 with Acts xx. 29). 
Paul does not resist them as if they were settled teachers, 
who as members of the Churches were doing things which 
to him seemed injurious, but he treats them as if they 
were preachers of a false gospel, 6. missionary preachers 
who dogged his steps and invaded the Churches which he 
founded. In the Galatian Churches, as in all the Pauline 
Churches of which we know anything, there were some 
native Jews, a necessary assumption if Gal. iii. 26-29 is 
to have a natural explanation. But he is writing with 
the large majority of the members in view, and with 
reference to the character which he himself had impressed 
upon them, so that he treats them throughout as Gentile 
Christians. Not only is this clear from single passages 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 167 


such as iv. 8f., 11. 5 (πρὸς ὑμᾶς, cf. 11. 2, ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ; 11, 8, 
eis τὰ ἔθνη), 111. 29, v. 2, vi. 12, but it appears also from 
the character of the questions discussed throughout the 
letter. On the other hand, the preachers of what can 
only falsely be called a gospel are Jews, by birth, through 
circumcision, and in spirit (iv. 29-31, v. 12, vi. 12-17). 
The comparison which Paul makes in iv. 21-31 between 
his opponents and himself by contrasting the spiritual 
with the fleshly descendants of Abraham, referring to the 
earthly Jerusalem as the home or mother of the latter, 
and to the heavenly Jerusalem as the home or mother of 
the former, is very far-fetched, unless these Jewish Chris- 
tian missionaries had come into Galatia from this earthly 
Jerusalem. This supposition is favoured by what we 
know of similar disturbances in the Gentile Christian 
Churches (Acts xv. 1, 24; Gal. ii. 12; 2 Cor. ii. 1, § 18). 
As indicated by the plurals in i. 7, iv. 17, v. 12, vi. 12£., 
there were certainly a number of these missionaries who 
came to the Galatians, so that in all probability they had 
a prearranged plan, entering the various Churches simul- 
taneously, and doing their work in concert. That one 
of their number acted as a leader is not unlikely ; but 
there is no hint of it in the letter, and it certainly cannot 
be inferred from the one singular ὁ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς in v. 10, 
much less from the form of the questions in iii. 1, v. 7. 
From the first main dimsion of the Epistle, i. 11-11, 14, 
which is principally historical and apologetic in char- 
acter, we learn that these Jewish missionaries had criti- 
cised in an unkindly manner his missionary work and 
his life history since his conversion, hoping thereby to 
undermine the confidence of the Galatian Churches in 
their founder, and so to gain foothold for their own 
teaching, which they represented as a more perfect form 
of the gospel. They must have made it appear that 
immediately after his conversion Paul accepted a position 
quite subordinate, and entirely dependent upon the earlier 


168 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


apostles, and also that at the so-called apostolic council 
he submitted to the decision of his superiors in Jerusalem. 
So, they argued, the independence with which Paul 
worked among the Gentiles was an unjustifiable preten- 
sion on his part, while the radical departure from the 
practices of Jewish Christians in Palestine, which Paul 
not only permitted in the Churches under his influence, 
but for which he himself was directly responsible, was 
nothing less than a degeneracy from Christianity as 
originally taught. It is implied in i. 10 that in his 
effort to please men, 1.6. to make the gospel palatable to 
the Gentiles, and to make as many converts as he could 
in his missionary work, Paul abridged the gospel in some 
of its essential points, and preached it to the Gentiles 
only in a mutilated form. 

What it was that Paul’s opponents wanted to substitute 
for his presentation of the gospel, essential parts of which 
they claimed Paul had left out, we learn from the second 
main division of the letter (ii. 15-iv. 11), in which Paul de- 
velops his own doctrine, and from certain portions of the 
third main division (iv. 12-vi. 18), which is largely hort- 
atory. They insisted that the Mosaic law, which they re- 
garded as God’s chief revelation, was to be for all time the 
rule of faith and practice in the Church of God. Therefore, 
if they were to be saved, Gentile Christians must submit 
to its demands. First of all they must be circumeised 
(v. 2, vi. 12f.); and, in order to become real Christians, 
sanctified and fully qualified members of the Church of 
Jesus, they must become proselytes of righteousness and 
accept Judaism. This was the position taken by those 
Pharisaie Jewish Christians from Palestine, the coming 
of whom to Antioch made necessary the apostolic council 
(Acts xv. 1,5; Gal. 11. 4). At the time when this letter 
was written, the persons holding similar views who had 
gone among the Galatians do not seem to have succeeded 
in inducing a single Gentile Christian to accept cireum- 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 169 


cision, though they had made a deep impression. All 
the Churches seem to Paul to have been bewitched (iii. 1), 
and their prosperous growth interfered with (v. 7). All 
the Galatians have suffered themselves to be disturbed 
(1. 7, v. 10), and are even on the point of turning away 
from the only gospel of Christ (i. 6, iii. 3). Their con- 
fidence in Paul is shaken (iv. 12-20). The observance 
of Jewish holy days and feasts seems to have become 
quite general (iv. 9f.). Many, at least, were contemplat- 
ing further steps in the same direction (iv. 21). Although 
these foreign Judaisers were wise enough to assume a 
certain appearance of liberality by not demanding at 
once from the Gentile Christians a complete observance 
of the law, so that Paul himself was compelled to call 
attention to this inevitable consequence (v. 3), yet with 
regard to one point, namely, the necessity of being circum- 
cised, they made no concessions. The worst was to be 
feared. 

Since Paul does not seem anywhere to be uncertain 
with regard to the facts and conditions among the 
Galatians which are presupposed and discussed by him, 
it is hardly possible that his information was derived 
solely from private sources, letters and oral statements 
of individual Christians (cf. 1 Cor. 1. 11, xi. 18). On 
the other hand, also, nothing in the letter gives evi- 
dence that it is an answer to a writing sent to Paul in 
the name and by direction of the Churches, cf. ZKom. 
Gal. 8. It is much more probable that accredited repre- 
sentatives of the Galatian Churches had come to Paul to 
obtain a decision on the question, which had not yet been 
decided. Of them he could have inquired also concerning 
everything which they had not reported to him of their 
own accord. Otherwise he could not have written this 
Epistle without first asking for an explanation of the 
surprising things that were going on, or without express- 
ing doubt as to the truthfulness of the reports that had 


170 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


come to him. The guestio fact between him and his 
readers is settled. Therefore, assuming the facts, he 
proceeds at once (1 6) to pass judgment upon them, 
beginning with a passionate remonstrance in which attack 
and defence are almost inseparably blended. Although, as 
we learn in this Epistle, he was even at that time in the 
habit of dictating his letters, this one was written entirely 
by his own hand, a fact to which he calls his readers’ atten- 
tion (vi. 11, n. 4). On this occasion, when he needed to 
throw the entire weight of his personality into the waver- 
ing balance, to address them through another seemed like 
erecting a barrier between himself and the hearts of the 
children for whom he had been in travail. And even 
when he wrote himself, words seemed wooden and unsuited 
to his purpose. Best of all would it be if he could be 
present in person and with the emotion of his voice win 
their half-estranged hearts back again to himself and to 
the truth for which he stood (iv. 20). It is necessary to 
assume that he was at such a distance from the Galatians 
that a journey to them in the near future was out of the 
question. Otherwise in this passage he must have stated 
in so many words that at the time a journey was out of 
the question, with the reasons why it was impossible. 
From what is said in other letters, one would at least 
expect him to say something about coming to them in the 
more remote future (1 Thess. ii. 17-iil. 11; 1 Cor. iv. 18-21, 
ΧΙ, 34, xvi. 2-73, 20Cor.tix,,4,, xe 2-16, it, (20s 
Phil. i. 24). How long a period had elapsed since his last 
visit we are not able to determine from the letter (n. 5), 
nor is there any indication as to the place where it was 
written, except that from i. 2f., and the entire absence 
of special greetings, it may be inferred that no one of the 
persons who assisted in the organisation of the Galatian 
Churches was with Paul at the time. In this letter his 
position is that of an advocate in a process affecting his 
own person and moving him deeply, and the fact that 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 171 


Paul represents the letter as being from all those about 
him (i. 2) does no more than produce the impression that 
what he writes is correctly stated, according to the unani- 
mous judgment of all available persons capable of judging 
the matter. 


1. (P. 165.) That “we,” i. 8 and i. 9 (where reference is had probably to 
two distinct incidents, $11), is to be taken literally, follows from the other- 
wise constant use of “I” throughout the Epistle. Special proof of this 
interpretation is afforded by ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω, which stands in immediate 
sequence to the plural in i. 9. In spite of the inclusion with him in the 
address of all the brethren in his company (i. 2),—which cannot be looked 
upon as a joint authorship,—Paul is the sole speaker throughout the Epistle, 
as in 1 Cor., in spite of the mention of Sosthenes, 1 Cor. i. 1. 

2. (P. 165.) It is not necessary to prove that δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός 
(iv. 13) cannot designate merely an accompanying situation, as though it 
read either δι᾽ ἀσθενείας or ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ σαρκός. The text will hardly support 
the hypothesis of Ramsay (The Church in the Roman Empire, 2nd ed. 1893, 
pp. 62-65 ; St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, 1896, pp. 92-97) that the 
apostle is here referring to an attack of fever to which he fell a victim in the 
heated regions of Pamphylia, and on account of which he felt constrained 
to travel northward to the cooler mountain region of Pisidian Antioch. An 
attack of malaria must certainly incapacitate one for strenuous exertions of 
any sort. But when one has recuperated to such a degree as to enable him 
to preach successfully as Paul did among the Galatians, his convalescence 
cannot make him an object of aversion, either natural or religious, as was 
the case with Paul in his first preaching in Galatia (iv. 13 f.). The reference 
here, as in 2 Cor. xii. 7-9, is rather to another malady, incurable in its 
nature, and reappearing from time to time. Against Ramsay, but especially 
in opposition to Krenkel’s assumption (epilepsy), see the medical opinion of 
Professor W. Herzog (RKZ, 1899, Nos. 10, 11), who thinks it most likely 
to have been “neurasthenie conditions in consequence of repeated over- 
exertions and an excessive strain upon the nerve system, combined with 
periodic nervous pains.” τὸ πρότερον (iv. 13), used as it is with a verb 
expressing definite action (aorist), cannot designate simply the past, as in 
John vi. 62, ix. 8, but involves, by way of comparison, a πάλιν or τὸ δεύτερον 
εὐαγγελίζεσθαι. At the same time, however, it can have no reference to the 
composition of Galatians so long as εὐαγγελίζεσθαι retains the meaning which 
it has throughout the N.T., namely, “ to bring the message of salvation to those 
who do not yet know it, or have not yet received it.” The objection that 
εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, in the strict sense of the term, could not be directed twice to 
the same persons, is without point, since Paul in Galatia addressed a number 
of persons, or rather of congregations—a large circle, in which some heard 
the gospel during his first and others during his second visit to the province. 
Even in a local congregation like that at Corinth, we find some who were 
brought to the faith by Paul and others after Paul’s departure by Apollos 
(1 Cor. iii. 5). 

3. (Ὁ. 165.) madw in v. 3 implies contrast to a declaration of the truth 
here expressed made before the writing of the Epistle ; for in the Epistle itself 


172 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


there is no expression of this truth before this passage. This is even cléarer 
in the case of ἄρτι πάλιν of 1. 9, especially since we find the plural προειρήκαμεν 
displaced by the immediately following singular λέγω. © Whom Paul includes 
with himself in i. 8, 9 depends upon a determination of the exact meaning 
of TaXaria (see § 11). It has been incorrectly inferred from iv. 16 
(Wieseler, Sieffert, ad toc. ; Godet, Introd. 1. 270) that Paul was compelled 
to utter bitter truths or earnest warnings as early as his second visit to the 
Galatians,—a conclusion which led to the further assumption that by that 
time the Judaistic movement had already taken root among the Galatians. 
In iv. 15-20 Paul sketches his present relationship to the Galatians as con- 
trasted with his first contact with them described in vv. 13, 14, and again 
alluded to in the intermediate sentence of ver. 15. In reviewing the letter, 
which at this point would seem to have reached its conclusion, he discusses 
the existing state of affairs. The Galatians have forgotten with what 
enthusiasm they received him when he first came to them (ver. 15a), and 
how earnest was the expression of mutual love between himself and them as 
long and as often as he was in their midst (ver. 18). Instead of this now, they 
permit his opponents to court their favour (ver. 17). Paul, who as he writes 
feels again the birth throes which the conversion of the Galatians had cost 
him, stands pen in hand at a loss what to advise them, since he cannot now 
realise his desire to treat with them in person (vv. 19, 20). He seems now 
to be their enemy, because he writes them the truth. It is not to the point 
to say that the Galatians knew nothing of this enmity before reading the 
Epistle ; for with ἐχθρὸς ὑμῶν yéyova—abdive—dropodpa Paul describes his 
present relation to them, as he himself feels it at this particular moment, and 
not as they look at it. ὥστε refers back beyond the parenthesis to the ques- 
tion: “Where is then that gratulation of yourselves?” The question has 
the force of a demonstrative referring to ὥστε (Kühner-Gerth, ii. 502). So 
thoroughly has their relationship to Paul been disturbed, that his fearless 
declaration of the truth in this letter has made him seem their enemy. This 
is the picture he presents to himself, while at the same time he is conscious 
of striving for their spiritual life with a maternal love. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 11, 
γέγονα ἄφρων. The present ἀληθεύων cannot possibly refer to the past of 
his second visit, as if Paul meant to say that he became their enemy on 
account of the censures uttered at that time; for it is connected with the 
present perfect, and follows the question ver. 15a, also in the present, upon 
which the clause introduced by ὥστε is dependent. Such reference Paul 
must have expressed by ἐγενόμην or ἐγενήθην (cf. Isa. Ixiii. 10, ἐστράφη 
αὐτοῖς eis €xOpav,—a passage which otherwise perhaps he had in mind). It 
would have been also necessary for him to distinguish this second sojourn 
from the first (τὸ πρότερον, ver. 13). Instead of this, he passes from the first 
visit (vv. 13, 14) directly to the present moment of his writing (vv. 15-20). 
4. (Ρ. 170.) The Were πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί of 
vi. 11 is certainly not, with Jerome (Vallarsi, vii. 529) and Theodore 
(Swete, i. 107), to be confined in its reference to the immediately following 
eonelusion of the Epistle which Paul is supposed to have written in larger 
characters on account of its importance, or in order to show the fearless 
spirit with which it was written. Such a limitation would have been 
expressed as in 1 Cor. xvi. 21; 2 Thess. iii. 17; Col. iv. 18. Moreover, 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 173 


the aorist ἔγραψα is never employed—at least in the N.T.—to refer te 
something which the author is about to write; rather does Paul look 
back upon the entire letter which is just being closed, cf. Rom. xv. 15, 
xvi. 22. In the same way we conclude from Philem. 19 that the apostle 
wrote all of this short letter with his own hand. Anyone accustomed to 
dictate, and not hindered from so doing by external circumstances, when 
he deviates from this course, does so because he desires to give to his 
writing the highest possible personal character. Cf. Ambrosius, Hp. i. 3 
(ed. Ben. ii. 753 to the Emperor Gratian): “ Scripsisti tua totam epistolam 
manu, ut ipsi apices fidem tuam pietatemque loquerentur.” Herein lies the 
explanation of the πηλίκοις γράμμασιν in this instance. Hofmann, i. 2. 205, 
has not succeeded in justifying, from linguistic usage, his translation : “Such 
a large, explieit Epistle I have written to you.” Cf. per contra Acts xxiii. 25; 
2 Pet. iii. 1, ἐπιστολήν ; Eph. iii. 3, ἐν ὀλίγῳ ; 1 Pet. v. 12, öl ὀλίγων ; Heb. 
xiii. 22, διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα ; Eus. H. E.i. 7.1, 8¢ ἐπιστολῆς ᾿Αριστείδῃ 
γράφων περὶ KTA. 5 Ign. Rom, viii. 2, 80 ὀλίγων γραμμάτων αἰτοῦμαι ὑμᾶς, 
likewise ad Polyc. vii. 3 with παρεκάλεσα. In case the helplessness of the 
writer, which showed itself in the unusually large characters of his writing, 
was caused by Paul’s constant manual labour, or by his continuous bodily 
suffering, or by a recent injury, the reference to the roughly formed large 
letters, supplemented by τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί, was, at the same time, a proof of the 
self-sacrificing labour it had cost him to approach as near and as personally 
as possible to the readers, ef. ZKom. Gal. 277. 

5. (P. 170.) It cannot by any means be inferred from i. 6 that only a 
brief period had elapsed since Paul’s last visit to Galatia—certainly not since 
the founding of the Galatian Churches, for only when a distinct point of 
time, from which the rapid introduction of an event is measured, is either 
distinctly expressed or implied in the statement, does ταχέως acquire the 
meaning “soon,” e.g. with ἔρχομαι; ἐλεύσομαι, in which the present moment 
of the statement is the point of time after which the coming is to follow 
promptly, without delay and at once (1 Cor. iv. 19; Phil. ii. 19, 24). It 
would not indeed be specially strange if Churches just established and 
consequently immature, or if Churches that had just been visited by their 
founder, allowed themselves to be estranged by false teachers ; but such a 
situation would become intelligible only if we were here reminded of the 
apostle’s last visit, and of the favourable state of affairs which he found. 
As a matter of fact, however, Paul represents himself as astonished and 
incensed at the situation, and says merely that the Galatians have so im- 
pulsively allowed themselves to be turned in a false direction, and that the 
Judaisers have needed but little time to secure such a dangerous influence 
over them. The original sense of ταχύς, ταχέως, ταχινός 18 frequently pre- 
served, 6.0. 2 Thess. ii. 2; Jas.i. 19; Mark ix. 39; John xx. 4; 2 Pet. ii. 1. 


$ 11. GALATIA AND THE GALATIANS (w. 1). 


In order to connect the statements and intimations of 
Galatians with what is said elsewhere about Paul, it is 


174 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


necessary to decide what is meant by ἡ Γαλατία ini. 2 (ef. 
lil. 1), a question which comes up again in connection with 
1 Cor. xvi. 1 and 1 Pet. i. 1 (n. 2). According to the older 
view, which distinguished scholars still hold, Galatia means 
the region about Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium, which, after 
the incursions of Celtic warriors in the third century B.C., 
was called Γαλατία. By others, Γαλατία, in i. 2, is under- 
stood as referring to the Roman province of that name, 
which was organised in 25 Β. c., after the death of Amyntus, 
the last king of the Galatians, From the time of its 
establishment, the province, the boundaries of which 
fluctuated greatly, included besides the Galatian region 
the greater part of the region of Pisidia, Isauria, and 
Lycaonia, also a portion of eastern Phrygia, though the 
greater part of Phrygia belonged to the province of Asia. 
In Asia Minor, as elsewhere, the organisation and marking 
out of Roman provinces, though furnishing new names, 
did not by any means displace the old territorial designa- 
tions. Roman writers, such as the elder Pliny (died 79) and 
Tacitus (circa 115), also the geographer Ptolemy (circa 150), 
understood by Galatia the entire Roman province, which, 
besides other districts, included Galatia proper (n. 8). 
The question as to which usage is followed by Paul would 
not for so long a time have been given such conflicting 
answers, were it not for a tendency, on the one hand, to 
let Paul’s usage be determined by that of Acts, and, on 
the other, to interpret the statements of Acts in the light 
of the Pauline usage. There is all the less excuse for this 
confusion, since the name Γαλατία does not occur in Acts 
at all, while the meaning of the peculiar expression (ἡ) 
Γαλατικὴ χώρα, which is twice used by Luke (Acts xvi. 6, 
xvill. 23), can be determined only from the context of 
these passages and from Luke’s usage elsewhere. Now it 
is clear that, when speaking of Asia Minor and other 
distriets, Luke employs the old territorial names, whieh 
do not correspond at all with the divisions and names of 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 175 


the Roman provinces, wlıereas Paul never uses any but 
the provincial name for distriets under Roman rule, and 
never employs territorial names which are not also names 
of Roman provinces (n. 4). So that the natural supposi- 
tion is that ἡ Γαλατία in Gal. 1. 2, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, means 
the Roman province of Galatia. And this judgment is 
but confirmed by the fact that in an Epistle written in 
Rome (8 39), in 1 Pet. 1 1, the name Galatia occurs in a 
list of names which otherwise consists entirely of names of 
Roman provinces (n. 3, end). Even admitting that by 
Galatia Paul could have meant the entire province of that 
name, some have had difficulty in understanding how the 
readers could be addressed as Galatians in iii. 1 when the 
majority of them were not Galatians at all, 1.6. of Celtic 
stock. But it is to be noticed that both Paul and Luke 
speak elsewhere of all the inhabitants of a given city or 
district without making ethnographical distinctions, 6.0). 
between Jews and Greeks, Romans and non-Romans ; thus, 
Corinthians (2 Cor. vi. 11), Philippians (Phil. iv. 15), 
Macedonians (2 Cor. ix. 2, 4; Acts xix. 29), Pontians 
(Acts xviii. 2), Asians (Acts xx. 4), Alexandrians (Acts 
xviii. 24), Romans (Acts ii. 10). To take a modern 
example, no one hesitates at all to call the inhabitants of 
the regions about Nuremberg and Würzburg Bavarians, 
although the original stock was Frankish, and although 
the political union of these people with peoples of Bava- 
rian stock is not much older than the political union of 
Lycaonians and Galatians in the province of Galatia at 
the time when this letter was written. The greater the 
diversity of nationality in a Christian community, the 
more natural it was in addressing them to designate them 
by the customary name of the political division where they 
lived, which was a neutral term. 

The question, what is meant by the name Galatia in 
Gal. i. 2? must be decided ultimately by a comparison οὗ, 
the historical facts involved in each of these views with 


176 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the text of the letter itself. If by Galatia the Roman 
province is meant, then, of those addressed, the most 
important, if not the only, Churches are the four which 
were founded by Paul and Barnabas on Paul’s first mis- 
sionary journey, at Antioch in Pisidia, at Iconium, Lystra, 
and Derbe (n. 5). Concerning the first preaching among 
the readers, mentioned in Gal. iv. 13, we should have a 
more detailed account in Acts xiii. 14-xiv. 23, and the 
second preaching of the gospel in Galatia, indirectly but 
certainly attested by Gal. iv. 13, would be evidenced in 
reference to these Churches by Acts xvi. 5. For as a 
result of the visit of Paul and Silas to the Churches 
founded in South Galatia during the first missionary 
journey (xvi. 1-5), these Churches were not only confirmed 
in the faith, but their membership was also increased. 
With these Churches Paul (Gal. i. 2) must have included 
also the other Churches which had been organised in other 
parts of the province in the interval preceding the writing 
of the letter ; provided there were such Churches in exist- 
ence at that time, and provided they were established by 
his preaching. But both are very doubtful. Certainly 
the second visit to South Galatia was followed at once by 
a tour through the regions of Phrygia and Galatia, which 
Paul had not succeeded in reaching on his first journey 
(Acts xvi. 6); and when it is said that this route was 
chosen because the Spirit forbade them to preach in Asia, 
this command did not hold for the regions through which 
in obedience to this direction they actually passed. It 
could be taken for granted, therefore, in spite of the 
silence of Acts, which in xvi. 6 mentions merely a journey 
of the missionaries through these regions, that Paul and 
Silas on this occasion preached in Phrygia and a portion 
of North Galatia; and that the disciples (not Churches, 
as in xv. 41, xvi. 5, ef. xiv. 23) whom Paul met on the 
third missionary journey to several places of the same 
regions (Acts xviii. 23) had been converted by the preach- 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 177 


ing of Paul and Silas.on the second journey. But every- 
one feels the uncertainty of these combinations. 

And yet, if one connects the name Galatia with the 
northern portion of the province, the region inhabited by 
the Celtic tribes, the account of the founding of all the 
Churches addressed in Galatians must be read between 
the lines of Acts xvi. 6, and the second: visit must be 
identified with that. mentioned m Acts xviii. 23. But 
this in itself-is a serious objection to the latter hypothesis, 
We do not lay great stress upon the fact that,Gal. iv. 13 
presupposes not only a second visit, but also a second 
preaching of the gospel in Galatia, and that, on the con- 
trary; in Acts xvill. 23 there is no more reference to a 
second, than in xvi. 6 to a first preaching in those 
regions. The thing that makes the hypothesis improb- 
able is especially the fact that, assuming it, the Churches 
in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and: Antioch in Pisidia, whose 
importance is evidenced by the account of their organisa- 
tion (Acts xiii, 14-xiv. 23; 2 Tim.i. 11), and by the 
fact that from them come several of Paul’s helpers (Acts 
xvi. 1, xx. 4), would be left with scarcely a trace of 
their subsequent development in the N.T. On the other 
hand, the Churches in the northern part of the province 
of Galatia, of whose founding we can read something 
between the lines of Acts, would have in Galatians, in the 
greeting of 1 Peter, and in the mention of 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 
witnesses of an ecclesiastical importance, of which the 
author of Acts could have had no idea whatever... Further- 
more, it would be strange if Jewish teachers from Palestine 
passed by such important cities as Iconium and Antioch, 
where there were Jewish synagogues (n. 6), and where there 
would certainly be some native Jews in the local Christian 
Churches, without starting a movement considerable 
enough to leave some traces of itself in our sources, and 
still more strange if they made their way to the more 


remote Galatian region, the Churches of which, according 
VOL. I. I2 


{78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to intimations of Acts, were not important, in order tc 
oppose Paul’s gospel and influence. This hypothesis also 
involves difficulties as to the time and place of the com- 
position of Galatians, which disappear when the other 
hypothesis is accepted (8 12). Besides, it has against it 
Paul’s assurance (Gal. ii. 5) that, in the transactions of 
the so-called’ apostolic council in Jerusalem, he had in 
mind the readers addressed in Galatians, endeavouring to 
retain for them the truth and freedom of the gospel (n. 7); 
moreover, at the time when the events described in Acts xv. 
took place, the ‘winter of 51-52, Paul as yet had not 
even visited Galatia proper, the first indieation of such ἃ 
visit being that in Acts xvi. 6. This of itself is sufficient 
proof that the ‘Churches of Galatia,” to which the letter 
is addressed, were primarily at least the Churches of the 
southern part of the province of Galatia, which ‘were 
organised prior to the apostolie council on the first 
missionary journey. 

This hypothesis ($ 12) gets positive confirmation Fett 
a comparison of Galatians with the accounts in Acts, which 
under this presupposition are to be taken into ἘΠ ΤᾺ 
tion. If without question in Gal. i. 8 Paul is speaking 
primarily of the preaching of the gospel which led to the 
organisation of the Churches of Galatia, 1.6. to. the edayy- 
εἐλίζεσθαι τὸ πρότερον of iv. 13, then the helper to whose 
assistance he refers is Barnabas. In so far, however, as 
there is a reference to the second visit, on which occasion 
also the gospel was preached with good success, Silas is 
to be thought οὗ as the fellow-worker (Acts xv. 40-xvi. 6). 
Only Silas is referred to in Gal. i. 9, since on the first 
missionary journey which Paul made in company with 
Barnabas there would hardly have been as yet any occasion 
for warnings against a‘ false gospel, particularly against a 
gospel distorted by requirements of a legalistic kind (ef. 
Gal. v. 3). The condition of the Churches in the early 
stages of their development furnished no oceasion for such 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 179 


warnings (above, p. 171. n. 3); while, on the other hand, it 
was perfectly natural that on the second journey, which he 
made in company with Silas, after the experiences which 
he had had in Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts xv. 1-29; 
Gal. ii. 1-10) in the interval between the first and second 
visit to the province of Galatia, Paul should warn the 
newly organised Churches in Lycaonia against the false 
brethren and their legalistic Christianity. According 
to Acts xvi. 4, the missionaries communicated to the 
Churches of Lycaonia also the decisions of the apostolic 
council which were intended only for the Christians in 
Antioch in Syria and the neighbouring regions, who had 
been disturbed by the Judaisers (Acts xv. 23). In this 
way they were prepared for the attacks of the Judaisers, 
xvi. 5, which were to be expected. Similarly, the repeated 
reference to Barnabas by name (11. 1, 9, 13) is especially 
appropriate if Paul is here writing to Churches the most 
important of which were organised with Barnabas’ help. 
While, to be sure, rt does appear from 1 Cor. ix. 6, Col. 
iv. 10, that Barnabas was known as a distinguished 
missionary even in Churches which he had not visited in 
person, in both these cases there were special reasons for 
the mention of his name. In 1 Cor. ix.'6 he is mentioned 
because Paul wants to say that from the beginning of his 
missionary work, when he was associated with Barnabas, 
he had followed the principle under discussion ; while in 
Col. iv. 10 it is necessary because in commending Mark, 
who was entirely unknown to his readers, to the kindly 
reception of the Church, he has occasion to say that he is 
a relative of a distinguished missionary. In Gal. 1]. no 
special reasons of this character are discernible, and if the 
threefold mention of Barnabas is to be explained natur- 
ally, it must be assumed that Barnabas assisted in the 
organisation of the most important of the Churches which 
he was addressing. That in thinking over his first and 
second visits in Galatia, Paul should occasionally at least 


180 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


think of his helpers Barnabas and Silas (i. 8f.), and at 
the same time consistently represent himself to be the 
organizer and head of the Galatian Churches (iv. 11-20, 
v. 2f., 21), is consistent with the accounts in Acts. Even 
on the first missionary journey which was made in com- 
pany with Barnabas, Paul was the spokesman and principal 
preacher (Acts xii. 16, xiv. 9, 12). In this connection 
attention is called to the noteworthy incident in Lystra 
(Acts xiv. 11-14), of which there is a reflection in Gal. 
iy. 14. While in their excitement at the case of miracu- 
lous healing, the Lycaonians thought they recognised in 
Barnabas Zeus; they took Paul, to whose preaching they 
listened, to be Hermes, the messenger and interpreter of 
the gods; so it is with deep emotion that Paul looks 
back to the day when they received him as ““a messenger 
of God”; indeed, as the son of God. This was, to be 
sure, only an outburst of naive popular superstition, 
which the missionaries repudiated with indignation ; but 
in the case of those who were afterwards taught and con- 
verted, this heathen superstition, in which their enthusiasm 
found expression at first, gave place to a feeling of grateful 
joy that not the gods of Olympus, but “the living God, 
who made heaven and earth,” had sent His “ messenger” 
to them, and that Christ Himself had visited them in the 
gospel which Paul preached. 1 Acts xvil. 16-34 gives an 
historical picture of the apostle to the Gentiles, which 
statement no one has as yet disproved, it is perfectly con- 
ceivable that Paul should see a connection between the 
worship which the Gentiles rendered to the unknown gods 
and their enthusiastie love for the God whom he preached 
(Acts xvii. 23), and for God’s messenger. Unless this 
coincidence between the hints in the letter and the account 
in Acts is a tantalising accident, it must be admitted that 
there is an echo of this same event also in Gal. 1. 8, where 
likewise Paul is looking back to the first preaching in 
Galatia, and where we have the. strange combination of 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 181 


two ideas, in themselves quite foreign to each other, —“ we 
or an angel from heaven.” In the ancient legend of 
Thecla, which begins with the flight from Antioch in 
Pisidia (Acts xi. 50-xiv.1; Acta Thecle,i.), the impression 
which Paul made at that time upon the impressionable 
mind of one of the citizens of [conium is thus deseribed, 
evidently with the words of Galatians in mind: “ Now 
he seemed like a man, and again he had the face of an 
angel” (chap. 35 GK, ἢ. 904). 

Regarding the illness of Paul, which was the occasion 
of his first sojourn and so of his first preaching among 
the Galatians (iv. 13, above, p. 171, n. 2), there is no 
direct information in Acts. Perhaps, however, Paul’s 
statement offers some explanation of the unusual route 
chosen by the missionaries. The direction which they 
took from Perga to Antioch (Acts xiii. 14) would seem to 
indicate their intention of pressing their way from Antioch 
northward or westward into the valleys of the Lycus and 
of the Meander, where there were numerous cities, and 
of making their way thence to the large cities on the 
western coast of Asia Minor. When, instead of following 
out this plan, the missionaries turn toward the south-east 
from Antioch, returning shortly from this same point by 
the route over which they had come, though no statement 
is made as to the reasons for the change (cf. Acts xvi. 
6-10), it may have been an attack of his malady that led 
Paul for the time being to give up the carrying out of 
this more extended plan. 

Naturally, to us, who are able only to infer the facts 
presupposed in the letter from allusions which Paul makes 
for the benefit of those who were already acquainted with 
them, much must remain obscure. But this itselt is the 
very strongest proof that we are not dealing with a 
literary fiction, but with a genuine letter, which had its 
occasion in circumstances connected with real life. One 
of the most obscure of these passages is v.11, and obscure 


182 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


it will remain unless we are allowed to explain the letters 
of Paul. from Acts... It appears that the opponents of 
Paul had called the attention of the Galatians to the fact 
that even Paul, the man of progress, could, like the older 
apostles, when occasion, demanded, preach. circumcision, 
So, they areued, it would be no serious rupture with their 
past Christian experience, which had been formed) under 
Paul’s influence, if now the Galatians permitted them- 
selves to be circumcised. Basing their argument on 
Paul’s. conduct, the errorists could make it appear to the 
Galatians that Paul might be easily convinced, and in the 
end. allow the Galatians to be Judaised. How untrue 
this representation of his attitude was, Paul shows by 
pointing out that it was just because he was so unyielding 
of this point that he was hated and persecuted by the 
Judaisers (διώκομαι, v. 11, to be understood in the same 
sense in which the word is used in iv. 29). It was in 
opposition to insinuations of this character that in v. 2-4 
he solemnly avowed that his judgment regarding the 
unreasonable, demands of the Judaisers was unalterable. 
It must have been some recent event, which had come 
within the observation of the Galatians, which enabled 
the Judaisers to represent with some show of plausibility 
that Paul could περιτομὴν Erı κηρύσσειν. This event is the 
one recorded in Acts xvi. 1-3, none other than the cir- 
cumeision, at Paul’s suggestion, of Timothy, a native of 
Lystra in the province of Galatia, whose father was a Gen- 
tile and whose mother was a Jewess. Soon after this event 
the Judaisers came to Galatia, and the Epistle is addressed 
to the churches named and intended in Acts xvi. 1-6. 
Assuming that this is the right reconstruction of the 
facts, the appearance of the Judaisers at this time is most 
natural. Their defeat at. the apostolic council did not 
discourage them permanently. It was only in Antioch 
and the Churches of which Antioch was the centre (Acts 
xv. 23) that they seem not to have ventured a second 
attack ; for what is narrated in Gal. ii. 11-14 probably 
took place earlier ($ xi.). When they learned that Paul 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 183 


had gone over to Europe on his second missionary 
journey, and was kept there by the success of his work, 
they thought it an opportune time to attack the Churches 
in Galatia, which had been founded before the apostolic 
council, and in the absence of their founder to induce 
them to accept a legalistic form of Christianity. As soon 
as Paul heard of their move, he hastened to meet the 
threatening danger by sending this letter. 


1. (P. 173.) On Galatia, cf. Purrot, De Galatia provincia Romana, 1867 ; 
also his Exploration de la Galatie, 1872, pp. 178-206 ; SIEFFERT, Calatien und 
seine ersten Uhristengemeinden, 1871; Marquarpr, Röm. Staatsverwaltung,? 
i, 358-365 ; Ramsay, Historical Geography of Asia Minor, 1890, pp. 252 ff., 
375, 458, and his Church in the Roman Empire, 2nd ed. 1893, pp. 8-15, 
25-111 ; see alson. 2. The view the present writer has taken of the destina- 
tion of the Epistle would justify him, if such justification were necessary, in 
leaving out of consideration the question, in any case so unimportant for the 
understanding of the letter, as to the nationality of the tribes which gave the 
district of Galatia its name, the Tectosages, Trocmi, and Tolistobogii. Their 
Germanic origin has been argued with unwearied zeal by WIESELER in his 
Komm. wm Gal. 8. 521-528, and in special monographs: Die deutsche 
Nationalität der kleinasiätischen Galater, 1877 ; Zur Geschichte der kleinas Gal. 
1879 ; Untersuch. zur Geschichte und Religion der alten Germanen, 1881, 8. 
1-51. Among those who have combated his theory are W. Grimm, ThStKr. 
1876, S. 199-221, and HERTSBERG, iid. 1878, 5. 525-541. 

2. (P. 174.) According to J. D. Michaelis, Einl., 4te Aufl, 1199, the view 
which is adopted above was first put forword by J. J. SCHMIDT, rector of 
Ilfeld, and was afterward defended by him against the criticisms of Michaelis. 

ange contributions made’ to the subject by Mynster, Kleinere Schriften, 1825, 
any, BÖTTGER, Beiträge, 1837, pt. iii. 1-5, and Suppl. 32-47, produced no par- 
ticu\g impression, nor did the agreement with the view by Tarerscn, Die 
Kirch., vm apost. Zeitalter (116 Aufl. 1852, 3te Aufl. 1879), 123. It was not till 
after tye appearance of Perrot’s works (see n. 1) that this view began to win 
more numerous adherents, as Renan, St. Paul, 1869, pp. 47-53, and Haus- 
RATH, Ntl. Zeitgesch. ii. (1872) 528 ff. In more recent times its most prominent 
advocate;has been Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, 8-15, 59-111; 
Stud. Bibl. δὲ Eccl. iv. (Oxford, 1896) 15-57, and A historical comm. on St. 
Paul’s Ep. to the Galatians, 1899. Cf. also V. Weber, Die Addressaten 
des Gal. Beweis der rein südgal. Theorie, 1900; J. Weiss, PRE,* x. 554 ff., and 
others. Of the representatives of the older view, according to which 
“Galatia” in the N.T. always denotes the country of the Galate, we may 
mention Wresever, Komm. zum Gal. 5304f. ; Licurroor, Galatians (4th ed.), 
19; Hofmann, i. 149; Srerrerr (see n. 1), also in the revision of Meyer’s 
Ootementary, oth ed. 1899, S. 6-15 ; SCHÜRER, VORN: 1892, S. 460-4743; 
ZÖCKLER, ThStKr. 1895, 5. 51-102. 


v3 (Pp. 174, 175.) Pliny understands by “Galatia” the whole Roman 


184 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


province, when he refers (Hist. Nat. v. 95) to Ide (Ὕδη), a city of eastern 
Lycaonia, as lying “in confinio Galati atque Cappadocie” ; again, when in 
v. 147 he assigns the Lycaonian ¢ities, Lystra and Thebasa (ef. v. 27. 95), 
to Galatia ; and when in the same passage he speaks of Galatia as bordering on 
the districts of Cabalia and Milyas, which at that time belonged to the province 
of Pamphylia. These were separated by some distance from the country of the 
Galate, whereas Galatia, in the meaning of Pliny and the Romans generally, 
and Pamphylia were actually'adjoining provinces. To them Tacitus refers, 
Hist. ii. 9, “Galatiam ac Pamphyliam provincias Calpurnio Asprenati re- 
gendas permiserat Galba.” That Galatia here does not mean the country of 
the Galatee proper, buti the whole of the province organised ὁ. 25 B.C., appears 
not merely from the fact that only on this assumption should we have a 
connected administrative district, but even from the word provincias itself, for 
the several districts of which provinces were composed were not themselves 
called proyinces. The same usage, therefore, must underlie Ann. xiii. 35, 
“habiti per Galatiam Cappadociamque dilectus” ; xv. 6, “ Galatarum Cappa- 
documque auxilia.” The assertion, repeated with strange persistency, that 
only those of Celtic birth, or residents of Galatia’ proper, could be termed 
Galate, and not all the inhabitants of the province called Galatia by 
Pliny and Tacitus, has already been refuted from the N.T., p: 175 above; 
οἵ. ZKom. Gal. 11. Ramsay discusses. this point fully and eonelusively, 
Stud. Bibl. et Eccl., Oxford, 1896, pp. 26-38, and in his Hist. Comm. Ptolemy 
describes Asia Minor essentially and at the outset quite clearly in accordance 
with the Roman provincial divisions: (a) ν. 1. 1, Pontus-Bithynia. (in viii. 
17. 1, Bithynia for brevity); (6) v. 2.1, ἡ ἰδία or ἡ ἰδίως καλουμένη OL 7 
ἰδίως “Agia (cf. vill. 17., 1, 8), to which. belonged Greater Phrygia, with 
Eumeneia, Philomelion, and Hierapolis (v. 2. 22-26) ; (0) ν. 3, Lycia.y (d) ν. 4, 
Galatia, with which he reckons parts of Lycaonia, Pisidia, and Isauria, and 
among other cities Pisidian Antioch, § 11, and Lystra, § 19. Following 
another authority, he assigns the Antioch situated “in Pisidian Phyrgia’” 
to the province of Pamphylia, v. 5. 4, and Iconium and Derbe to Cappadocia, 
v. 6. 16 ff. The latter agrees with his statement regarding the orpatnyic 
of Cappadocia, which is somewhat obscure and at all events, depend of 
antiquated sources; cf. Ramsay, Hist. Geog. 283 f., 310, 336... Fu eier: 
more, the inscriptions, rightly understood, confirm the usage. of 2 εἰ ΤᾺ, 
Tacitus, and Ptolemy. An honorary inscription set up in Iconium‘ 60 an 
imperial administrator of domains or revenue officer (ἐπίέροπος Καίσ P08) of 
the time of Claudius and Nero (C.J. Gr. 3991) designates his admin trative 
district as Ταλατικῆς ἐπαρχείας. The city of Iconium, whic} ; “having 
been made a Roman colony under Claudius (see below, n. 5), honoured. this 
official as its founder and benefactor, belonged to what they called simply 
the Galatie province (cf. Ramsay, Church, ete. 56; Marquardt, i. 364, n. 11), 
Provinces formed by the union, of two. districts originally separate might 
bear a double name, like Bithynia-Pontus (see the reference to Ptolemy 
above, and Marquardt, i. 351), as we have in Bavaria “ Schwaben and Neu- 
burg.” But, on the other hand, it is quite incredible that the name com: 
monly applied in official business to the great province which was erected 
out of the kingdom of Amyntas should haye consisted of an enumeration 
of all the districts which composed it.., Even if one concluded from afew 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 18; 


inscriptions dealing with Galatia, that official usage described the united 
province thus cireumstantially and reserved the term Galatia for the region 
of the Galata proper, that would be, in the first place, of no consequence to 
our inquiry; for Paul had even less occasion than Pliny, Tacitus, Ptolemy, 
and the municipality of Iconium in its inscription, to employ the legal style. 
And, in the second place, the reasoning itself is as incorrect as if we should 
undertake to determine our own official usage from the so-called great titles 
of our German rulers, which even in the official publication of laws are 
usually omitted altogether or abbreviated by an “etc.” An inscription 
(found in Pisidian Antioch and dating from the end of the first century) in 
honour of a certain Sospes—not Sollers—governor of Galatia (©. I. L. iii. 
No. 291, corrected Suppl. No. 6818), designates his administrative territory 
by niné names, beginning province. Gal. Pisid. Phryg. ete. (similarly in Suppl. 
No. 6819, except that Phryg. precedes Pisid.). If we read’ provinc(tarum), 
then Pisidia, Phrygia, and the rest, which at that time were not separate 
provinces, aré inaccurately so called, and this Sospes is represented as in 
charge of nine provinces at once. More probably we are to read in this as 
in similar inscriptions provinc(ie), which applies only to Galatie, while the 
eight following names are connected with it by apposition, to describe the 
great province as impressively as possible. In other inscriptions in which 
we are really to read provinciarum, e.g. on two ınilestones from Ancyra from 
the years 80 and 82 (C. I. L. Nos. 312, 318), the names’ of actual provinces 
come first, Galatie, Cappadocie, and not till afterward such districts as Pisidia 
and Lycaonia, which are already involved in the larger titles. We have further 
to consider those enumerations which would be unintelligible if we could 
not assume that by the term Galatia, as by’ Asia, all the sections belonging 
to these provinces were intended. When we read in C. 1. L. iii. No. 249 
(Ancyra), the following, inter al., “proc. fam. glad. per Asiam. Bithyn. 
Galat. Cappad. Lyciam. Pamphyl. Cil. Cyprum. Pontum. Paflag.,” we are 
taken the rounds of all Asia Minor together with Cyprus. Consequently 
Lycaonia and Pisidia, which are not mentioned, must be included in Galatia, 
and Phrygia, also not mentioned, partly with Galatia and partly with 
Asia. This is true also in 1 Pet. i. 1. There all the Roman provinces of 
Asia Minor are enumerated with the exception of Lycia-Pamphylia, where 
there can hardly have been any Christians (Acts xiii. 13, xiv. 25), and of 
Cilicia, where Christianity seems to have been introduced not by Paul and 
his helpers, but from Antioch, so that from the beginning the’ Cilieian 
Churches were grouped ecclesiastically with those of Syria (Acts xv. 23, 41). 
As Phrygia and Mysia aré not explicitly named, the Phrygian Churches, 
Coldsse, Laodicea, Hierapolis (Col. i. 1, ii. 1), the Church at Troas (Acts xx. 
6-12), and the six Churches besides Laodieea mentioned in Rev. i. 11, so far 
as they were in existence at the time of 1 Peter, were evidently included in 
Asia ; that is, the name was used in its Roman sense. The like holds true, 
then, of the word Galatia in the same passage (1 Pet. 1. 1); the term in- 
cludes Lycaonia and Pisidia also. Indeed, it would be impossible to conceive 
why Peter should exclude from his greeting the Churches of that region, 
belonging historically with the Churches’ of the province Asia, and take up 
instead of them the much less important Churches in Galatia proper. 

4. (P.175.) Paul uses ᾿Αχαία, Rom: xv. 26; 1 Cor. xvi.15; 2 Cor. i. 1, ix. 2, 


186 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


xi, 10; 1 Thess. i..7, 8, and Μακεδονία, 1 Cor. xvi.5 ; 2 Cor. i. 16, ii. 13, vii. 5, 
vili. 1, xi. 9 ; Rom. xv. 26; 1 Thess.i. 7£., iv. 10; Phil. iv. 15, evidently in the 
sense of the Roman provincial divisions. Along with τὸ Ἰλλυρικόν, Rom, xv. 
19, we find in 2 Tim. iv. 10 the term Aadyaria also used by the Romans of that 
time ; cf. Marquardt, i. 299... Ἰουδαία, Gal. i. 22 ; 1 Thess, ii. 14; 2 Cor. 1. 16; 
Rom. xv. 31, is not used, as the first-named passages show, in contradistinction 
to Galilee, Samaria, and Perea, for there were Christians in these districts 
also (Acts vili. 5-25, ix. 31-xi. 1) whom Paul could not exclude. in this con- 
nection ; but he uses the term in the Roman sense = Palestine, οἵ, Tac, Hist. v. 
9; Ptol. v. 16.1 on the one hand, and v.:16.16-9 on the other. Ἀραβία, Gal. 
i. 17, iv. 25, is a political term; it stands for the Nabatean kingdom of 
Aretas (2 Cor. xi. 32), which at that time was still independent of Rome: 
Syria and Cilicia, Gal. i. 21, were then politically united ; cf. Marquardt, i. 
387. Of the divisions of Asia Minor, Paul names only ᾿Ασία, 1.Cor. xvi, 19; 
2 Cor. i. 8; Rom. xvi..5 ; 2 Tim. i. 15; and Γαλατία, Gal. i, 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 1; 
and it is unlikely that he meant by these anything else than the Roman 
provinces so called, for the very reason that he mentions no districts of Asia, 
Minor whose names do not at the same time denote such provinces. This 
corresponds with the terminology of 1 Pet. 1, 1. (see the preceding note), and 
of Revelation ; for all the seven Churches of Asia (Rev.; i.4, 11), even the 
Phrygian city of Laodicea on the Lycus, were in the province of Asia... In 
the same way Polyerates of Ephesus in his. letter to Victor of Rome 
(Eus. H..E. v. 24. 2-5) uses Agia of the whole extent of the Roman province, 
ineluding Hierapolis, Eumeneia, and Laodicea. Luke, however, as.a rule 
expresses himself differently. Of course the Roman nomenclature is not 
unknown to him, and he uses it where it seems to him necessary or appro- 
priate ; but usually in his geographical references he follows the other usage, 
and employs the names of the several’ sections. So Ἰουδαία stands. (a) in 
Luke.i. 5 for the. whole country of the Jews, or Palestine, even without 
the πᾶσα, ὅλη, which he adds elsewhere to make sure that the term shall have 
its widest significance (Luke vi. 17, vil. 17, xxiii. 5; Acts|x. 37) 5 (Ὁ) in Luke 
iii. 1 for the territory governed by the Roman procurator, which in addition. 
to Judea proper included Samaria and the coast district. to. Czsarea and 
beyond ; (c) but otherwise regularly for Judea proper as distinguished from 
Galilee and Samaria, Luke ii. 4; Acts i. 8, viii. 1, ix. 31, xi.1,xii.19, Luke 
knows ’Ayaia, and uses the term to denote, the Roman province where refer- 
ence is) made to its prefect, Acts xviii. 12, and twice besides, xviii. 27, xix. 
21, where he mentions journeys to Corinth, its capital city. ‚But. he ‚uses 
Ἕλλάς in xx. 2, and, according to the more ancient text of xvil, 15, probably 
Θεσσαλία, also, both of them. names which have no place in Paul’s nomen- 
clature. It is just so with regard to his references to, Asia Minor. True, it 
is of no moment that after Pamphylia he mentions. Lycia also (xxvii. 5, ef. 
ii. 10, xiii. 13, xiv. 24, χν, 38), and Pontus (ii. 9, cf. xviii. 2) as well as Bithynia 
(xvi. 7), for in each of, these. instances the official usage of the Romans also 
retained the names of the two sections which were united to form the pro- 
vince., But Luke also uses the names of smaller districts in Asia Minor 
which at that time did not constitute provinces, but were distributed among 
various Roman provinces of other names, namely, Lycaonia (xiv. 6, ef. xiv. 
11), Pisidia (xiv. 24, cf. xiii, 14), Mysia (xvi. 7, 8), and Phrygia (ii. 10, xvi. 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 187 


6, xviii. 23). Since he also speaks of Asia (ii. 9f., xvi. 6-8) along with 
Phrygia, Mysia, and Troas, and in the same connection, it follows that Asia, 
too, does not mean for him the whole Roman province of that name, ef. 
Winer, RW,’ i. 97; Wieseler, Chronol. 34. For at that time Mysia and the 
greater part of Phrygia belonged to the province of Asia, and the city of 
Troas was also situated in it. For the boundaries of the province of Asia, 
the Asia propria of Ptolemy (above, p. 184), see Waddington, Fastes des prov. 
Asiat. 25; Ramsay, Hist. geogr. 172, and the map in his Church in the Roman 
Empire.’ We are not dealing here, however, with a peculiarity of Luke. 
The Church at Lyons, intimately connected with the Churches of Asia Minor, 
writes in the year 177 (Kus. ἢ. E.v. 1.3), τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν καὶ Φρυγίαν 

. ἀδελφοῖς. So Tertullian, ὁ. Praxean, i, “ecclesiis, Asie et Phrygie.” 
Asia and Phrygia are here, as with Luke, mutually exclusive or supple- 
mentary terms, and Asia has a narrower meaning than in Roman official 
usage, It is the same region which Irenzus (Epist. ad Flor. in Eus. H. E. v. 
20. 5, cf. Pausanias, 1. 4. 6) calls ἡ κάτω ᾿Ασία, that part of the province Asia 
which lay nearer the coast, in distinction from the parts which lay farther 
inland (Acts xix. 1, ra avorepıra μέρη ; ef. Acts xviii. 23; Clearchus in Jos. 
c, Ap. i. 22. 180, Niese ; Epiph. Her. xlv. 4, ev τοῖς ἀνωτάτω μέρεσιν). This 
more restricted use of the name corresponds to some extent with older 
boundaries (Marquardt, i. 334) and divisions (Plin. H. N. v. 27. 102), and 
to some extent also with Diocletian’s arrangement, which returned in so 
many particulars to older groupings (Marquardt, i. 348). Luke appears, 
however, to use the term consistently in its narrowest sense. At least there 
is no necessity of supposing that in Acts xix. 10 the Phrygian cities, 
Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosse (Col. ii. 1, iv. 13) are also intended, or of 
thinking of the entire province in Acts vi. 9, xix. 22, xx. 4, 16, 18, xxi. 27, 
xxiv. 18, xxvii. 2. Only in the mouth of Demetrius (xix. 26, 27) is it likely 
that the term, which is strengthened, moreover, by the addition of ὅλη: and 
πᾶσα (cf. Judea above), is used in its wider application. In Acts xvi. 6 this 
is quite excluded by the accompanying and contrasted Φρυγία. Both recen- 
sions (NABCE and D with the old versions against HLP) agree on the 
main point in the reading of xvi. 6f.: διῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν 
χώραν . . . ἐλθόντες (OT γενόμενοι) δὲ κατὰ τὴν Μυσίαν. The article before 
Tax. (EHLP) is to be suspected as a simplification, and the reading Galatie 
(sic) regiones (cf. Acts vill. 1), preserved only in one Latin authority (Blass, ed. 
min. 53), seems to be an arbitrary substitution for an unusual expression. 
If we compare xviii. 23, διερχύμενος καθεξῆς τὴν Ῥαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν, 
it would seem that the construction of Φρυγίαν as an adjective (Lightfoot, 
Galatians, 22 ; Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire, 78 ff.), which is quite im- 
possible there, is out of the question in xvi. 6. If the analogy of xv. 41, 
where the article before Κιλικίαν is of very doubtful authenticity to say the 
least, or of Luke v.17; Acts i. 8, ix. 31, or (to meet perfectly Ramsay’s 
requirement, Stud. Bibl. et Ecel., Oxford, 1896, p. 57) Luke iii. 1 (τῆς Ἰτουραίας 
καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας ; cf. also. Winer, Gr. § 19. 3-5 [Eng. trans. pp. 126- 
130]; A. Buttmann, Gr. 85 ff. [Eng. trans. p. 97 ff.]; Blass, Gr.? § 46. 11 
[Eng. trans.” § 46. 117}, did not suflice to excuse the anarthrous Tad. x. in 
xvi. 6, one might find in it an expression of the idea that this through- 
journey did not touch everything that fell within the term Tad. x. from 


188 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


beginning to end (καθεξῆς, xviii. 23), but only some “Galatian country ” 
among other regions. But the choice of the unusual geographical term 
can itself be explained naturally only on the ground ‘that Luke, in 
deliberate consideration of the usage by which the whole great province, 
including the Lycaonian cities, and the so-called Pisidian Antioch and 
other Phrygian cities, was styled ἡ Tadaria or ἡ Ταλατίκὴ ἐπαρχία, meant 
by Ταλατικὴ χώρα to indicate the country of the actual Galate, which was 
absolutely distinct from the districts of Phrygia and Lycaonia from which 
Paul came to it. The attempt of Renan, St. Paul, 52, and the still more 
ingenious attempt of Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire, ‘77 ff., to interpret 
Luke’s Tax. x. as also referring to the Roman province, go to pieces first of 
all on the connection of the narrative. The journey was from Syrian Antioch 
first through Syrian and Cilician territory (xv. 41), but this only in passing. 
According to xv. 36 the first object was to visit the four Churches which had 
been founded in the three Lycaonian cities and Pisidian Antioch on the first 
missionary journey (xiii. 14-xiv. 23)... This visit is reported xvi. 1-5. The 
journey, proceeding from south-east to north-west, brought Paul first to 
Derbe and then to Lystra. Here the narrative pauses in order to relate 
something of Timothy, who lived there... That the journey was continued to 
Iconium and Antioch is not expressly stated, not even with regard to Iconium, 
which is mentioned in xvi. 2 for an incidental reason only. But in view of 
xv.'36 it goes without saying that Iconium and Antioch were not omitted, 
and that xvi. 4, 5 refers to all four cities and their Churches. Not: till the 
missionaries had reached Antioch, a meeting-place of the roads leading west 
and north, did the question arise whether they should continue their journey 
in a westerly direction, 1.6. to Asia, or northward. A revelation from ‘the 
Spirit” decided the question. The negative expression employed by the 
narrator shows that the intention and inclination of the missionaries them- 
selves had’ been to proceed, after the visitation of the four Churches,’ to 
“ Asia,” to the large cities on the coast,—Ephesus, Smyrna, ete.,—and to preach 
there, In this, however, they were hindered by the Spirit ; and this decision, 
according to the clear construction of the best-attested text, gives the reason 
why the missionaries now, instead of. journeying westward from Antioch 
toward Asia, turned northward rather, and proceeded through Phrygian 
territory, on which they had already entered just before reaching Antioch, 
and then through a part of Galatia proper, until they reached the borders of 
Bithynia. Thus the order of events and of the geographical terms shows 
clearly that by Pad. χώρα Luke did not mean the province of Galatia, within 
which the missionaries already were during their stay in Derbe, Lystra, 
Iconium, and Antioch, but the country of the Galate. It is in vain that 
Ramsay (77 f.) undertakes to persuade us that xvi. 6a is to be carried back 
to the journey already described by its content, and to be understood in 
some such way as this: “On the tour of visitation described in xvi. 4 f.. they 
traversed a region which, with respect to its population, may be called 
Phrygian, and with respect to the Roman provincial divisions, Galatian.” 
In the first place, the account of the tour of visitation is entirely ‘finished 
in xvi. 1-5. In the second place, διῆλθον has for its temporal and logical 
presupposition the decision of the Spirit, which would be communicated 
only at the close of the visitation and as they were on the point of departure 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 18¢ 


from Pisidian Antioch, 1.6. διῆλθον can only refer to a farther journey 
which followed the completed tour of visitation. In the third place, as: has 
been shown, we are to understand by the cities of xvi. 4, 5 not only Ieconium 
and Antioch, to which if necessary Ramsay’s elaborate paraphrase of the 
simple words might be applied (see n. 5), but Lystra and Derbe as well. 
These, however, were not Phrygian but Lycaonian cities—particularly accord- 
ing to Luke’s own usage, Acts xiv. 6, 11. Further, according to Ramsay (76) 
we are to understand Acts xvi. 6b, 7a as stating: “The Spirit forbade their 
preaching in Asia, but by no means forbade travelling through ; accordingly 
they proceeded through a part of the province of Asia also: as far as Bithynia, 
but without preaching.” But, in the first place, it follows from Acts xx. 18, 
(cf. xix. 8-10, xx. 31) that before Paul’s first arrival in Ephesus (xviii. 19), 
and therefore before his first activity in Macedonia and Greece (xvi. 11—xviii. 
17), he had not been in the region which Luke calls Asia at all. » Further- 
more, the unprejudiced reader finds in the text no suggestion of an antithesis 
between “preaching” and “travelling,” or of a journey through part. of 
“ Asia,” but sees only the contrast between the mutually exclusive geographical 
references. Because they may not preach, and consequently may not travel, 
in Asia, where they wished to go as missionaries, they go through Phrygia 
and through Galatian country, not forgetting, of course, that preaching was 
their commission. Since an intelligent narrator in such a connection would 
have made explicit reference to the contrary condition, we must assume that 
the missionaries, as they continued their journey from Antioch,. tried! to 
apply themselves to their vocation. The difficulties which Ramsay (81 ff.) 
urges against what is shown by Acts xvi. 6a to be the fact, namely, that 
Paul then passed through a part of the Galatian region preaching, rest upon 
the arbitrary assumption that when he set out from Pisidian Antioch or from 
Iconium he already had Bithynia in view as his objective, and that until 
he reached this goal he wished to refrain from preaching (84). In that case, 
certainly, he would have had no occasion to touch Galatian cities like Pessinus, 
the capital of the Tolistobogii, or the colony Germa. He would have gone 
more directly to Nicwa and Nicomedia by way of Cotiseum or by Nacoleia 
and Doryleum. But the second assumption has no foundation in the text, 
and the first contradicts the text. But the purpose to push forward into 
Bithynia was first conceived when Paul stood not far from its border, and 
at the same time at a point where another road struck off toward Mysia 
(xvi. 7). The phrase ἐπείραζον eis τὴν Βιθυνίαν πορεύεσθαι does not at all 
suggest that the missionaries had now attained a long-sought-for goal, but, 
on the contrary, rather that, having arrived at this point, they were trying 
to decide in which direction they should turn next. We do not know their 
route in detail; it may have been a zigzag course, as the hope of finding 
somewhere a favourable soil for their preaching drew them now this way 
and now that. A side trip into Galatia proper may have ended with a 
return to Phrygia, as on the first journey the side trip from Antioch 
(which was not originally intended) returned to that city (xiv. 21).. The 
summary account in xvi. 6-8, especially the union of Phrygia and the 
Galatiam country under one article, leaves the utmost freedom to faney. 
The present writer does not know what objection there would be te 
supposing that the missionaries, setting out from Amorium, say, under- 


190 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


took to preach in Pessinus and Germa, and finding the conditions there 
unfavourable or their success small, turned to Doryleum, where, then, it 
was necessary to decide whether they should proceed to Bithynia or to 
Mysia. Again, Acts xviii. 23 raises difficulties not for us, but for Ramsay. 
Though he claims that in Acts xvi. 6 the vicinity of Iconium and Antioch 
is styled “the Phrygian and at the same time Galatian country,” he 
interprets (93) quite differently the double term in xviii. 23, which ex+ 
cept for the relative position of the two members is precisely similar. 
Here, he tells us, τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν by itself denotes the district 
so enigmatically referred to in xvi. 6, but with the addition of Derbe 
and Lystra; and Φρυγίαν, beside it, denotes the region usually so called, 
to which Paul betook himself after visiting the Churches which had been 
organised on the first journey. This of itself is a good deal to ask the 
exegete to believe ; but it ought besides to be shown, by examples or credible 
conjectures, that the southern part of the province of Galatia may conceiv- 
ably have been called ἡ TaX. x. (note the article), or why Luke, if he merely 
wished to say that at some point Paul passed through the province, did not 
write τὴν Ταλατίαν, to be sure, leaving the reader to guess what route he 
followed. Differing from his earlier view, Ramsay (Historical Comm. 209) 
finds the expression xviii. 23 only shorter than that in xvi. 6, and in’ spite 
of the arrangement of the words assures us that in xviii. 23 “the Phrygian 
region” is mentioned, But if, on the contrary, Luke here, too, meant by 
ἡ Tad. x. the northern part of the province, the country of the Galate,— 
Galatia, strictly speaking,—then it follows first from the order of the districts 
named that Paul on this occasion, as compared with xvi. 6, was travelling 
in quite a different direction, not from the south toward the north and 
north-east, but from east to west. Further, καθεξῆς indicates that he did 
not visit merely individual towns in the two districts as on the former 
journey, but that he traversed both quite extensively. Also the fact that 
there is no mention here of Churches, but only of disciples (see above, p. 176), 
does not agree well with the opinion that it has to do with a visit to the 
great Churches which Paul himself had established in the Southern part of 
the province. The expression πάντας τοὺς μαθητάς does not atiall allow one 
to think of a great number, but is to be explained by the number of the 
places where Paul met disciples. The ‘route this time may have been 
from the Cilician Gates by way of Tyana, Archelais, Ancyra, Pessinus, and 
on through northern Phrygia to Ephesus. The journey did not bring him 
(cf. Col. ii. 1) to the valley of the Lycus and the Meander, which would 
have been the natural way if he had occasion to go from Iconium and 
Antioch to Ephesus. The support which Ramsay (Stud. Bibl. et Ecel., 
Oxford, 16 ff.) finds for his view of Acts xviii. 23 ina homily of Asterius 
(Migne, xl. 294), which he claims as evidence of an old tradition, appears 
weak. Asterius’ homily, like an essay on Paul’s journeys falsely ascribed 
to Euthalius (Zacagni, Coll. mon. 426), took the Antioch of Acts xviii, 22 to 
be the Pisidian Antioch. Asterius, sharing this undoubtedly traditional error, 
is reminded, probably without looking up the references, of the narrative, 
Acts xiii. 14-xiv. 7, and then tacitly assumes Avkaoviav instead of Γαλατικὴν 
χώραν as the text of xviii. 23. Since Ramsay also (Historical Comm. 209 f., 
314 ff.) is unable to adduce one satisfactory proof for his ever varying in- 


“THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 191 


terpretation of (7) Tadarırf) χώρα, he has deprived himself of all right to 
lay stress upon the lack of examples elsewhere of this designation of the 
Galatian country proper, as a determining reason against this interpretation 
(namely, the country inhabited by Galatians). In itself, indeed, the expres- 
sion is anything but striking. Cf. eg. 1 Mace. viii. 8 (χώραν τὴν Ἰνδικήν); 
x. 38, xii. 25 ; Jos. Bell. iii. 3. 4 (ἡ Σαμαρεῖτις χώρα), and the innumerable 
instances, where an adjective formed from’ the name of a people with the 
ending -ccos in the feminine, designates the country inhabited by the people 
concerned, also without χώρα which is to be understood, as ἡ Κελτική, Ἰσαυρική, 
Ἰνδική, Περσική. ; 

5. (Pp. 176, 177.) ANTIOCH, on Phrygian soil, near the border of Pisidia, 
hence ᾿Αντιόχεια πρὸς Πισιδίᾳ, Strabo, 557, 569,.577, less exactly ᾿Αὐτ. Πισιδίας, 
Ptol. v. 4. 11, or ’Avr. ἡ Πισιδία (υ.1. τῆς ᾿πισιδίας), Acts xiii. 14, now Yalowadi, 
the most important military. colony of Augustus in that region, founded 
probably in 6 B.C. (Marquardt, i. 365 ; Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 398, 396, 391 ; 
Chrirch in Roman Empire, 25-27). Icontum, the most south-easterly city 
of Phrygia (Xen. Anab. 1: 2. 19), still called a Phrygian city about 160 by a 
Christian who was born there (Acta Justini, chap. iv. ed. Otto, ii. 3.274), and 
again a century later by bishop Firmilianus, who attended ‘a synod there 
(Cyprian, Ep. lxxv. 7), and distinguished from the Lycaonian cities in Acts 
xiv. 1, 6 also (ef. Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire, 37 ff); was nevertheless 
commonly reckoned with Lycaonia (Cie. Ep. xv.4. 2; Strabo, 568 ;: Plin. 
Hist. Nat. v. 95), in fact was considered its chief city, a: Roman» colony 
under the emperor Claudius (contrary to Ramsay, Hist: Comm. 123, who dis- 
putes this, see ZKom. Gal. 13), and at that time attached to the province of 
Galatia (6. I. Gr. 3991, see p. 184 above). || "Lystra, a colony of Augustus, 
see Sterrett, The Wolfe Expedition, p. 142, No. 242 (by which the situation is 
determined also), p. 219, No. 3525 Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 332, 390, 398; 
Church in Roman Empire, 48. Dersx, probably near the modern Gudel- 
issia, between one and two days’ journey from Lystra, farther: west and 
nearer the Isaurian mountains than was formerly supposed, probably made 
a colony under Claudius, and named Claudio-Derbe, cf. Sterrett, 20ff.; 
Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 336 ; Church in Roman Empire, 54, 69. All four of 
the cities, then, in which we are to look primarily for “the Churches of 
Galatia,” were half Roman cities ‘like Philippi andCorinth. ‘The more 
natural is it therefore that the “Roman » Paul (Acts xvi: 37) should address 
these Christians not as Lycaonians and Phrygians, but as Galatians, from the 
province to which they belonged.» When. we come toinquire whether these 
four Churches or the Ohristians of Galatia proper, who are not so much as 
called Churches in Acts xviii. 23, are the ἐκκλησίαι τῆς TaXarias referred to in 
(al. 1. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 1; 1 Pet. i. 2) we must ‘further ‘take into consideration 
the fact that in the post-eanonical literature, also, the: Lycaoniam Churches 
ovcupy a much more prominent! place than the north Galatian. In the 
Theela legend we find Iconium, Lystra, Antioch, and perhaps, in the per- 
verted form Daphne, Derbe as well, GK, ii. 908. In the passage already 
mentioned, Oypr. Ep: Ixxv. 7, Firmilian says: “Quod totum nds)iam pridem 
in Teonio, qui Phrygiz locus est, eollecti in unum convenientibusiex Galatia et 
Gilidia et ceteris proximis ‘regionibus confirmavimus,” ete. As the reporter 
hiniself was bishop of Czsarea, Cappadocia was also represented in thé synod 


r92 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


in addition to the districts mentioned by name. . Iconium was a centre of 
ecclesiastical life. Contemporaries of Origen speak of a bishop Celsus of 
Iconium and a bishop Neon of Laranda (in Eus. H. #. vi. 19. 18) ;,a little 
later, Nicomas of Iconium is mentioned 88. a noted bishop, Eus. vii. 29. 2. 
On the other hand, Church history has little to say'of the cities in the 
Galatian region. We know from Eus. MH. E. v. 16. 4 that there was a 
Christian Church in Ancyra about 192 Α.Ὁ.. The next witness is the Synod 
of Ancyra in 314, at which Marcellus of Ancyra probably presided ; cf. the 
writer’s essay on Marcellus, 8f.; Hefele, Konztliengesch.2 i. 221; Stud. Bibl. 
et Kecl., Oxford, iii. 197, 211. Lequien, Oriens Christ. i. 489 ἔ,, could not 
Ἔ any bishop of Pessinus earlier than the fifth century. 

6. (P. 177.) Furthermore, if the appearance of Judaisers in Fence 
presupposes the presence of Jews and Jewish Christians as a natural point 
of connection, we know from Acts xiii. 14-51, xiv. 19, that Antioch had. to 
all appearances.a prominent and influential body of Jews. In Iconium, 
too, there was a synagogue largely attended by Jews and God-fearing 
Gentiles (xiv. 1), and: in Lystra, the home of Timothy, who was of Jewish 
descent on his mother’s side, there were at least individual Jews (xvi. 1-3; 
2 Tim. i. 5, iii. 15). On the other hand, even in rhetorical accounts, like 
that. of Philo, Leg. ad Cav. xxxvi, one hears nothing of Jews in the Galatian 
country. In Acts ii. 9-11, Galatia is not included, That Jews had gone to 
Ancyra isa pure conjecture of Scaliger’s in connection with Jos. Ant. xvi. 6. 2; 
and even if the conjecture were right, it would point to the Ancyra in the 
province of Asia, and not to the Galatian city of that name; cf. Mommsen, Res, 
Geste D. Aug. ed. 2, p.x; Waddington, Fustes des prov. Asiat. 102, whose con- 
jecture is Pergamus. An epitaph (C. I. Gr. No. 4129), which is possibly 
Jewish, and which was not found in the Galatian region, but near its western 
boundary, and another, discovered on the road between Germa and Pessinus, 
and probably from a somewhat later period (Bull. de Corresp. hellen. 1883, 
p.'24), do not prove that there were Jews in the Galatian region in the first 
century. Cf. ZKom. Gal. 13, A. 12. We are by no means to infer from 
Acts xiii. 43 that any considerable number of Jews in Antioch became 
adherents to Christianity, for it is not said that. the admonitions of the 
missionaries were accepted, by the Jews, who were at first favourably 
inclined toward them. According to xiii. 45-51, for which we are already 
prepared by xiii. 41, the contrary is more-probable.. In mii. 48f. it is 
only said of a number of Gentiles in and about Antioch that they really 
became believers and so continued... In Iconium it seems not to have been 
very different (xiv. 1-7), even if the success among the Jews was perhaps some- 
what greater there than in Antioch. From the reports concerning Lystra and 
Derbe, aside from the supplementary notice of Timothy’s Jewish mother (xvi. 
1), and the intimation of an influence exercised upon the citizens of Lystra 
and Derbe by the Jews of Antioch and Iconium (xiv. 19), one receives nothing 
more than the impression that the missionaries were dealing with Gentiles, 
xiv. 6-18. The fact that Paul constantly deals with the readers of Galatians 
as Gentile Christians (see p. 166 f. above) is consequently no obstacle to the 
assumption that it was primarily these four Churches for which Galatians was 
intended. It is impossible to say with Wieseler (Komm. 533) that Paul in 
ii. 15 Ε΄, iii. 13, 23-25, iv. 3 groups himself and his readers together as 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL i193 


Jewish Christians. The readers, the great majority of whom were of, Gentile 
origin, understood readily enough that in these passages Paul was associating 
with himself in a “we” not themselves, but others who like him were of 
Jewish birth. In ii. 15 this is perfectly clear from the context, ii. 11-14, 
even if one does not take ii. 15 ff. as a continuation of the address to Peter. 
In iii. 13, 14 the distinction between ἡμᾶς, to whom Paul belongs, and ra 
ἔθνη, to whom the readers belong, is unmistakable. So is the transition from 
the Jewish Christians in whose name) Paul speaks to the Gentile Christians 
whom he addresses, iii. 23-25 to iii, 26-29, and iv. 1-7-to iv. 8-11. Only it 
follows from the, otherwise superfluous πάντες, 111. 26, and ὅσοι, 111. 27, and 
especially from iii. 28, that there were also some of Jewish birth among the 
readers themselves ; for only on ‘this supposition could the idea that in 
Christianity distinctions between Jew and Gentile, like those between man 
and woman, or between slave and freeman, are ideally abolished, be expressed 
in the form of the direct address, “you all” (instead. of, we all, 2.6. we Jews 
and you Gentiles) “are one in Christ.” These four Churches were composed 
of a few full-born Jews, a number of proselytes of different grades (Acts 
xili. 43, xiv. 1, xvi. 1), and a much larger number of Gentiles, and they 
received through Paul the stamp of law-free Gentile Churches (ef. Acts xvi. 
4). According to Galatians, the same was true of the Churches of Galatia. 
The two groups are identical. 

7. (P. 178.) Hofmann, i. 93, thought it permissible to interpret ὑμᾶς, 
Gal. ii. 5, of the Gentile world not yet affected by the gospel ; Sieffert, finding 
this at variance with the text, understood Gentile Christians at large. But 
comparison with Eph. ii. 11 or Eph. iii. 1f., by which one or the other view 
is to be supported, shows that Paul would have indicated it by an apposi- 
tional phrase like ra ἔθνη if he meant to take the readers as representatives 
either of Gentile Christians at large or of the Gentile world. In the latter 
case one ought also to expect that he would have referred to the former status 
of his readers as a condition now past, as in Eph. 11. 11 f. (ποτὲ... τῷ 
καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ); 1 Cor. xii 2. Moreover, the translation “for you” cannot 
be defended ; the phrase presupposes, rather, that the readers had already 
received “the truth of the gospel.” The use of πρός is not more remarkable 
than in ἐπιμένειν πρός twa, Gal. i. 18; 1 Cor. xvi. 7, ef. Buttmann, Gram. 
292 [Eng. trans. 339f.]. διαμένειν in such a connection only intimates with 
especial emphasis that the relation in which the true gospel had already stood 
to the Galatians was to continue uninterrupted for all time. 


ὃ 12. TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION. OF 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


On the supposition that the Galatians addressed in 
this lettet are to be sought in the northern part of the 
province of that name and only there, the terminus a quo 
of the Epistle is fixed as the settlement of Paul in Ephesus 
at the beginning of the year./55 (Acts xix. 1). The 


VOL. I. 13 


194 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


second visit implied in Gal. iv. 13 will then be the one 
referred to in Acts xvill. 23; and even when the error is 
avoided of supposing that ταχέως in Gal. i. 6 implies that 
the danger which was threatening the Galatian Churches 
at the hands of the Judaisers, and which occasioned this 
letter, arose immediately after this second visit of Paul, 
much less immediately after the conversion of the Galatians, 
the advocate of this theory will be inclined to place the 
composition of the letter in the period of 24 years ending 
at Pentecost 57 (n. 1), during which Paul was at work in 
Ephesus (Acts xix. 8-10). But this time and place seem 
to be ruled out by the fact that in Gal. iv. 20 it is taken 
for granted that Paul is at such a distance from the readers 
that it is impossible for him to make a journey to them in 
the near future (above, p. 170). Yet at any time during 
the year it was quite possible to make the journey from 
Ephesus to Pessinus or Ancyra. Furthermore, if the 
letter was written in Ephesus, the expression in Gal. iv. 20, 
of a desire to visit them which could not be fulfilled, is 
very strange, in view of the fact that during this period 
Paul did visit the Church in Corinth (§ 17). 

If, on the other hand, it be accepted as proved that 
the letter was meant for the Churches in South Galatia 
which were founded on the first missionary journey, 
every reason for supposing that the letter was written 
in Ephesus between the beginning of the year 55 and 
Pentecost 57 disappears. Then the terminus a quo is the 
second visit to the Churches in Lycaonia (Acts xvi. 1-5) 
in the spring of 52. Any reference of the letter to an 
earlier date (n. 2) is at once precluded by the chrono- 
logical and historical data of Gal. i. 15-1. 10. The 
apostolic council, to which reference is made in Gal. ii. 
1-10 (ef. Acts xv. 1-29), took place during the winter of 
51-52. It was not until after this council that Paul 
and Silas set out upon the second missionary journey, 
and visited the Churches in Lycaonia a second time. 
Similarly the terminus ad quem of Galatians is the 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 195 


beginning of Paul’s two imprisonments in Ceesarea and 
Rome (Pentecost 58), which together lasted for at least five 
years. The hypothesis that Galatians was written while 
Paul was a prisoner in Rome is of long standing (n. 3), 
but quite untenable. All the letters which Paul, wrote 
while in prison, or which he is supposed to have written 
in prison, disclose this fact unmistakably and in various 
ways (Col. iv. 3, 10, 18, cf. i. 24 ; Eph. iü. 1, iv.,1, vi..20 ; 
Philem. 1, 9, 10, 13, 22, 23; Phil. i. 7, 12-17, ef. ii. 23, 
iv 10H18 ποῦ Tim. 91) 85,165; 0 9, (ea E10, tv. 
6-18). But in Galatians there is no hint that at the 
time of writing Paul’s free movements were hindered, or 
that. he was being persecuted by the civil authorities on 
account of his missionary activity. If he had been in 
prison at the time, he could hardly have failed to make 
some reference to the fact in the passage where he ex- 
presses his earnest wish, impossible of fulfilment, that. he 
might. be present among the Galatian Churches in person, 
and that they might hear his trembling voice (iv. 20). 
Nor, when speaking of his preaching as still being carried 
on, li. 2, v. 11, also 1. 8, 16, could he have remained 
entirely silent about his captivity had he been a prisoner. 
While, to be sure, heis being opposed, iv. 29, v. 11, his per- 
secutors are legal-minded Jewish Christians, and the means 
employed are not violence, but slanders and insinuations. 
When he does speak of bodily injuries inflicted upon him 
on account of his Christian faith or on account of his 
missionary activity (vi. 17), they are not referred to, as in 
the letters of his imprisonment, as something being en- 
dured at the time ; he simply mentions the marks of injuries 
received some time before, which he still bore and could 
show. In view of the infrequency of references of this kind 
in Paul's letters, it is very improbable that he is referring 
to the marks of ill-treatment which he had borne for years, 
such as an ineflaceable scar on his forehead, or the maim- 
ing of a limb caused by a stone thrown at the time when 


196 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


he was organising the Church in Galatia (Acts xiv. 19, 
cf. xiv. 5), or on some other occasion about which we are 
not definitely informed (2 Cor. xi. 23-25 ; 1 Cor. xv. 32 2). 
The mention of the fact, τὰ στίγματα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν τῷ 
σώματί μου βαστάζω, and the peculiar expression used, are 
natural here only if the wounds, marks of which were 
still visible when Galatians was written, had been in- 
flieted not very long before. They are the same as those 
clearly referred to in 1 Thess. ii. 2 (προπαθόντες καὶ ὕβρισ- 
θέντες ἐν Φιλίπποις). That on this occasion Paul and 
Silas were not only insulted, but also roughly handled, 
is clear from Acts xvi. 22-24, 33, 37-38. 

But this evidence may be left quite out of account; 
for if, as has been shown, dates previous to the spring 
of 52 (Acts xvi. 1-5), and subsequent to Pentecost 58 
(Acts xx. 16 ff.), are precluded, and if the letter could 
not have been written during the 24 or, reckoned from 
the first arrival of Paul in Ephesus, the three years’ 
stay in that city, 2.6. between Pentecost 54 and Pentecost 
57 (Acts xvii. 19, xix. 1, 8-10, xx. 18, 31), then it must 
have been written shortly after the events described in 
Acts xvi. 22 ff. After Paul’s second visit to the Churches 
in Lycaonia during the summer of 52, and his preaching 
tour through several parts of the province of Galatia, 
where he had not been before (Acts xvi. 1-6, cf. second 
preaching presupposed in Gal. iv. 13), at least several 
months must have elapsed before Galatians was written. 
Besides, it required time for the Judaisers to reach Galatia, 
as they did in the interval, and for them to secure the 
wide influence which they contrived to win, and for this 
state of affairs to be reported to Paul, who had gone over 
to Europe. Before the close of the year 52, Paul had 
settled in Corinth for a stay of eighteen months (Acts 
xviii. 11), lasting up to the summer of 54. Galatians 
was written during this time, and more probably in the 
first half of the period than in the second. A company of 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 197 


believers was already gathered about Paul in the place 
where he was staying (Gal. 1. 2), but no one of these 
appears to have been closely associated. with the Galatian 
Churches. If we were right in concluding (above, p. 170) 
that Paul could not have addressed a letter to Churches in 
Timothy’s home (Acts xvi, 1), and to Churches which he 
had visited in company with Silas some time before, and 
warned against the Judaistie propaganda (Gal. v. 3, 
i. 9), without sending greetings from both these persons, 
so well known among the Galatians, if they were with 
him at the time, then it follows that Galatians could not 
have been written when Silas and Timothy were with 
Paul in Corinth, when the two letters to the Thessa- 
lonians were written in his own name and theirs. The 
letter must be dated either before or after this time, 
either while he was waiting for them in Corinth (Acts 
xviii. 1-5), or after the two helpers had left Corinth 
again, a period the length of which cannot be definitely 
determined. The former is the more probable. At the 
time of the first letter to the Thessalonians, shortly after 
Timothy’s arrival in Corinth (1 Thess. ii. 6), he had 
already had, occasion to learn from Christians, who did 
not belong in Macedonia or Achaia, or anywhere in 
Europe, that they were familiar with the organisation of 
the Church in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1. 8f.; see below, 
§ 13). When Paul had been on the point of informing 
them of the cheering successes in Macedonia, they had 
replied that this was no news to them, or they had antici- 
pated his account by expressions of joy at the triumph of 
the gospel in Macedonia. The persons referred to must 
have been Christians, who came to Paul in Corinth, from 
Asia, before the time indicated in Acts xviii, 5 and 1 Thess. 
ii. 6. And they must have come directly by sea; for 
if they had come by the land route through Macedonia, 
visiting the Churches in Philippi and Thessalonica which 
lay on their way, Paul could not have related to the Thessa- 


198 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


lonian Church what these Christians from abroad had said 
to him, in the manner that he does in 1 Thess. 1. 8f. If, 
now, we ask where these Christians from Asia got their 
information about the circumstances under which the 
Church in Thessalonica was organised, the source could 
not possibly have been any written communication of 
Paul’s; on the contrary, Paul is agreeably surprised by 
their voluntary expression of gratification at the entrance 
of the gospel into Thessalonica, and tells the Christians 
there about it in order to encourage them. So it must 
have been another Christian who had witnessed the 
progress of the gospel in Macedonia, and who at the same 
time was intimately associated with the Churches in Asia 
from which these Christians had come to Paul, who had 
sent reports of the missionary work in Macedonia to these 
Churches or to individual members of the same. What 
more ‘natural than to suppose that this person was 
Timothy, who could hardly have failed to inform his 
mother, in Lystra, and through her the Churches in 
Galatia, what happened to him and his companions on 
their missionary journey through Macedonia? So these 
Christians from outside of Europe, who, according to 
1 Thess. 1. 8 f., did not need to be informed by Paul about 
the organisation of the Church in Thessalonica, because 
they had already heard about it in detail, were none other 
than the representatives of the Galatian Churches who 
brought the report of the incursion of the Judaisers in 
Galatia to Paul in Corinth (above, p. 169). In view of 
the condition of things in Galatia, Paul did not dare wait, 
so he sent the messengers from the Galatians home again 
as quickly as he could with a letter written by his own 
hand. When Silas and Timothy arrived, Galatians was 
already written and sent. | 

If this putting together of very simple exegetical 
observations is not altogether wrong, Galatians is the 
earliest of Paul’s letters that has come down to us. At 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 199 


the time when it was written the marks of the blows 
which he had received in Philippi, possibly some eight or 
nine months before (Gal. vi. 17; 1 Thess. ü. 2), could 
very well have been still visible. If the intercourse 
between the Galatian Churches and Paul in Corinth took 
place by sea, as seems to be the case, Galatians was 
written some time after the opening of navigation, 1.6. 
after March in the year 53, not very long before the 
arrival of Silas and Timothy in Corinth and the writing of 
1 Thessalonians._ 


1. (P. 193.) As early as 370, Victorinus (Mai, Script. vet. n. Coll. iii. 
2. 1) mentions as traditional the view that Galatians was written in 
Ephesus at the time of Paul’s ministry there. The old prologues affirm 
the same (Cod. Fuld. 248; Amiatin. 296; Card. Thomasius, Opp. i. 402, 421, 
433, 451). In more recent times this has been the prevailing view among 
those who understand by Galatia the country of Galate, eg. Hug, Einl.? 
ii. 351; Wieseler, Chronol. des apost. Zeitalters, 285 ; Komm. zum Gal. 541; 
Hofmann, ii. 1.1; Meyer-Sieffert, 24; Godet, Introd. i. 269. Confirmatory 
evidence has been sought in the fact that, according to Jewish tradition, 
the year from the autumn of 68 to the autumn of 69, and: therefore 
also the year 54-55, were Sabbatical years (Anger, Ratio Temporum, 38; 
Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, 204 ; Komm. zum Gal. 356, 542, cf. the summary 
in Schürer, i, 35 ff. [Eng. trans. 1. i. 41-43]), and it has further been sup- 
posed that this was referred to in Gal. iv. 10 (ἐνιαυτούς). But if this, the last 
of the seasons there enumerated, had an actual significance for the readers 
at that time, we should expect a more explicit emphasis upon it. Chrono- 
logically, too, this supposition, if all its premises were valid, would still be 
highly improbable. If the two and a quarter years, Acts xix. 8-10, ended 
with Pentecost 57, Paul must have begun his stay in Ephesus somewhere 
near the last of February 55. But since several months must have elapsed 
between his arrival there (which followed directly upon his second visit to 
the Galatian region, Acts xviii. 23) and the writing of Galatians, it appears 
that the Sabbatical year ending in the autumn of 55 was already past when 
the Epistle was sent. Moreover, it was half gone when Paul last visited the 
Galatians without his noticing then any signs of Judaistic tendencies (see 
Ῥ. 165f. above). But it is exceedingly improbable that the Judaisers from 
Jerusalem, arriving among the Galatians in the latter half of the Sabbatical 
year, should have come out at once with the recommendation of the legal 
provisions in this particular, and have succeeded with them before the 
expiration of the year. We must note, besides, that the Sabbatical year in 
any case was observed only in Palestine and the neighbouring districts, and 
then not with the same exactness in all parts of the Holy Land (Mishnah, 
Shebiith vi. 1, ix. 2; cf. A. Geiger, Lesestücke aus der Mischna, 75 f., 78 f.), a 
fact which Clemen, Chronol. der paulin. Briefe, 204, presents with quite 
arbitrary inadequacy. Of the representatives of the old idea of “ Galatia, 


200 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Gal. i: 2, Bleek (Hinl. 1862, S. 418) and Lightfoot (Galatians, 36-56) 
assigned the Epistle to a period between 2.Cor, and Rom., both on aecount of 
the aflinity in thought between Gal. and Rom., and because of the great 
difference between Gal. and 1 and 2 Thess.; Gal., then, would have been 
written in the three months Acts xx. 3, or on the journey through Macedonia 
just before. Some, too, who have cut loose from the old assumption with 
regard to the persons to whom the letter was sent, have been so impressed 
with the idea of the development of Pauline thought as reflected in’ the 
succession of the Epistles, as to suppose that they must even put Galatians 
later than. Romans. . So, for example, Kühn, NKZ, 1895, 8. 156-162, 
who thinks that Galatians was sent to the Lycaonian Churches during 
the apostle’s imprisonment in Caesarea. Clemen, too, in his all-confnusing 
Chronologie (205), puts Galatians after Romans, though he cannot tell us 
where it was written (203). Kühn (159) and Clemen (200ff.) see con- 
firmation in Gal. ii. 10, which they understand as a reference to the great 
collection which Paul was only just ready to take to Jerusalem when Romans 
was written (Rom. xv. 25 1f.). But as little as the obligation which Paul 
assumed in the apostolic council, according to the tenor of Gal. ii. 10, looked 
merely to the gathering of a single money collection in specified parts of the 
Gentile Church, just so little did he appeal to one such collection as the 
fulfilment of it. . He can testify, rather, that he has been zealous and diligent 
to meet the obligation assumed at the council, and this he could not say 
unless immediately upon his return from Jerusalem, in Antioch, Syria, 
Cilicia; and on his second missionary journey (Acts xv. 30-xvi. 5), he had 
stirred up the existing Gentile Christian Churches to make these collections 
and gifts. On the other hand, Gal. ii. 10 would be empty talk, if the 
contribution which he took to Jerusalem about Pentecost 58 were the first 
fruit of his ostensibly so zealous endeavour to carry out a pledge made some 
six and a half years before. We need not here concern ourselves with the 
question whether the Galatian and Asiatic Churches had any part in the great 
collection of 58, which would seem from Rom. xv. 26, 2 Cor. viii.-ix., not to 
have been the case, and which cannot be inferred from 1 Cor. xvi. 1; Acts 
xx. 4. Between 52 and 58 three or six contributions may have been sent to 
Jerusalem from! the Galatian Churches and others founded and guided by 
Paul, just as gifts had already been sent before (Acts xi. 30). From Gal. ii. 
10 we must conclude that a beginning had been made within the first year 
after the apostolic council. Even Ramsay (Church in Roman Empire, 101) 
seems to have been influenced to some extent by Lightfoot’s diseussion to put 
Galatians as late as his historical and geographical data would permit, and 
holds that the Epistle was written from Antioch in 55, at the beginning of 
the third missionary journey (p.'168; Acts xviii. 22f.). I merely ask how 
Paul, who, according to Ramsay’s interpretation of Acts xviii, 23 (see p. 190 
above), was then on the point of' visiting the Galatian Churches for the third 
time, could have written iv. 20, or the letter as a whole, without alluding to 
his impending visit. We shall never reach a chronological arrangement of 
Paul’s Epistles which will do justice to the indications of the letters them- 
selves and to the notices in Acts, if we assume as our underlying premise 
that Paul was a theological thinker and writer, who derived the essential 
impulse to the composition of his letters, the choice of his teaching material, 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 201 


and the particular manner of its treatment in the several Epistles, from the 
progress of his investigations. Rather was he a missionary, who was 
determined not only in the composition of Epistles, but in the choice of 
themes and treatment, by the aims of this his calling, and the requirements 
of the Churches which he had founded and which were under his care. 
Through long preparation, and longer missionary experience, he had arrived 
at fixed and basal principles before he wrote the first of the letters which 
have come down to us. The ideas of Galatians which reappear in Romans 
must have become perfectly clear to him, at the latest, at the time of the con- 
troversies described in Acts xv. and Gal. ii. 1-10. According to Gal. ii. 
15-21, ef. i. 12-16; 2 Cor. iv. 6, v. 16f.; Rom. vii. 6-viii. 2; Phil. iii. 5-12, 
they were rooted in the very experiences which made him a Christian. 
But in that conflict he must not only have become conscious of the contra- 
diction between his Christianity and that of the Pharisaic Christians, he 
must also have learned even then to develop from Scripture and from 
Christian experience the arguments for his gospel and against legalistic 
Christianity, and to use them as weapons in the debate. That he so uses 
them in Galatians requires no explanation beyond the fact that these con- 
troversies in Antioch and in Jerusalem already lay behind him, and that he 
was now confronted by substantially the same opponents in Galatia. The 
fact, too, that the ideas of justification by and through faith, together with 
their contraries, drop into the background in Thessalonians and Corinthians, 
and appear more prominently again in Romans and Philippians, shows 
simply that Paul was not a stupid schoolmaster repeating his monotonous 
formulas in season and out of season. The reason why the weapons, which 
had already been tested more than once in combat, were brought out again 
from his armoury when he wrote the letter to Rome, will become clear 
enough in our examination of that Epistle. Occasional expressions like 1 Cor. 
xv. 56 or 2 Cor. v. 21 show that the whole circle of thought which meets us 
first in Galatians did not become unfamiliar to the apostle in the interim. If 
it were admissible to interpret and explain the differences in teaching in the 
several Epistles from the order of their composition instead of from the 
variety of conditions in the Churches and in the historical occasion of the 
letters, one might infer from a comparison of Gal. iv. 10 with Rom. xiv. 5f. 
that several years of inner development lay between Galatians and Romans, 
and Col. ii. 16 would have to be set near Galatians in time but as far as 
possible from Romans. Halmel, Über rim. Recht im Gal. 1895, concludes 
from the observation expressed in the title, together with the affinity between 
the theological conceptions of Galatians and Romans, “that Galatians must 
have been written in Rome wr Italy, and in any case, therefore (sic), was not 
far removed from Romans in point of time” (S. v and 30). Now, there was an 
interval of more than three years between Romans, which was written from 
Corinth at the beginning of the year 58, and Paul’s arrival at the capital in 
the spring of 61. As Halmel, further, does not insist on Rome at all, and 
consequently, it would seem, does not insist that the letter was written 
during Paul’s two years’ imprisonment there (Acts xxviii. 30), the possible 
interval between Galatians and Romans seems to stretch out to five years or 
more, that is, to some period after the expiration of the two years mentioned 
in Acts xxviii. 30, when Paul no longer sojourned as a prisoner in Rome, 


202 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


but somewhere in Italy in freedom. And this, we are told, is proximity 
in point of time! If the introduetion of provisions of Roman law “as 
things quite well known” were really inconceivable outside of Rome and 
Italy, it would not suffice to remove the author thither ; but, assuming that 
he wished to be understood, it would be necessary first of all to look for 
the readers also in Italy, instead of in Galatia. If, again, we are really 
to presuppose in Galatians an acquaintance with Roman law specifically 
(cf. ZKom. Gal. 160 ff., 191 ff.), it is a sufficient explanation that Paul, 
according to the tradition of Acts, which has never been assailed with 
any sound objection, was born a civis Romanus, and that the principal 
Churches of Galatia were located in Roman colonies (p. 191 above). Roman 
citizens, who claimed the privileges of Roman law, were found everywhere 
in the empire ; cf., for example, Berl. dg. griech. Urk. Nos. 96, 15; 113. 
3, 6; 327. 2; 361. 11. 19; and, moreover, Roman law had had everywhere 
a transforming influence on the legal procedure of the ἔθνη; cf. Strabo, 
x. p. 484. 

2. (P. 194.) Calvin, who reckoned the fourteen years of Gal. ii. 1 from 
Paul’s conversion, and identified the visit to Jerusalem there mentioned with 
that of Acts xi. 30, assigned the composition of Galatians to a date before 
the apostolic council (Com. in Gal. ii. 1-5, ed. Tholuck, 546). This pre- 
supposes—what Calvin does not expressly say, however—that the Galatian 
Churches were those situated in Lycaonia. 

3. (P.195.) The view that Galatians was written by Paul during his Roman 
imprisonment first gained currency, somewhat late, in the Eastern Churches, 
In the West, before Jerome’s day, a very different view prevailed (above, p. 199, 
note 1). Among the expositors of Galatians, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Ephrem 
Syrus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia nowhere express themselves, to the 
present writer’s knowledge, with regard to the time and place of the Epistle. 
Chrysostom, not in his commentary on Galatians but in the introduction to 
Romans, gives his opinion that Paul wrote Galatians before Romans, that is, 
of course, like Romans, before his imprisonment (Montfaucon, ix. 427). Euse- 
bius of Emesa (Cramer, Cat. vi. 67) seems to have been the first to find in 
Gal. iv. 20 an indication of imprisonment. Jerome, who in the preparation 
of his own commentary on Galatians made free use of Eusebius’ and many 
others (Pref., Vall. vii. 370), borrowed from him this interpretation of iv. 20 
(468), and again, on vi. 11 (529), alludes to the imprisonment of Paul at the 
time of the Epistle, whereas on vi. 17 (534) he contents himself with a vague 
reference to the recital of his sufferings, 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff. Galatians was first 
assigned to the Roman imprisonment by the pseudo-Euthalius (Zacagni, 624), 
Theodoret (Noesselt, 4), CEeumenius (Hentenius, i. 713), and a number of 
Greek, Syriac, and Coptic Bible MSS. Possibly the fact that Galatians was 
not infrequently placed after Ephesians, that is, among the Epistles of the 
imprisonment (GK, ii. 351, 358, 360), contributed to the perpetuation of the 
error. Thus we see to what extent Halmel (30) is justified in calling this the 
general opinion of the early Church, and that we are not dealing with a his- 
torical tradition, but with the spread of an error which arose from a careless 
reading of the Epistle. 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 203 


813. THE ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH IN THESSA- 
LONICA, AND THE COURSE OF ITS HISTORY 
UNTIL THE COMPOSITION OF, PAUL'S FIRST 
EPISTLE TO THE CHURCH THERE. 


It must have been somewhere about September 52 
when Paul, driven from Philippi, came directly to Thessa- 
lonica (1 Thess. 11. 2; Acts xvi. 19-xvii. 1) along with 
Silvanus or Silas (n. 1), without stopping in Amphipolis 
and Apollonia, which were situated upon the great military 
road by which he travelled (Via Egnatia). His younger 
helper, Timothy, who had been with him only during the 
journey from Lystra (n. 2), and the author of the account, 
who by the use of “we” in Acts xvi. 16-17 indicates his 
presence, and in Acts xvi. 13 his participation in the 
teaching activity of the missionaries, seem for the time 
being to have been left behind in Philippi. Although 
Timothy is not mentioned in connection with the flight 
of Paul and Silvanus from Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 10), 
and does not appear again until after Paul’s departure 
from Bercea (Acts xvii. 14), it is not to be inferred that 
Timothy had no share in Paul’s work at Thessalonica, nor 
is it to be supposed that he journeyed from Philippi to 
Bercea (or Berrhcea) without stopping on the way to visit 
the newly made converts in Thessalonica. If it may be 
regarded as certain that the “we” which runs through 
both letters includes both the helpers mentioned in the 
greeting with Paul as joint writers with him of the 
Epistle, then Timothy is to be considered one of the 
organisers of this Church (n. 3). After Paul’s departure 
from Philippi, he very soon followed him to Thessalonica 
and thence to Bercea. 

Before Byzantium became Constantinople, Thessalonica 
was the largest city on the Balkan peninsula (n. 4), which, 
together with the fact that it had a numerous Jewish 
population, made it a suitable station for Paul’s work ; and, 


204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


had it not been that he was compelled to go, he would not 
have left it so soon as he did. As it was, after three 
weeks’ preaching in the synagogue (n. 5), the Jewish 
majority succeeded in stirring up the populace against the 
missionaries to such an extent, that the latter were com- 
pelled to eonceal themselves; and, after their host Jason 
and several of the converts were brought before the city 
authorities in their stead, and veleased only on bail, the 
missionaries fled for refuge to Berova, 

The original Church in 'Thessalonica consisted ofa 
few Jews and a large number of Greeks, some of whom, 
before they became Christians, had been adherents of the: 
synagogue. Among them were several women belonging 
to the upper classes. Subsequent additions to the Chureh 
seem to have been made exclusively from the Gentile 
population (n. 6). That the attack upon the missionaries: 
and the persecution of the new converts immediately 
following (Acts xvii. 5-9; 1 Thess. i. 6) emanated from 
the Jews, is clear from 1 Thess. ii. 15; since, inasmuch as 
Paul speaks here not of himself alone, but also of Silvanus 
and Timothy, the reference is not to the threatening: of 
his life, in Jerusalem (Acts ix. 29), but to his expulsion 
from Thessalonica and Berea. But inasmuch as the 
Jews succeeded at once in arousing the populace against 
the missionaries by charging them with teaching doc-. 
trines contrary to the State, which led the politarehs to 
take precautionary measures oppressive to the Christians 
(Acts xvii, 5-9), it is not surprising that Paul, in speaking 
of the persecution which the Church had endured earlier, 
and was still enduring (1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14, iii. 8; 2 Thess, 
i. 4), does not make special mention of the fact that the 
persecution was begun by the Jews. This, oppressed | con- 
dition of the infant Church in Thessalonica made, the 
missionaries, desirous of turning back immediately after 
their departure (1 Thess. ii. 17f.), ee. while they were 
still in Berea. Speaking for himself, Paul assures them 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES ‘OF PAUL ‘205 


that he had made still a second attempt to carry out this 
intention, but had been hindered as before by Satan. 
This effort Paul must have made at the time when he was 
alone in Athens, waiting for Silvanus and Timothy (Acts 
xvii. 16). Here, however, the accounts in Acts do not 
correspond entirely with Paul’s statements. Although 
Acts xvii. 15 gives the impression that Silvanus and 
Timothy were to follow Paul to Athens as soon as they 
could, there is no report of their arrival, which omission, 
together with what is said in Acts xvii. 5, forces one to 
‘the conclusion that these helpers remained for a consider- 
able time longer in Macedonia, and did not join Paul 
again until he had been at work in Corinth for some time 
(n.7). On the other hand, according to 1 Thess. 111. 1-6, 
Silvanus and Timothy actually came to Athens as Paul 
had instructed 'them to do (Acts xvii. 15), from which 
point Paul and Silvanus sent Timothy back to Macedonia, 
in particular to Thessalonica (n. 3). Shortly before the 
composition of this letter, Timothy returned with cheering 
news to Paul, or rather, since the “ we” is retained in 
1 Thess. ii. 6f., to Paul and Silvanus, whereupon this 
letter was sent to the Church in Thessalonica in the name 
of all three. 

The letter must have been written in Corinth. Had it 
been written in Athens, there would be something strange 
even about the ἐν ᾿Αθήναις of iii. 1 (but cf. 1 ον. χν. 32, 
xvi. 8). Moreover, in i. 7f. it seems to be presupposed 
that the gospel’ had been preached with good’ success, not 
in Athens alone, but in’ several places in Achaia, as it had 
been preached earlier in Macedonia. But we have de- 
finite proof for a later date, and so for Corinth as the place 
of composition in the statement (i. 8f.) that the con- 
version of the Thessalonians was known not only in 
Macedonia (Beroea and possibly also Philippi) and Achaia 
(Athens and Corinth), whither the news was brought by 
those who preached the gospel in this region,’ but every- 


206 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


where (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, cf. Rom. i. 8), so that it was un- 
necessary for Paul to tell the story of the founding of the 
Thessalonian Church, but was able to listen to expressions 
of praise and joy at the entrance of the gospel into Thessa- 
lonica (above, p. 197 f.). Since the contrast to Macedonia 
and Achaia implies that the persons in question must have 
been Christians from Asia, not only is it necessary to 
suppose that the news of the successful preaching of the 
gospel in Thessalonica had reached the Christian Churches 
in Asia, but it must also be assumed that Paul had had 
occasion shortly before to converse with Christians from 
Asia, and to learn from them the joy. which had been 
awakened in their home by his successes in Macedonia. 
If Paul had received his information about the joyful 
interest with which his missionary work in Macedonia was 
followed only through letters from Galatia or Antioch in 
Syria, he could not have written the words, οὐ μόνον ἐν τῇ 
Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ ἀλλὰ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν 
ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν. The expressions which follow 
(λαλεῖν, ἀπαγγέλλουσιν) prove that the intercourse between 
Paul and the representatives of the Churches outside of 
Europe had been rather of the nature of a conversation, in 
the course of which the latter had shown that they were 
familiar with the story of the founding of the Church in 
Thessalonica in all its details. We have seen above, 
p. 197 £., that in all probability these persons were the 
ambassadors of the Galatian Churches. But whether. this 
was so or not, unless the most extraordinary circumstances 
be assumed, the spread of the news of the organisation 
of the Churches in Macedonia as far as the Churches in 
Galatia or Syria, and the reporting of the impression 
which this news made there back to Paul, who was travel- 
ling in Europe, requires an interval of several months 
between Paul’s flieht from Thessalonica and the com- 
position of 1 Thessalonians. If, therefore, for chronological 
reasons, we conclude that the letter was written in Corinth 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 207 


and not in Athens, the use of the three names in the 
greeting (i. 1) would indicate a time subsequent to the 
event described in Acts xvii. 5, while 1 Thess. iii, 6, 
shows that it was written immediately after this event. 
Paul wrote Galatians before the arrival of the helpers in 
Corinth, possibly in April or May 53 (above, p. 198); 
1 Thessalonians after the reunion, possibly in June of the 
same year. 


1. (P. 203.) The identity of Silas, Acts xv. 22, 27, 32 (34), 40, xvi. 19, 
25, 29, xvii. 4, 10, 14, 15, xviii. 5, and Silvanus, 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1; 
2 Cor.i. 19; 1 Pet. v. 12, appears from the statements made by Paul, and 
in Acts with regard to the second missionary journey. As to his double 
name, above, p. 31f. As Acts xvi. 37 presupposes that he, like Paul, possessed 
Roman citizenship, he may have been one of the “ Libertines” spoken of in 
Acts vi. 9, above, p. 60f. Asa man of prominence in the Jerusalem Church 
(xv. 22), of mature years, therefore, and besides prophetically gifted (xy. 32), 
he was sent together with Judas Barsabbas to accompany Paul and Barnabas 
to Antioch, in order to explain and confirm the decision of the apostolic 
council by word of mouth (xv. 27, 32). This implies that Silas was, on the 
one hand, a man who enjoyed the confidence of the mother Church ; and, on 
the other hand, that he was also in sympathy with the progress of the 
Gentile mission up to that time. Both things were important for Paul, and 
probably decided him, after his break with Barnabas, to choose Silas of 
Jerusalem as his companion on the second missionary journey (xv. 40), 
instead of some one of the other teachers at Antioch (xiii. 1). Let it be 
noted here that what is said of the dissuasion of the Spirit, Acts xvi. 6, 7 
(also xvii. 15, according to Cod. D), is not to be referred to Paul as the 
medium, for he used rather to receive swch instructions in visions at night 
(xvi. 9, xviii. 9, xxiii. 11, xxvii. 23, cf. xxii. 17; 2 Cor. xii. 1-4), but to 
Silas (xv. 32, where καὶ αὐτοί, like καὶ αὐτούς, xv. 27, is to be taken by itself, 
and separated from προφῆται ὄντες by the punctuation—so Blass ; only Judas 
and Silas were prophets, not Barnabas and Paul). The account in Acts 
xv. 30-34, partly because of the uncertainty of the text, is by no means 
as clear as one could wish. First, the clause xv. 34a is to be recognised as 
part of the earlier text, in the form ἔδοξε δὲ τῷ Σιλᾷ ἐπιμεῖναι αὐτούς 
(CD*) and πρὸς αὐτούς (correction in D), αὐτοῦ (min. 13=ev. 33, Gregory, 
Prol. 469, 618), αὐτόθι (3 min.), bi (many MSS. of the Lat. Vulg. and 
Copt., Sah. and margin of S*) are to be regarded as alterations with a 
view to an easier reading. The opinion given by the prophet Silas, in such 
a way as not to exclude the action of the πνεῦμα, but rather to include it (ef. 
xv. 28), was that Judas and Silas should remain still longer in Antioch. 
The clause μόνος de Ἰούδας ἐπορεύθη, vouched for only by D and some Latin 
MSS., is then an amplifying gloss, to explain the fact that in what follows 
there is mention only of Silas, and nothing of Judas’ remaining there, whereas 
the ἔδοξε applied to both men. The gloss, moreover, is clumsy enough, as it 
should either have said, “Judas returned to Jerusalem notwithstanding,” or 


208 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


else, “Silas alone, however, really remained in Antioch.” On. the, contrary, 
the stubborn clause 34a, so original in form and substance, which had. a wide- 
spread and significant currency without the addition of 34), is not to be 
understood as a gloss, reconciling the apparent contradiction between vv. 33 
and 40, An emendator with this in view would have written simply, “But 
Silas preferred (perhaps at Paul’s request) to remain longer in Antioch,” 
34a, probably the original in both recensions, was in the one so amplified by 
the addition of 34) that the reader learned to a certainty what became of 
Judas and Silas, while in the other it was struck out on account of: the 
apparent contradiction between it and 33. It is possible, again, that a slip 
of the eye from αὐτούς, 33, to αὐτούς, 34a, was responsible for the omission, and 
this Blass considers probable in spite of his preference for αὐτοῦ in the 
second passage. D illustrates the ease with which the omission might oceur, 
for there the clause in question forms'a complete line, which ends in αὐτούς, 
like the line preceding. If we admit 34a to the text, we have an account 
which is not exactly connected, but which involves no contradictions. ,, xv. 
33 does not say that Judas and Silas for their part took leave of the brethren 
in Antioch and set out for Jerusalem, a statement which Luke would have 
made outright (Luke viii, 38, 39; Acts ἵν. 21, 23, v. 40, 41, xiii, 3, 4, 
xv. 30) and without ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν (xxviii. 25, xv. 30), but only that the 
Antiochians said they would not detain them longer. Silas gave a decisive 
veply to the eflect that he and Judas ought still to remain in Antioch, and 
in consequence they did so remain, as Barnabas did in his time (xi. 22 ff.). 
Thus the way is sufficiently paved for xv. 40, whereas if 34a were rejected) it 
would be hard: to understand how the man who had just returned to Jeru- 
salem should! ‘suddenly reappear at Antioch. The narrator could not have 
omitted to state that Paul summoned him from Jerusalem. Even in that 
ease, to be sure, Luke would have left no room to doubt the identity of Silas, 
xv. 40, with the Silas of xv. 22, 27, 32, 34. Zimmer's attempt (Z/KW, 
1881, S. 169-174, ef., per contra, Jülicher,«JbfPTh. 1882, S. 538-552). to 
distinguish the Silas who assisted Paul on the second missionary journey 
from the Jerusalem envoy of the same name, has no support whatever 
in the only account we have of the latter. The hypothesis that Silas 
(=Silvanus) is to be identified with Titus, suggested in the first instance 
by Märcker (Titus Silvanus, 1864) and championed by Graf (Vierteljahrsschr. 
f. englisch-theol. Forschung, ii. 1865, S. 373-394), cannot be rescued, in 
this fashion. | Originating’ in ἃ heedless astonishment that Titus is, not 
mentioned in Acts, and an effort to justify Acts in the matter, the hypo- 
thesis has simply created contradictions between Acts and Paul. Titus was 
an uncircumcised Gentile, whom Paul. took with him from Antioch to the 
apostolic council (Gal. ii, 1,3, ef. Acts xv, 2), and, of course, took back to 
Antioch again. Silas, on the other hand, was sent to Antioch on the same 
oceasion' by the mother Church. At that time, as for some time before, he 
belonged to the Church in Jerusalem, for ἐξ αὐτῶν and ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, Acts 
xv. 22, have no other airtecedent than the immediately preceding mention of 
those who sent him as “the apostles and the elders, with the whole Chureh,” 
cf. xv. 4. He was a Jew, therefore, or at least a circumcised. proselytey ef. 
Acts vi..'5. This is true also of Pawl’s helper, Silas= Silvanus, according to 
Acts xvi. 3 (for otherwise his subsequent. eircumeision would have, been 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 209 


noticed as well as Timothy’s) and xvi. 20. Silvanus, Paul’s colleague in the 
organisation of the Achaian Churches (2 Cor. i. 19, ef, Acts xviii. 5), cannot 
be identical with the man who in the same Epistle is constantly and exclus- 
ively spoken of as Titus (2 Cor. ii, 13, vii. 6-14, viii. 6, 16, 23, xii. 18), 
who first became a co-labourer with Paul in his work with the Corinthians 
(2 Cor. viii. 23), by his successful execution of the errand on which Paul had 
sent him to Corinth in the interval between the first and second Epistles, up 
to that time having known the Church only from Paul’s laudatory accounts 
of it (2 Vor. vii. 14). 

2. (P.203.) From Acts xvi. 1, Timothy’s home seems to have been not at 
Derbe, but at Lystra, the town last mentioned, and in NAB introduced with a 
second eis. It would be strange, too, if the name of his own home Church 
were omitted from those in xvi. 2, or, if peculiar importance were attached to 
the testimony of neighbouring Churches, that it should not be brought in as 
a more emphatic confirmation of the opinion of the home Church. The 
idea that he was from Derbe arose from the unnatural supposition that in 
Acts xx. 4 AepBaios καί was to be attached to the name after it, like Θεσσα- 
λονικέων δέ and ᾿Ασιανοὶ δέ, instead of to the one preceding, like. Bepo.aios, 
the only parallel term (Wieseler, Chron. 26, “a Derbean also, Timothy” ; 
for “there was also a Derbean with them, namely, Timothy”; K. Schmidt, 
Apostelgeschichte, i. 42, “from Derbe ; Timothy besides,” which in the first 
place is linguistically inadmissible ; and, secondly, would tell us, contrary to 
the translator’s intent, that Gaius also was from Derbe). For this interpret- 
ation one ought really to conjecture Δερβαῖος δέ, as does Blass, following an 
earlier precedent, so that Gaius would appear as a third Thessalonian with 
Aristarchus and Secundus, and be identical with the Gaius of Acts xix. 29. 
The present writer sees no necessity for this. It is true we have no right to 
consider Paul’s companions named in Acts xx. 4 as being, all of them, repre- 
sentatives of the Churches which had taken part in the collection for Jerusalem 
(2 Cor. viii. 19, 23; 1 Cor. xvi. 4). Aside from the fact that the provinces of 
Asia and Galatia, which are represented in xx. 4, do not seem to have had any 
part in this collection (above, p. 200 f.), it would be strange that no Corinthian 
is mentioned here. But, apart from that supposition, we can easily conceive 
that Luke meant that the men in whose company Paul was travelling to 
Jerusalem should be viewed as representatives of the cities and districts from 
which they came, and that he arranged their names and described them 
accordingly. There were: 1. Sopater from Berea (minuse. Sosipatros= 
Rom. xvi. 21, both names found in Thessalonian inscriptions, Le Bas, ii., Nos. 
1356, 1357) ; 2. Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica ; 3. Gaius from 
Derbe (a different person, therefore, from the Macedonian of Acts xix. 29, as 
well as from the Corinthian of 1 Cor. i. 14 and Rom. xvi. 23, but perhaps the 
same as the Gaius addressed in 3 John 1) and Timothy (whose Lystran 
extraction had been mentioned in xvi. 1, and is recalled here also by S!),— 
both these men representing the province of Galatia (1 Cor. xvi. 1, above, 
p- 191); 4. Tychieus and Trophimus from the province of Asia (according 
to D and Sah., and also S® margin, both from Ephesus, as appears in Trophi- 
mus’ case at least from Acts xxi. 29). 

3. (Pp. 203, 205.) Although expositors down to Hofmann for the most part 
paid little attention to the “we” in the Pauline Epistles, Laurent (ThStKr. 

VOL. I. 14 


210 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


1868, S. 159 ff., ef. his Neutest. Stud. 117) tried to maintain that in 1 and 2 
Thess. Paul referred to himself as “we” only when speaking in the con- 
sciousness of his official position; but as “I,” on the other hand, when he 
spoke “more personally, confidentially, as it were.” On the contrary, we 
must assert that there is not a passage in the Epistles where Paul uses this 
“we=1” (least of all Rom. i. 5). As Paul in 1 Thess. 1. 1; 2 Thess. 1. 1, 
introduces Silas and Timothy, co-founders of the Church, as joint authors 
with himself of the Epistles, it goes without saying that when he proceeds 
to the letter itself with “ we,” and not with “I,” as in 1 Cor. 1, 4; Gal. 1.6: 
Phil. i. 3, he means that the two join with him in everything that he puts 
in this form. If this holds true without question of the thanksgivings with 
which both Epistles open, it is equally impossible to draw a line further on 
beyond which the “we” is shrunk to an “I.” So, too, an express explana- 
tion of the “we” in 2 Cor. i. 19 would have been needless if Silas as well 
as Timothy had been included in the “we” of vy. 1-14. On the other 
hand, it was unnecessary in 1 Thess. iii. 1 f. to explain that the “we” was 
confined to Paul and Silas, because it was plain from. the statement itself 
that when Timothy was to be sent away, Paul and Silas were the senders. 
That the “we” is seriously meant becomes obvious in 1 Thess. ii. 18. Paul 
can say of the three missionaries that after their departure from Thessalonica 
it was their strong desire and earnest purpose to visit the city again : he 
interrupts the plural with an ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος, because it is only of himself 
that he can say that the purpose was entertained, not merely once but twice. 
Putting forward the three missionaries as a single τύπος, 2 Thess. iii. 9 (cf. 
Phil. iii. 17, i. 1, ii. 20), is as natural as the similar reference to the many 
Thessalonians, 1 Thess. i. 7, according to the correct reading (cf. John xx. 25, 
and παράδειγμα, Thue. iii. 57). Since the Church is represented as a single 
family made up of many children, the corresponding relation of the three 
missionaries to the Church can be compared to that of a nurse and again to 
that of a father, 1 Thess. ii. 7, 11; but in this very passage we are reminded 
by ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι, ii. 7, that it is more than one person whose attitude 
is described. That this title (ἀπόστολοι) was applicable also to Silas and 
Timothy is unquestionable, see p. 107, n. 3. Moreover, it accords with the 
nature of such descriptions of the attitude of a number of persons, that not 
every individual statement is equally applicable to them all. It is of no 
consequence, therefore, that. we do not, know whether Timothy and Silas 
shared Paul’s manual labour, or to what extent they did (1 ‘Thess. ii. 9; 
2 Thess. iii. 8). On the other hand, if one is speaking for others also, but is 
himself the principal person, it is still permissible to let his own “1” take 
the place now and then of the “we” (1 Thess. iii. 5, v.27). Hofmann, NT, 
i. 205 ff., and Spitta, Z. Gesch. des Urchr. i. 115, 121, are hardly correct. in 
inferring from 1 Thess. iii. 5 that, after Paul and Silas together had, de- 
spatched Timothy from Athens to, Thessalonica (iii. 2), Paul alone sent still 
another messenger thither. To explain the singular in 111. 5, it is assumed 
that in the meantime Silas also had left Paul; but to what place was this 
helper, who worked with Paul in Macedonia, in Athens, and afterward in 
and about Corinth, likely to have gone from Athens at this time?, One 
could only conjecture a return to Macedonia, like Timothy’s. In this case 
there would be a double sending in addition to the mission of Timothy 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 2ıı 


(iii. 2), —the sending of Silas, which is nowhere mentioned, and that of an 
unnamed person supposedly referred to in iii. 5. But how could Paul have 
been silent here regarding Silas’ absence, even if the journey—no one knows 
in what direction—had been one of indifference to the Thessalonians? His 
absence would in any case have accentuated the painful sense of loneli- 
ness (iii. 1), and in that very fact would have been an accentuation of the 
feeling expressed in μηκέτι στέγων, 11]. 1,5, and consequently a motive for 
the despatch of still another messenger. And why should not Paul have 
named the messenger, whether it were Silas, which would be the easiest 
supposition, or some “ quite subordinate person” (Spitta, 122)? As he was 
plainly careful to recount every expression of his anxious love for the 
Thessalonians since his departure from them, he would not only have men- 
tioned Silas by name, if he were the messenger intended in iii. 5, but, in 
view of his prominence, would have referred to him at least as particularly 
as to Timothy (111. 2). In the other event, however, the messenger could 
only have been the bearer of a letter, and the failure to mention the letter 
thus sent by him would be incomprehensible. The omission of the object 
of ἔπεμψα, iii. 5, has no justification, unless it is to be supplied from iii. 1 f. 
(to which the repetition of μηκέτι στέγων points every reader), and both 
places refer to the same occurrence ; cf. 2 Cor. ix. 3 and viii. 18, 22. Other- 
wise a πάλιν could hardly be omitted (Gal. i. 9), and Paul would have 
marked the contrast with the unemphatic “we” of iii. 1f., not with κἀγώ, 
but with ἐγὼ Παῦλος (1 Thess. ii. 18; Col. i. 23, as opposed to the plural, 
Col. i. 1-9, ef. 2 Cor. x. 1; Gal. v. 2; Philem. 19). κἀγώ finds its natural 
explanation in a contrast with the persons addressed (cf. Phil. ii. 19, 28 ; 
Eph. i. 15). Paul, as is said plainly enough in iii. 2 f., was greatly troubled 
for fear that the Church in its distressed condition might not hold out 
longer without the personal encouragement of its founders, and for that 
very reason (iii. 5, διὰ τοῦτο) he himself could not endure it longer, and, as 
remarked, sent Timothy to Thessalonica, in order not only to guard the 
Church from the shaking of its faith, and of its confidence in its organisers 
(iii. 2 f.), but also to obtain for his own part the satisfying assurance that the 
Church had not succumbed to its temptations. This also opposed to view of 
Wohlenberg, ZKom. 1 & 2 Thess. 73. 

4. (P. 203.) Tafel, De Thess. erusque Agro Dissertatio Geographica, Berlin, 
1839, in which the writer’s earlier program, Historia Thessalonice, Tübingen, 
1835, is incorporated ; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 253-269. Formerly 
Θέρμη (Herod. vii. 123-128 ; Thue. i. 61), or Θέρμα (Eschines, De Falsa Lega- 
tione, 31. 36), rebuilt by Cassander about 315 B.c., and named Θεσσαλονίκη, 
for his wife (also Θεσσαλονίκεια, Strabo, pp. 106, 330, Fragm. 21), after the 
battle of Philippi civitas libera (Pliny, H. N. iv. 10.36 ; for the coinage cf. 
Tafel, p. xxix), hence βουλὴ καὶ δῆμος (Le Bas, Inscr. 1359) and προάγειν eis 
τὸν δῆμον, Acts xvii. 5, cf. xix. 30, 33, residence of the governor of the pro- 
vince of Macedonia, which after 44 A.D. was again separated from Achaia 
and administered as a senatorial province by propretors with the title of 
proconsul (Marquardt,? i. 319). The title πολιτάρχαι, Acts xvii. 6, 8, though 
otherwise unknown in literature, is splendidly attested for just this part of 
Macedonia and especially for Thessalonica. The inscriptions bearing on 
the matter have been very fully collated and thoroughly discussed by 


2ı2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


E. De Witt Burton, AJTh. 1898, vol. 11. 598-632. Of the seventeen inserip- 
tions in which the term oceurs, and two others in which it is restored 
conjecturally, five or six are from Thessalonica, seven or eight from other 
Macedonian cities, two from Philippopolis, one from Bithynia, one, from 
Bosphorus, and one from ‚Egypt (=nineteen in all). In; addition, Oxyr. 
Papyri, iv. 225, No. 745, of about the year 1 A.p. Of the inscriptions from 
Thessalonica, one from the time of Augustus (Duchesne et Bayet, Mission au 
Mont Athos, 1876—separate reprint from Arch. des Miss. Sc., Ser. iii. vol. iii, 
p. 11, No. 1) names five politarchs ; one of 143 a.p. (Le Bas, iii., No. 1359; 
ef. Burton, 605-608) and one not dated (Ὁ. I. Gr. 1967, cf. Addenda, p, 990= 
Le Bas, No, 1357 ; Burton, 600, 607) mention six. Another of the year 46, 
which mentions but two politarchs, probably belongs to Pella (Burton, 
611-613). With regard to the population we have only general statements, 
Strabo, 323; Lucian, Assin. 46; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. v.17. In the time 
of the first emperors it surely cannot have been less than at present. About 
1835 it was estimated at 80,000; Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, iii. 248, 
considered 65,000 more exact. According to Th. Fischer in Kirchhof’s 
Länderkunde von Europa, li. 2. 180 (1893), estimates vary from 100,000 to 
135,000, and the proportion of Jews is said to be, nearly two-thirds. Cf, 
Meyer’s guide-book, Türker und Griechenland (1888), 357, “ population 100,000 ; 
60,000 Jews.” The unusual reading, ἡ συναγωγή, Acts xvii. 1, would indicate 
that the Jews of the whole district, perhaps even those at Amphipolis and 
Apollonia, made the synagogue at Thessalonica their place of worship, and 
maintained their connection with it. According to NABD, however (omit- 
ting the article), it is merely stated that there was a Jewish synagogue at 
Thessalonica, as at Bercea (xvii. 10), unlike Philippi (xvi. 13), Apollonia, 
and Amphipolis. But, aside from this, the prominence of the Jews at Thes- 
salonica is clear from Acts xvii. 4-9, 13. 

5. (P. 204.) Acts xvii. 2, ἐπὶ σάββατα τρία, cannot mean “on three 
Sabbaths,” as one might infer from the deceptive analogy of Acts iii, 1, iv. 5; 
Luke x. 35, ,but “for three weeks,” as Luke iv. 25 ; Acts xiii. 31, xvi, 18, 
xvili, 20, xix. 8, 10, 34, xxvii. 20. For σάββατον and vaßßara= week, cf. 
Luke xviii. 12, xxiv. 1; Acts xx. 7, and p. 19 above. If Paul’s discourses 
were confined to the Sabbaths, as at the beginning in Corinth (Acts xviii. 4, 
ef, xiii. 42, 44), the statement, would have had to be made more explicitly. 
Meetings were also held in the synagogue on Monday and Thursday, the 
usual fast-days (Schürer, ii. 458, 490 [Eng. trans. τι. ii. 83, 118]; Forsch, 111. 
317). The synagogue was open at other times as well (Matt. vi. 2, 5), and 
served as a meeting-place for unusual gatherings (Jos. Vita, 54). Nothing is 
said here of any other hall to which Paul removed his lectures in consequence 
of the opposition of the Jews (contrast Acts xviii. 7, xix. 9); so we are not to 
suppose that his stay in Thessalonica was much extended beyond these three 
weeks. The first remittance of money from Philippi to Thessalonica (Phil. 
iv. 16) may have followed immediately upon Paul’s enforced departure from 
the former city, and the second two weeks later. 

6. (P. 204.) Acts xvii. 4. According to D (πολλοὶ τῶν σεβομένων καὶ Ἑλλήνων 
πλῆθος πολὺ καὶ γυναῖκες τῶν πρώτων οὐκ ὀλίγαι---ἃ reading which, as regards 
the καί before Ἕλλ., is confirmed by A, Copt, Vulg.), the actual Gentiles, who 
visited the synagogue only in exceptional circumstances and without breaking 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 213 


with their heathen worship, would be distinguished from the veßonevoı 
(Acts xiii. 50, xvi. 14, xvii. 17, xviil.'7; cf. φοβούμενοι τὸν Bed», Acts x. 2, 
22, xiii. 16, 26), the Gentiles who, as “proselytes of the gate,” regularly 
attached themselves to the Jewish worship. The common text, τῶν re weßo- 
μένων Ἑλλήνων, would be analogous to σεβομένων προσηλύτων, xiii. 43, without, 
however, being quite synonymous. ‘In any case, it is clear that among the 
converts a small minority were Jews, and a large majority of Gentile birth. 
Even more, therefore, than in the case of the Galatians (above, p. 166), Paul 
was justified in regarding the Christians of Thessalonica as Gentile Chris- 
tians ; ef. 1 Thess. i. 9. We must, nevertheless, notice here that along with 
the contrast with former heathenism there appears also (i. 10) a contrast 
with Judaism. If Jason (Acts xvii. 5-9) is the same as the Jason of Rom. 
xvi. 21, which seems at once probable from the fact that Sosipater (=Sopater, 
Acts xx, 4), another Macedonian Christian, is there mentioned with him, he 
too was of Jewish birth (of συγγενεῖς pov). According to Clement of Alex- 
andria, he was identical with the Jason who represents Christianity over 
against the Jew Papiscus in the dialogue of Ariston of Pella (Forsch. iii. 74, 
iv. 309). Secundus and Aristarchus of Thessalonica were probably Gentiles 
(Acts xx. 4, xix. 29, xxvii. 2; Philem. 24; Col. iv. 10); for Col. iv: 11 refers 
only to Mark and Jesus Justus, not to Aristarchus; ef. §27. The name 
Secundus (Acts xx. 4) is abundantly attested in Thessalonica (C. I. Gr. 1967, 
1969 ; JHSt. 1887, p. 367, No. 10; Heuzey et Daumet, Macédoine, p. 280, 
No. 113, Sexodvda). The occurrence of the name Vdios Ἰούλιος Σεκοῦνδος in 
Thessalonica (Duchesne et Bayet, Mission au mont Athos, p.'50, No. 78) gives 
ground for the conjecture that the Secundus of Acts xx. 4 may be identified 
with the Macedonian Gaius, who in Acts xix. 29 is similarly associated with 
Aristarchus, and that in distinction from (Gaius) Secundus of Thessalonica 
the other Gaius is designated as from Derbe (Cod. A, 6 AepBaios). Origen’s 
observation on Rom. xvi. 23 (Del. iv. 686): “Fertur sane traditione maiorum, 
quod hie Gaius (Rom. xvi. 23) primus episcopus fuerit 'Thessalonicensis 
ecelesise,” is probably an addition of the translator, Rufinus. It rests upon 
an arbitrary identification of Gaius, Rom. xvi. 23, with the Macedonian 
Gaius, Acts xix. 29, whereas Origen himself more correctly compares Rom, 
xvi. 23 and 1 Cor. i. 14. Demas also (2 Tim. iv. 10; Col. iv. 14; Philem. 
24) was probably from Thessalonica. If Demas=Demetrius, we may note 
that the name Demetrius frequently occurs in Thessaloniea: C. 1. Gr, 1967 
(bis) ; JHSt. 1887, p. 360, No.2; E. D. Burton, op. cit. 608, No. iv. Deme- 
trius the martyr (c. 304) became patron of the city; cf. Acta SS., Oct., iv. 
50-209, and also Laurent in BZ, 1895, S. 420ff. The continued existence 
of a Thessalonian Church is evidenced by the edict of Antoninus Pius of 
which Melito speaks (Eus. H. E. iv. 26.10). A certain Paraskeue, who erected 
a monument to her daughter Pheebe (cf. Rom. xvi. 1) at Thessalonica in 156, 
was probably, to judge from her name, either Jewish or Christian ; cf. 
Duchesne et Bayet, op. cit. 46, No. 65. Tertullian, Preeser. xxxvi, mentions 
Thessalonica among the cities in which, ashe was convinced, the apostles’ 
letters to the respective Churches were still read from the autograph 
originals, and their “cathedre” were yet in use (GK, i. 652). A large stone 
pulpit (ἄμβων, Bnpa), half of which stands in the court of the Church of St. 
George and half in the court of St. Panteleemon’s, is known to this day as 


214 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


“St. Paul’s pulpit,” Bayet, op. cit. 249 ff. ; in Leake, iii. 243 ; and Lightfoot, 
Biblical Essays, 269, obher accounts which do not altogether agree, The work 
in question is of the early Byzantine period, The name στοὺς ἀποστόλους, 
at the site of the ancient Pella, might more readily embody a genuine remi- 
niscence ; that is, in case “the apostles” (1 Thess. ii. 6) went on from Thessa- 
lonica, not by the direct road to Bercea, which runs through swampy country 
at the outset, but first by the Via Egnatia to Pella, whence a road branches 
off to Berea, 

7. (Ὁ. 205.) The reading ἕως ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, Acts xvii. 14 (of. Luke 
xxiv. 50), cannot, of course, mean “they brought him clear to the sea” 
(Weiss, Textkrit. Unters. d. Apostelgesch. 210), for the sentence says nothing 
about ‘‘ bringing,” and those who accompanied Paul from Bercea brought him 
rather as far as Athens (xvii. 15). We are probably to read ὡς with HLP. 
Luke might also have written ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης (ef. Polyb. v. 70, 3 and 
12, and Kühner-Gerth. i. 496), but it was not necessary if he really wrote ὡς, 
Still uncertain which way he should turn, or perhaps, too, with the idea 
of evading possible pursuers, Paul and his companions set out at first as if 
they meant to go directly to the coast and take ship somewhere in the 
neighbourhood of Methone. He went on by land, however, either to Dium 
to take ship there, or all the way to Athens. The other recension, too, 
which gives us ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, does not exclude the meaning 
which the insertion of ὡς expresses even more clearly ; for even this says 
only that the Christians of Berwa dismissed Paul and the companions they 
had provided for him (xvii. 15), with the intent and expectation that he 
would go to the coast. But ver. 15 shows that the decision as to the route, 
and even as to the destination, was reached not in Bercea, but only after the 
travellers were on their way ; for otherwise there would have been’ no need 
of new instructions to Timothy and Silas. This appears even more certainly 
from the original reading, παρῆλθεν δὲ τὴν Θεσσαλίαν ἐκωλύθη yap εἰς αὐτοὺς 
κηρύξαι τὸν λόγον ; οἷ. xvi. 6, 7. Paul, then, originally intended to preach in 
Thessaly also, and undertook to do so (cf. xvi. 7), a thing he could not have 
thought of atall if he had gone from Berwa to Methone, and thence by sea 
to Athens, without even approaching the Thessalian border. This word 
παρελθεῖν (not παραπλεῦσαι, xx. 16) seems rather to point to a land journey, 
which avoided the larger places of Thessaly, or in the course of which, at 
all events, there was no preaching in that region. The statement made by 
the bishop of Servia to the traveller Leake (iii. 330), as an undoubted fact, 
that Paul passed through there, is not altogether improbable. The adjust- 
ment of the account in Acts to that in 1 Thess. may be variously conceived. 
If Paul came alone from Athens to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1), and Silas and 
Timothy came together from Macedonia to Corinth (Acts xviii. 5; 2 Cor, xi. 
9), then Paul must have left Silas behind at Athens, as previously at Berwa, 
and Silas, waiting in vain for 'Timothy, may on his own motion have gone 
to Macedonia to meet him, and then, without having gone as far as Thessa- 
lonica himself, have proceeded with Timothy to Corinth. Even if Timothy 
had been alone in Macedonia, had returned from there to Athens and found 
Silas waiting, and then had gone on with him to Corinth, there would be no 
serious inaceuraey in Acts xviii. 5. In that case, what Timothy told to 
Silas in Athens and to Paul in Corinth would be summed up together in 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 215 


1 Thess. iii. 6, Ephrem Syrus (according to an Armenian catena on Acts, 
Venice, 1839, p. 310; ef. Harris, Fowr Lectures on the Western Text, 25, 47) had 
a text of Acts xvii. 15 which made it possible for him to understand the 
words πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐξήεσαν (which in D form a line by themselves, and so are 
taken together) as referring to a journey made by Timothy and Silas to 
Athens, 


814, THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 


The Epistle was written shortly after the arrival of 
Timothy and Silvanus in Corinth (ii. 6), under the 
stimulus of the good news which Timothy brought back 
from Macedonia. The principal occasion of the letter 
and its purpose we learn from its first division, which 
forms a complete unit, concluded by a solemn benedic- 
tion (iii. 11-13). As indicated, by the introductory 
Aourrov (iv. 1), the discussions which follow, and which are 
not very closely connected in thought, constitute a series 
of more incidental concluding remarks. 

In the first division we have a review of the founding 
of the Church by the preaching of the writers (i. 2—ii. 16), 
and of everything which since their departure from Thessa- 
lonica had manifested their loving interest in the growth 
of the Church and in the continuance of its pleasant 
relations with its founders (ii. 17-111. 5). In this review 
a prominent place is given to statements about the per- 
secutions which the readers had endured at the beginning, 
and in the face of which they had since maintained their 
faith (n. 1). It was mainly this that made the mission- 
aries solicitous and anxious to return to Thessalonica (ii. 
17 £.), and which led, finally, to the sending of Timothy 
thither (iii. 2f.). Now the tone which pervades these 
statements is not predominantly that of consolation and 
encouragement, but of apology. Of course it is for the 
sake of encouraging the readers that attention is called 
to the fact that their brave endurance of persecution has 
become an example to later converts in Macedonia and 
Achaia (i. 7); and this same purpose is in view when it is 


216 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


said that in so doing they have followed the example ot 
the Christians in Judea (11. 14), on which account, the 
missionaries are proud of them, and filled with grateful 
joy at their conduct (i. 19f,1.2f). In the same way 
the reminder that there is no reasonable hope of im- 
provement in the situation (111. 4), might be understood 
as an attempt to keep the readers from growing impatient. 
Taken, however, in connection with other statements, its 
purpose seems rather to be that of self-defence on the 
part of the writers. For example, in 1. 5f., practically 
at the beginning of the letter, they appeal in the same 
way to their readers’ knowledge of the manner in which 
they had come among them, reminding them that, like the 
Lord Himself, they had furnished the readers an.example 
of patience in enduring persecution. special attention 
is called (ii. 2) to the insulting treatment to which they 
had been subjected in Philippi, just before they came to 
Thessalonica, and to the feeling of anxiety with which 
they had to do their work even in Thessalonica (ἐν πολλῷ 
ἀγῶνι). So that, if subsequently the readers had to en- 
dure much at the hands of their fellow-citizens, they 
certainly ought not to forget that the Jews, with whom 
the chief responsibility for the unfortunate condition of 
affairs in Thessalonica rested, had first driven the mission- 
aries themselves from Thessalonica, and had persecuted 
them to Bercea (11. 14-16, cf. p. 204, line 22). This'same 
hostility on the part of the Jews to the preaching of 
the gospel among the Gentiles, which was prompted by 
their hatred, the missionaries were now encountering 
in Corinth, as is shown by the change to the present 
tense in il. 15f., in the light of which passage also 111. 7 
is to be understood. As a further indication of the 
apologetic purpose of the Epistle, we have the statements 
about the preaching and general conduct of the mission- 
aries in Thessalonica, which manifestly are made in the 
light of a different representation regarding that ministry 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 215 


They did not preach with empty words (i. 5), they did 
not set forth mere human doctrine, but they preached the 
word of God and the gospel of Christ (11. 2, 9, 13, π|. 2), 
and did it with the power, and confidence, and openness 
which that word inspires in its true preachers (1. 5, 11. 2). 
It is true that their preaching made certain demands of 
the shearers (ii. 3, ἡ παράκλησις ἡμῶν, cf. ii. 11), but they 
were not those of the deceiver who flatters his hearers in 
order that he may make himself personally acceptable to 
them. They were not actuated by ambition, nor by any 
other unworthy motive which might have led them to 
employ improper means; above everything else, they had 
not been covetous (11. 3-6). With the utmost effort they 
had supported themselves by toiling with their own hands 
(u. 9), and their entire conduct had shown their complete 
devotion to the work with which they had been intrusted 
by God, and proved their unselfish, even tender love for 
those who heard their preaching (11. 7-12). God as well 
as the Church is witness to their blameless behaviour 
(1. 10, 5, ef. 1. 4). 

Now the Thessalonian Christians to whom Paul makes 
this vigorous defence of himself and of his helpers, could 
not have been the accusers in the case. The feeling which 
the authors have concerning them is uniformly that of 
sratitude (1. 2); and one of the items of good news which 
Timothy had brought back a little while before, was the 
information that the Thessalonians held those who had 
laboured among them always in kindly remembrance, and 
were just as anxious to see Paul and Silvanus as the latter 
were to see them (111. 6). On the other hand, there is not 
the shghtest indication that these persons who were slan- 
dering Paul and opposing his gospel were Christians from 
abroad like those who had appeared in Galatia shortly 
before. The accusations, therefore, must have been made 
by the non-Christian neighbours of the Thessalonian 
Christians. The husbands of the women converts be: 


218 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


longing to the upper classes, who remained heathen (Acts 
xvi. 4), and the relatives and former friends of the new 
converts generally, may have represented to them that 
they had been misled into a foolish superstition by self- 
seeking and covetous adventurers, and in consequence 
were compelled to encounter the ill-will of their neighbours 
with all the unpleasant things that this involved, while 
the men who had got them into this trouble had dis- 
appeared at the right time to avoid all such consequences. 
It is easy to see how the flight of the missionaries from 
Thessalonica, the placing of Jason and other Christians 
under bail (Acts xvii. 9), the sending of money from 
Philippi to Thessalonica (Phil. iv. 16), and the hostility 
to the Christians on the part of their fellow-citizens 
(1 Thess. ii. 14), might all be used to give colour to such 
a representation of matters. That this was actually the 
case is directly indicated in ji. 8; for the anxiety which 
led to the sending of Timothy was not caused so much 
by the fear that the faith of the Church might be shaken 
by persecution, as that individuals under the stress of 
persecution might be coaxed away, t.e. led to speak 
disparagingly of their own conversion (n. 2). This, of 
course, must result in the shaking of their faith; for, if 
the organisers of the Church were deceivers, then the 
faith of the Thessalonians was vain. The tempter, who 
was threatening to destroy the apostle’s entire work in 
Thessalonica (111, 5), assumed not only the form of a 
roaring lion (1 Pet. v. 8), but also that of a fawning dog 
(Phil. iii. 2) and a hissing serpent (1 Cor. xi. 3). So 
also 11, 6 shows that until Timothy’s return Paul and 
Silvanus were very anxious for fear lest the Church had 
lost confidence in its founders, and lest its love for them 
had grown cold. Perhaps it may seem strange that, after 
having been thus reassured by Timothy on these and other 
points,—indeed, after having had his feeling changed to 
one of joy,—Paul should now review the entire previous 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 2ic 


history of his relations to the Church so earnestly, 
in such detail, and withal in a manner so apologetic. 
But, in the first place, we know from experience that 
when one has been weighed down for months by some 
great care, how difficult it is to speak of it, particularly 
if it be a delicate matter; but once let the burden of 
anxiety be relieved, and there comes a very strong desire, 
to give vent to one’s pent-up feelings, and the recollections 
of the agony through which one has passed are apt to be 
mingled with expressions of joyful gratitude. In the 
second place, it was not until Timothy’s return that Paul 
knew how much pressure was being brought to bear upon 
the Thessalonian Christians, and how seriously he was 
being slandered by their neighbours, so that up to this 
time he had not been in a position to set the facts in a 
clear light with definite reference to such slanders., In 
the third place, the grateful joy and the profound satis- 
faction for the present condition of the Church, so strongly 
expressed in i. 6f. (1. 2, 1. 19}, do not imply that 
there was nothing more to be desired. ‘The desire to 
return to Thessalonica, which from the first had been 
prompted by a feeling of solicitude for the Church, was 
just as strong as ever (ii. 10, 11, ef. ii. 6). There were 
still defects in their faith which Paul felt could not be 
remedied except by his personal presence (iii. 10). In 
the second division of the letter there are references to 
moral deficiencies which from the coldly scholastic point 
of view may seem inconsistent with the expressions of 
exuberant joy which we find in the first division (i. 2, 
i, 19f., 1. 6, 9). But even in this first division the 
steadfastness of the Church, which is the occasion of the 
apostle’s rejoicing, seems to be in need of fuller demon- 
stration in the future (iii. 8), and, as indicated by the 
elliptical καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς eis ὑμᾶς (111. 12, cf. iii. 6), the 
desire expressed that the Lord may make the Christians 
in ‘Thessalonica abound yet more in love toward one 


220 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


another and toward all men, has some reference to the 
relation between the Church and its founders. The 
Church had proved itself much more steadfast than Paul 
had dared to hope while he was waiting for news, though 
the whispering of their neighbours had not left. them 
entirely unaffected ; Timothy had discovered more than 
one shadow. It was not yet possible for Paul to say 
definitely when he could return to Thessalonica, as the 
Church and as he himself desired (iii. 6, 10} In: the 
meantime, how much could happen in 'Thessalonica! In 
fact, was it not possible that this continued absence of 
the person who had been chiefly instrumental in organ- 
ising the Church might be the very thing calculated to 
arouse further suspicions? In‘ view of all this, it is 
entirely comprehensible that alone with the exalted 
expressions of joy in 1. 2-1. 13 there should appear 
signs not only of the anxiety of the past months just 
relieved, but also of solicitation for the future welfare of 
the Church. The perfectly spontaneous expression of this 
mingled feeling of joy and of anxiety was one of the best 
means for strengthening any good tendencies in the 
Church and for averting future danger. Certain specific 
defects in religious thought and moral conduct about 
which he had been informed by Timothy, Paul attempts 
to remedy by the suggestions of chaps. iv., v.. While on 
the whole their conduct is recognised as altogether praise- 
worthy (iv. 1,9 ἢ, v. 11), there are a number of points 
in which he urges progress, referring the readers  re- 
peatedly to the instructions he had given them at the 
very first (iv. 1, 2, 6, 11). Warning against unchastity, 
which was so common among their heathen neighbours 
(iv. 3-5), is followed immediately by a similar warning 
against covetousness and dishonesty in business, to which 
persons living in a great commercial centre) were parti- 
cularly apt to be tempted (iv. 6) The commendation 
of their generous brotherly love prepares the way for an 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 221 


exhortation to improve their condition in money matters, 
by living a quiet, thrifty life, which will not only enable 
them to give more liberally (Eph. iv. 28), but which 
will also make them more independent of their non- 
Christian neighbours (iv. 9-12). 

Now, inasmuch as the idleness against which these 
exhortations are directed is a manifestation of a general 
state of unrest (iv. 11, cf. 2 Thess. iii. 11 f.), and inasmuch 
as this warning is followed immediately by eschatological 
teachings (iv. 13-v. 11), we assume that under the influ- 
ence of the idea that the end of the world was at hand 
many were neglecting: their daily duties (n. 3), Another 
evidence of the expectancy with which the return of Jesus 
was awaited, is seen in the peculiar way in which the 
Church mourned for its departed members. This was due 
to the opinion that those who had died before the par- 
ousia would not immediately share the glory of the king- 
dom as would those who lived to witness the Lord’s 
return, Although, the apostle argues, they should have 
been saved from this error by their faith im the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus from the dead, because it was not possible 
that death should separate the Christian from Christ (iv. 
14), all anxiety concerning the participation in the par- 
ousia of those who have died in the faith he sets at rest 
by a word of the Lord, 2.e. a specific teaching consciously 
based upon one of Jesus’ prophetic utterances (iv. 15, n. 4). 
In this definite form such teaching could not have been a 
part of the missionary preaching. While on this point 
Paul is inclined to enlarge upon what he had said before, 
another question which was occupying attention in Thes- 
salonica, namely, as to when the end should come, and the 
length of time that must elapse before that event, he 
holds to be superfluous (v. 1, cf, Acts i. 6f.) and without 
practical value. For, he argues, it is one of the simplest 
elements of the Christian preaching, that for those ab- 
sorbed in a worldly life the coming of the day of the 


222 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Lord will be unexpected and sudden ; while, on the other 
hand, the Christian, who lives in constant expectation of 
the parousia, the time of which it was impossible to 
determine by natural reckoning, will be always ready, 
living always the kind of a life that is in keeping with 
this future day of the Lord (v. 2-10). With the exhorta- 
tion to mutual helpfulness in regard to this matter of the 
parousia (v. 11), we have the transition to exhortations 
relating to the general life of the Church, for which its 
officers are primarily responsible (v. 12 f.). There seems 
to have been some insubordination, especially on the part 
of those inclined to be idle (v. 14, τοὺς ἀτάκτους, cf. iv. 8). 
That there was not complete harmony among all the 
members, seems to be implied by Paul’s injunction that 
all the brethren salute one another, and with a fraternal 
kiss, and by his solemn command in the name of the 
Lord that the letter be read to all the brethren (v. 26, 27). 


1. (P. 215.) It is wrong to assume (as does Klöpper, for example, in Der 
Zweite Thess.-brief 14,15) that the θλίψεις spoken of in 1 'Thess, belong simply 
to the past, and, specifically, to the time of the founding of the Church, and 
that a new outbreak of the once ended persecution constitutes the background 
of 2 Thess. The emphasis upon the sufferings endured at the first acceptance 
of the gospel (i. 6, ii. 13 f.) was a necessary consequence of the fact that just 
these beginnings of the Church demanded an apologetic interpretation. That 
the oppressed condition of the Church still continued after the departure of 
the missionaries and at the time Timothy was sent, appears from the con- 
nection of ii. 17f. with what precedes and from iii. ὃ. An improvement in 
this condition would hardly have been passed over in silence among the good 
tidings which Timothy brought (iii. 6), nor would the receipt of news of 
renewed persecution have been similarly ignored in 2 'Thess, ‘The way in 
which the ὑπομονή of the Church is recalled, 1 Thess. i. 3, the occurrence of 
the present ἐνεργεῖται, ii, 13, among the aorists both before and after, the ταύταις 
in iii, 3, the summing up of all the trials of the Church hitherto in the 
present als ἀνέχεσθε and πάσχετε, 2 Thess. i. 4f.,—all this shows, rather, that 
the outward circumstances of the Church from its organisation to the sending 
of the second Epistle were essentially unchanged. From the altered tone in 
which they are spoken of in 2 Thess, i, 3-12, we can only, perhaps, infer that 
they were growing worse from day to day. 

2. (Ὁ. 218.) If the reading μηδένα σαίνεσθαι is beyond question in iii, 3, 
there is also no occasion to abandon the oldest meaning of the word σαίνειν, in 
current use from Homer’s time down to the empire, namely, “to wag the tail 
(of dogs),” with accusative of the person. 'The fawning upon one, thus indi- 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 223 


eated, is often in contrast with barking and biting. For this usage, as well 
as for the transference of it to human beings as subjects, cf. especially Polyb. 
xvi. 24.6; Artemid. Onevroer. ii. 11; Hercher, p. 99. 12-20. It also means 
“to move,” “to cause to yield,” but not “to frighten” or “startle,” but 
rather “to entice to sin” (Leont. Neapol. Vita Sym. Sali, Migne, 93, col. 
1724). The better Greek commentators (Chrys., Montfaucon, xi. 445; Sever, 
Gabal. in Cramer, Cat. vi. 353 ; Theodorus, ed. Swete, ii. 17) all felt the neces- 
sity of explaining the word, which seemed strange to them here, but they 
missed the simple solution because they did not understand the historical 
situation indicated in chap. ii. What is meant is illustrated to some degree 
by passages like Acta Thecle, x; Mart. Polye. ix; Passio Perpet. v; Acta 
Carpi, 43, except that in these instances we are dealing with more or less 
genuine expressions of natural sympathy, whereas σαίνειν denotes insidious 
and crafty wheedling. Artemidorus, loc. cit., explains: ἀλλότριοι δὲ κύνες 
σαίνοντες μὲν δόλους Kal ἐνέδρας ὑπὸ πονηρῶν ἀνδρῶν ἢ γυναικῶν σημαίνουσιν. 

3, (P. 221.) Hofmann, i. 230f., rightly warns against exaggerations of 
this matter of indolence. Spitta, Zwr Gesch. des Urchr. i. 131 ἔς, exaggerating 
this in turn, rejects the explanation altogether, and infers from the connection 
of iv. 11 f. with what precedes, that “fraternal fellowship, where those who 
had property gladly shared of their means with those who had none, became 
to not a few a temptation to an indolent, unoccupied life.” Such a remark, 
however, could not have been connected with the last preceding admonition 
by καί, but would have been introduced in sharp antithesis to it: “ Abound 
still more in active brotherly love, but not so as to foster thereby the lazy 
man’s aversion to labour”; or, “on the other hand, everyone who can work 
must do his part, so as not to become a burden on the generosity of the 
brethren.” Certainly we must not conceive a fanatically excited expectation 
of the approaching end of the world as the prevailing temper of the whole 
local Church. The admonitions, iv. 3-7, v. 4-10, point to the existence of a 
very different attitude toward the present world. Paul even has to warn 
them against despising prophesyings and suppressing the prophetic spirit 
which stirs within the Church (v. 19f.). But in immediate proximity there 
is also the caution not to accept such prophetic utterances without examina- 
tion (v. 21). 

4. (P. 221.) 1 Thess. iv. 15, ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου, is to be understood, as regards 
the significance of λέγειν or λαλεῖν ἔν τινι, in accordance with 1 Cor. ii. 7, xiv. 
6; Matt. xiii. 34; and for content, in accordance with 1 Cor. vii. 10, 12, 25, 
ix. 14, xi. 23. ‘The teaching thus introduced need not, therefore, be a verbal 
citation. If ὅτε ἴηι iv. 15 isa “ because,” as it probably is, the prophecy ascribed 
to the Lord does not come till iv. 16. And if this saying goes beyond the 
words of Jesus handed down to us in the Gospels, we recall that in other 
particulars also, Paul’s information was not confined within those limits 
(Acts xx. 35; 1 Cor. xv. 5-7). We need not do more than mention the fact 
that Steck, JbfP Th. 1883, 5, 509-524, claimed to find the λόγος κυρίου in what 
the angel Uriel says to Ezra (4 Esdr. iv. 1, ν. 42) in answer to his question re- 
garding the fate of those that do not live to see the end : “Coron assimilabo 
iudieium meum ; sicut non novissimorum tarditas, sic nec priorum velocitas.” 
If we bring the eschatological statements of 1 Thess. together, we shall find 
their essential elements, and in part their phraseology, reappearing in the 


224 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Gospels and Acts. With v. 1 ef. Acts i. 7 (χρόνοι καὶ καιροί) ; Matt. xxiv. 36 5 
Mark xiii. 32. With v. 2 ef. ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτί, Matt. xxiv. 435) Luke 
xii. 39f.; and for the expression in v. 4 ef. John xii. 35 also. ‘With the 
description of false security before the parousia and the surprise of it, to 
most, v. 3, ef. Matt. xxiv. 37-51; Luke xvii. 26-36. With αἰφνίδιος... 
ἐκφύγωσιν, cf. Luke xxi. 34-36, ἐπιστῇ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς αἰφνίδιος. . . ἐκφυγεῖν ταῦτα 
πάντα. With ἡ ὠδίν cf, Matt. xxiv. 8, 19; Mark xiii, 8, 17. With. the 
figurative representation of readiness and its opposite, v. 6f., οἵ, Matt, xxiv. 
42, 49 (μετὰ τῶν μεθυόντων), xxv. 13; Mark xiii. 33-37; Luke xii. 35, 37, 45 
(μεθύσκεσθαι), xxi. 34, 36.. With iv. 14-17 cf, the return of the Lord from 
heaven, or in the clouds of heaven, and in the company of the angels, Matt; 
xvi. 27, xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64; Mark viii. 38, xiii. 26, xiv. 62; Luke ix. 26, 
xxi. 27; Acts i. 11; the gathering of the elect by angels with the loud sound 
of the trumpet, Matt. xxiv. 31; Mark xiii. 27 (ἐπισυνάξαι, cf. 1 Thess. iv. 17; 
2 Thess. ii. 1 [τῆς] ἡμῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς em’ αὐτόν). This is the presupposition 
also of 1 Thess. iv. 14 (ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ). Matt. xxiv. 31; Mark xiii. 27 refer 
to those members of the Church who at the time of the parousia are living 
scattered about upon earth (cf. Matt. xxiv. 22, 24; Mark xiii, 20, 22). That 
the departed members, also, would share in the glory of the kingdom as it 
should then be realised, is not, indeed, handed down to us in the immediate 
context of these eschatological discourses, but is elsewhere abundantly 
attested as Jesus’ promise. When He intimated that some of His disciples 
would witness His return (Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27), it was 
also implied that others of them would die before that time (cf. also Matt. 
xx. 23; Mark x. 39; John. xiii, 36, xxi. 18f.). But all are to share in, the 
kingdom which appears in glory (Matt, xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25;, Luke 
xxii, 30),—all who have not despised its invitation, or by their conduct sub- 
sequently become unworthy of it (Matt, xxii. 9-14; Luke xiv. 12-24 ; John 
xii, 26), and the O.T. righteous as well (Matt. viii. 11; Luke xiii, 28), That 
the dead must be awakened at the end is self-evident, and is shown in, many 
ways (Matt. xxii. 23-32; Mark xii. 18-27; Luke xx. 27-38 ;, John v, 25-29, 
vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, xi. 24), Only, if the resurrection of the righteous dead) is 
generally set at the end of time, without being put, like the gathering of the 
living on earth, in a closer connection with the parousia, it must still be con- 
ceived as simultaneous with the parousia, since it is the condition of partici- 
pation in the kingdom. Of the distinction in time between the resurrection 
of believers and the general resurrection, which is attested in apostolic litera- 
ture as a general Christian belief (1 Cor. xv. 28-28 ; Rev. xx. 4-6), and which 
appears also in 1 Thess. iv. 16, we have at least a hint in Luke xiv. 14. 


§ 15. THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE 
THESSALONIANS. 


This briefer letter, which, like the longer one that 
stands just before it in the Canon, is addressed to the 
Church in Thessalonica not in Paul’s name alone, but in 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 225 


the name also of Silvanus and Timothy (n. 1), shows 
striking resemblance to the other in its general plan. 
Here, as in the first letter, there is one principal section 
(chaps. i., ii.) concluding with a solemn benediction (ii. 
16f.). To this is attached a shorter section, which, as 
indicated by the introductory τὸ λοιπόν (iii. 1, cf. I. iv. 1), 
is made up of a series of more incidental remarks. [ἢ 
this case the letter does not begin with a joyful expression 
of thanks for the Church, but with the assurance that the 
writers feel under obligation at all times to render such 
thanks to God, even at times when, if they followed their 
inclinations, they might express other emotions (i. 3). 
How indicative this is of the situation of the writers when 
they wrote, and of their feelings at the time, is shown by 
the recurrence of the phrase at the end of the first section, 
ii, 13. For the attentive reader the impression made by 
this expression is still further strengthened by the explan- 
atory statement (1. 3, καθὼς ἄξιόν ἐστιν) that such constant 
thanksgiving on the part of the writers is only appropriate 
in view of the growth of the Church in faith and love, 
especially in view of the patience they had shown in all 
their persecutions and afflictions. About this patience 
the writers do not need to be informed by others; but, 
having themselves been the founders of the Church, they 
take occasion of their own accord, in their intercourse 
with other Churches, to point with joyful pride to this 
Church (1. 4). This patience, which the readers have 
shown in enduring such constant sufferings, ought to be 
a source of comfort also to themselves, inasmuch as it is 
at once the token and the warrant that as believers they 
shall have part in the glory of the kmedom of God at the 
righteous judgement to be established at the return of Christ, 
when their persecutors shall be given over to eternal de- 
struction (1. 5-10). That the readers may be made more 
and more ready for the decision of that great day, is the 
constant prayer of the founders of the Church (i. 11, 12). 
VOL. I. 15 


226 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


With these verses we have the transition to the teach- 
ings of chap. ii., for the development of which the letter 
seems mainly to have been written. The Church needed 
to be warned against the error of supposing that the day 
of the Lord had already come or appeared. The disturb- 
ance which existed in the Church was due partly to pro- 
phetie utterances by its own members, partly to oral and 
written statements in which this opinion had been falsely 
represented as that of Paul and his helpers (ii. 2, π. 2). 
Further deceptions in the same direction were to be feared 
(ii. 3). This error Paul meets not by proclaiming a new 
revelation, but by reminding his readers of the things 
they had heard him say when he first preached the gospel 
to them,—things which, therefore, they ought not only to 
know, but also to use as a means of defence against such 
a misleading claim as this (u. 5, 6, n. 3). This explains 
why, in what is said later about the forms which the 
unfolding of the closing events of the present age is to 
assume, as also about the parousia of Christ and the union 
of Christians with Him, the definite article is used (i. 1, 
ef. I. iv. 14-18), it being assumed that these terms were 
familiar to the readers. “ The Day of the Lord,” Paul argues, 
cannot have come already; for, according to what he had 
said earlier, it could not come before “ the falling away 7 
and the revelation of “the man of lawlessness,” whom 
Christ is to destroy at His second coming. Similarly, the 
readers must have known what the power was which for 
the present was restraining the “ man of lawlessness,” which 
power had to be set aside before the “ man of lawlessness ” 
could appear. Although Paul does not use these par- 
ticular words, this ‘man of lawlessness” is described, on 
the one hand, as an ἀντίθεος whose hostility to all that 15 
called God, and to the worship of God, will reach the point 
where he will declare himself to be God and take his 
place in the temple of God, 1.6. in the place where the 
true God is worshipped, demanding such worship for 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 227 


himself (ver. 4). He is described, on the other hand, as 
avriypıoros, That this man of lawlessness was to be a 
Satanic caricature of Christ, one infers from the occurrence 
three times of the word ἀποκαλυφθῆναι (vv. 3, 6, 8), from 
the description of his coming as a παρουσία (ver. 9), and 
from the contrast between his deceiving and destroying 
activity, which is to be promoted by Satanic wonders, and 
the saving power of the gospel (vv. 9-14). Very essential 
elements in this picture, which is so clearly outlined, are 
to be found in the prophecies of the Book of Daniel, in 
the descriptions in 1 Maccabees of the attack made by 
Antiochus Epiphanes upon the religion of the Jews and 
upon their temple, and in the prophetic discourses of Jesus 
(n. 4). But these sources could hardly have supplied 
those teachings about the end of the world which, as we 
have seen, Paul presented in essentially the same form as 
that in which they are written here, when he first preached 
the gospel in Thessalonica. Still less can we suppose that 
this Christian statement of the doctrine which goes back 
through the prophecy and life of Jesus to Daniel, first 
appeared essentially as we have it here in some Jewish 
apocalypse now lost, which Paul had read and believed 
(n. 5). Only single features of the same could have been 
derived from such a source. The combination of these 
various elements, some of which may be found here and 
there in earlier sources, into a new and vivid pieture, and 
the confidence with which the whole is presented, are quite 
incomprehensible—all the more so if it is Paul who is 
speaking—unless it be assumed that what was found in 
the sources mentioned had been further developed by 
Christian propheey, and that Paul, who entertained ἃ 
high opinion of such propheey, made use of it, and, after 
testing it, adopted such parts of it into his preaching as 
seemed to him to be of value (ef. 1 Thess. v. 21, n. 6). 
In order, therefore, to comprehend Paul’s words historie- 
ally, and so to understand them clearly, we need to know 


228 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


what was spoken in the Churches by Silvanus, the prophet 
who accompanied Paul on his journeys, and what gener- 
ally was said by Christian prophets in the Churches during 
the reign of the emperor Caligula (37-41) and Claudius 
(41-54). For to this source is to be traced back Paul’s 
firm conviction that the last potentate hostile to God was 
not only to desecrate the temple of God, but also to 
establish himself there as the one to be worshipped. 
Events which took place under Caligula, in whose reign 
the prophet Agabus from Judea predicted in the Church at 
Antioch the coming of a general famine, which occurred in 
the reign of Claudius (§ 11), led almost inevitably to the 
development of prophecy of this kind (n. 7). Moreover, 
Jesus had spoken repeatedly of ψευδόχριστοι, although, so 
far as we know, He kept these predictions distinet from 
His prophecies about the final affliction to result from the 
desecration of the holy place, so that nothing was more 
natural than that the Church should expect the appearance 
of a single false Christ, and that it should identify this 
false Christ with a world-ruler hostile to God, who was to 
desecrate the holy place, and bring the final affliction upon 
the Church (n. 8). So then, in a word, when Paul describes 
the ἀντίθεος as being also ἀντέχριστος, this identification is 
not to be regarded as simply Paul’s own opinion, but in the 
light of 1 John 11. 18, iv. 3 is to be taken as the common 
belief of the Church; for, in using the name ἀντέχριστος, 
which occurs here for the first time in the N.T., and only 
here, John means to describe an individual who was to 
appear in the future, not only hostile to the true Christ, 
but also His rival, whose appearance was to mark the be- 
ginning of the end of the world. But just as John, speak- 
ing with this general expectation of the Church in view, 
makes mention of a sperit of antichrist which is already 
at work in the world, which expresses itself through men, 
and of the numerous forerunners of the antichrist who 
may also be called antichrists (1 John iv. 3, ii, 18-22; 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 229 


2 John 7), so Paul speaks of a mystery of lawlessness 
at work prior to the revelation or appearance of the man 
of lawlessness (1. 7). In this way he justifies and explains 
his statement about the power which as yet restrains the 
revelation and appearance of the “man of lawlessness.” 
The expression κατέχειν would be inappropriate if the 
object restrained were simply the lawless person who was 
to appear in the future, and not rather the principle 
which this person was eventually to embody, as it already 
existed and was at work in the world in its impersonal 
form. While the idea in κατέχον and κατέχων is not with- 
out parallel in Daniel (n. 9), here it is so definitely repre- 
sented as something which was known, consequently as 
one of the elementary things taught in the early Christian 
Church, that we must assume that this, too, was a thought 
that had been developed by the Christian prophets of the 
time. While the man of lawlessness is deseribed through- 
out as a person, being only once referred back to the 
impersonal principle of which eventually he was to become 
the embodiment, the restraining power is designated first 
by a neuter form and then by a masculine, both; however, 
being used to describe an existing thing. The restrain- 
ing power is an impersonal something, which neverthe- 
less has complete embodiment in personal form. From 
the contrast with ἀνομία, which is used three times to 
characterise the “antichrist” (vv. 8, 7, 8), it is clear 
that this restraining power was the system of laws then 
in operation in the world, which for the present was 
repressing the powers of lawlessness that had already 
begun to work, and was keeping them from manifesting 
themselves with full force, thus preventing the revelation 
of the mystery, the appearance of lawlessness in personal 
form, 1.¢., the restraining power is the Roman empire. 
For its system of laws, which, in spite of the unrighteous- 
ness and unprineipled character of individual represent- 
atives, was magnificent, its strict administration of justice 


230 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


and its broad tolerance made the empire a τὸ κατέχον, and 
the emperor a ὁ κατέχων (n. 9). If this was really Paul’s 
view, it is a grave error to suppose that ὁ κατέχων is 
meant to designate a particular emperor, 1.6. the reigning 
emperor, and if the Epistle was written prior to 54, the 
emperor Claudius ; because the setting aside of the κατέχων 
is the necessary precondition of the revelation of the man 
of lawlessness only in so far as that involves at the same 
time the setting aside of the κατέχον. There is no evi- 
dence, however, that Paul nor anyone else prominent 
in the early Church associated the breaking up of the 
empire and of the entire system of Roman government 
with the death or deposition of any reiening emperor. 
And this belief is less probable in view of the fact 
that neither the personal character nor the govern- 
ment of any of the emperors from Tiberius to Domitian 
was such as to render them the particular champions 
of that which made for moral order in the State 
(n. 10). 

The description which follows of the deceiving and 
destructive influence of the man of lawlessness upon 
unbelievers (ii. 9-12), determines the manner in which 
the writers, passing now to the conclusion of the letter, 
mention again, as they had done in i. 3, the duty which 
they feel of giving thanks for the condition of the Church, 
for the grace shown it in the past, and for its hopeful 
future (ii. 13, 14). This is followed immediately by an 
exhortation to hold fast the teachings and advice which 
had been given them by oral instruction and by letter, 
and by a benediction (ii. 15-17). Here the Epistle might 
have been concluded, but some supplementary matter is 
added. On account of the opposition which the writers 
were encountering at the time from the unbelievers in the 
place where they were working, more prominence is given 
in this Epistle (but ef. I. v. 25) to the request for the 
prayers of the Church, and they are asked for with more 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 231 


feeling (iii. 1, 2). This request replaces for the time 
being some command which had been given them earlier, 
and which apparently he was on the point of mention- 
ing in ii. 15. This renders necessary the transition in 
iii. 4, 5, which would have been unnecessary directly after 
ii. 15-17. In spite of the opposite example and the ex- 
press advice of the missionaries, the disposition to unruly 
idleness (1. iv. 11, v. 14) had developed in the case of 
many members of the Church into a condition of chronic 
disorderliness (iii. 6-11). While these individuals are 
earnestly urged to resume their ordinary occupations 
(iii. 12), at the same time the Church is advised to mark 
those who disregard this exhortation of the letter and to 
break off intercourse with them until they reform, but 
not to give up the hope of helping them (111. 14, 15, ef. 
iii. 6). The special attention which Paul calls in this 
letter to the fact that he had added the concluding bene- 
diction by his own hand, and his affirmation in this 
connection that the benediction by his own hand was 
the sign by which the genuineness of every one of his 
letters might be determined (iii. 17 f.), are explained by 
the facts hinted at in 11. 2 (n. 2). 

Assuming that both the Epistles to the Thessalonians 
are genuine, there is no doubt (n. 11) that the shorter of 
the two was written last. In I. i. 2 ff. he gives thanks for 
the founding of the Church; in II. 1. 3 ff. for the entirely 
gratifying character of its growth. Since there is no 
indication in 2 Thess. of ‘any intention, nor even of 
any longing, on Paul’s part, to return to Thessalonica, 
the letter could not have been written in the interval 
between the flight of the missionaries from Thessalonica 
and the sending of Timothy back from Athens, nor 
immediately after the arrival of Timothy in Corinth. 
The latter date is impossible, because 1 Thess. was written 
at that time (I. iii. 6); the former, because a letter with 
the contents and in the spirit of 2 Thess. written at 


232 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


practically the same time as 1 Thess. would’ prove all the 
touching expressions in the first letter, 1. 11. 17-111. 5, of 
desire to visit the Church again, to be insincere. More- 
over, if 2 Thess. had been written first, Paul could hardly 
have failed to mention it in 1 Thess. as a strong proof .of 
the interest which he and his helpers had in the welfare 
of the Church. Furthermore, the fact that this strong 
desire to revisit the Thessalonian Church continued, I. 11]. 
6-11, excludes the possibility of 2 Thess., in which there 
is no evidence of any such desire, having been written at 
an interval of only a few weeks from 1 Thess. There 
was an interval of several months between them. | And 
during this time there seems to have been no direct 
intercourse, either in person or by. letter, between the 
Church and its founders. IL ii. 14 has: reference to 
I. iv. 11 f., and the more indefinite reference of II. ἢ. 15 
to instructions by letter is based on 1 Thess. (n. 12). Still 
less probable is it that in the interval Paul or one of his 
helpers had visited Thessalonica. In ii. 5, Π|.. 10, Paul 
speaks of the occasion when he had been with them, but 
without distinguishing different times when he had been 
there. Developments had also taken place in the Church 
which required time. Nothing is said of the slanders 
which he had found it necessary to refute in 1 Thess., nor 
is there any reference to the necessity of confirming the 
confidence of the Church in its founders. ‘There had been 
time for information, not from Paul, to be sure, but from 
the vicinity where he was, to reach Thessalonica by letter, 
and for the news of the injurious effect of these com- 
munications to come back to Paul (Il. 11. 2, above, p. 226 
and n. 2). Furthermore, from some source unknown to 
us, he had received more recent news concerning the 
condition of the Church (II. 11. 11). A number of 
Churches seem already to have been organised in and 
about Corinth (cf. 2 Cor. i. 1; Rom. xvi. 1), among which 
it was possible for Paul and for Silvanus and Timothy to 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 233 


spread the good reports about the Church in Thessalonica 
(IL. i. 4). What is suggested with regard to the opposi- 
tion which was rendering the work in Corinth difficult 
and hindering its progress (IL. iii. 2), is confirmed by Acts 
xvill. 6-17, in that this opposition is represented as 
emanating from persons who, having been oflered the 
choice between faith and unbelief, had refused to believe 
the gospel, and if the hints of 1 Thess. also be taken into 
account, from Jews (I. ii. 16, 111. 7, above, p. 216, line 31). 
But it is hardly likely that, after having been so de- 
cisively repulsed by the proconsul (Acts xvi. 14-17), 
the Jews could have interfered further with the growth 
of the Christian Church in Corinth. The exceptionally 
favoured situation of the Church, as regards its relation to 
the authorities, disclosed in the Corinthian letters, was 
a result of this favourable decision of Gallio; so that 
2 Thess. must be dated before Acts xviii. 12. There is no 
hint of any immediate intention on Paul’s part of chang- 
ing his field of labour. When he went to Ephesus at the 
beginning of summer 54, after 14 years of work in 
Corinth (Acts xviii. 18), Silvanus and Timothy did not go 
with him,—indeed, they do not seem to have been in 
Corinth at the time. But when 2 Thess. was written 
they were still with him (i. 1). Without, of course, 
attempting to speak with absolute certainty or with 
perfect accuracy, we shall be in agreement with all the 
statements and hints of the letters, and with the accounts 
in Acts, if we distribute the three oldest Epistles of Paul 
in the period of his residence in Corinth (Acts xviii. 11, 
approximately from Noy. 52 to May 54) as follows: Gal. 
somewhere about April 53, 1 Thess. in May or June, 
2 Thess. in August or September of the same year. 

1. (P. 225.) “I,” designating Paul, is distinguished three times in 1 Thess. 
from “ We,” ii. 18, iii. 5, v.27. In only one of these cases is the “I” further 
explained by the addition of the name, ii. 18.. The same distinction occurs 


in 2 Thess., once without, ii. 5, once with the name, iii. 17. While in I. ii. 18, 
II. iii. 17 the addition of the name is natural because of the character of the 


234 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


statements made, in the three other passages it is assumed that the ‚simple 
“I” is sufficient to designate Paul, who is named first in both the greetings, 
and whose importance is far greater than that of his two helpers. Spitta’s 
hypothesis (122 ff.) that Timothy is meant by “1” in II. ii. 5 is untenable, 
for the reason that this is the only case where “I,” which occurs five times 
altogether,—three times where the proper name is omitted because superfluous, 
—is made to refer to Timothy. The unnaturalness of the hypothesis is not 
lessened by assuming that the contents of ii. 5 may have given a clue as to 
which one of the three writers of the letter it was who thus suddenly spoke 
in his own name. In that case there was all the more reason why the 
youngest of them should have added ἐγὼ Τιμόθεος, and if, at the same time, 
he was acting as Paul’s amanuensis, ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν (Rom. xvi. 22), 
if he did not want the readers to think that Paul was speaking—or Silvanus, 
if what was said did not sound like the apostle—until they finally convinced 
themselves that the youngest of the three missionaries was so stupid as, 
without previous notice and as a matter of course, to introduce himself in 
such a way as to make him appear the principal one of the three! Spitta 
is not justified in supporting this hypothesis (125) by claiming that the 
readers would distinguish the hand of Timothy, who wrote the letter, from 
that of Paul in iii. 17 f., because, when this letter was written, Paul was 
already in the habit of dictating, adding only a farewell greeting in his own 
hand. Cf. above, p. 170. He does not say in iii. 17 that henceforth he will 
do this, but that it is his custom in every letter. So, if Paul dictated 
1 Thess,, and, as is quite likely, dictated it to Timothy, then, according to 
Spitta’s theory, the reader must have concluded from the handwriting that 
“I” in I. iii. 5, as distinguished from “I” in I. v. 27, referred to Timothy, 
not to Paul. Similarly, the personal acquaintances of Tertius (Rom. xvi. 22) 
among the Roman Christians must have concluded from his writing that he 
was the person designated by “I” in Rom. i. 8-xvi. 21, and the real author of 
Romans. According to Spitta, Timothy was not only the amanuensis to 
whom Paul dictated 2 Thess., but the real author of the letter, which he 
himself composed at the direction of Paul and Silvanus. This, he thinks, 
enables us to explain its many variations from Paul’s style and doctrine, 
which have caused the letter to be suspected, particularly the Jewish apo- 
calyptic views which Paul did not hold. Without correcting the composition 
of his follower, or making him responsible for it, or even so much as hinting 
that Timothy had a large share in its preparation (cf. 1 Pet. v. 12, § 38), the 
apostle, who was very much preoccupied at the time, subscribed his name to 
this letter, which varied so much from his own writings both in style and 
contents, just as if it had been his own (iii. 17)! That was certainly the 
best way in the world to perpetuate the fraud referred to in ii. 2. 

2. (Pp. 226, 231, 232.) If πνεῦμα, ii. 2, means the prophetic spirit utter- 
ing itself in human speech (I. v, 19f.; Acts xiii. 2, 4, xx. 23, xxi. 4,11; 
Rev. ii. 7), even then it is not alone διὰ λόγου that stands in contrast to διὰ 
πνεύματος, but the whole clause taken altogether, μήτε (D* μηδὲ) διὰ λόγου μήτε 
δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς de ἡμῶν, 80 that ὡς dv ἡμῶν is to be taken with λόγου as well as 
with ἐπιστολῆς, like ἡμῶν in ii. 15. Oral as well as written reports had come 
to Thessalonica, which made it appear that Paul and his helpers shared these 
views. To us, who are not acquainted with the facts in the case, the 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 235 


language of the passage leaves it somewhat doubtful (1) whether actually 
false appeals to alleged statements of the apostle and to a letter forged 
in his name are meant; or (2) whether oral and written reports had 
reached Thessalonica from the region where Paul was, which, because 
they came from this region and without any fraudulent intention on the 
part of those who gave them out, gave rise to the erroneous opinion that the 
view which they represented had the authority of the apostle, or (3) whether 
actual written and oral statements of Paul were so misinterpreted. In the 
last mentioned case these statements would naturally be sought in 1 Thess., 
but this letter does not lend itself to such misinterpretation. It contains no 
language such as that found in Jas. v. 3, 5, 8,9; 1 John ii. 18. Moreover, 
we should expect Paul to correct such misinterpretation (ef. 1 Cor. v. 9-11). 
Finally, on this view it is impossible to explain iii. 17 as due to what is said 
in ii. 2. The first of the three possible meanings mentioned explains best 
the connection between these two passages. But it is to be observed that 
there is no expression of anger at this insolent deceit. Furthermore, in this 
case we should expect to read not ὡς dv ἡμῶν, but ὡς ἡμετέρων or ὡς map’ 
ἡμῶν (Cod, P., ef. Hippol. in Dan. iv. 21, ed. Bonwetsch, 236. 15, ὡς ἐξ 
ἡμῶν), or, if the reference were to a letter, ὡς id’ ἡμῶν γραφείσης. Moreover, 
in this passage nothing is said about the origin of the oral and written state- 
ments in question, but all we have is a protest against the inference that 
they express the apostle’s views. This agrees only with the second meaning 
suggested. Since, however, Paul saw that all sorts of such deceptions might 
develop in the future (ii. 3, κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον), he took occasion to call 
attention to the fact that only letters coming directly from him and specifically 
subscribed by his own hand could be regarded as expressions of his opinion 
(iii. 17). The rendering of ἐνέστηκεν, “is immediately at hand,” or “is 
beginning” (so still Schmiedel HK, ad loc.), should be abandoned, because 
unsupported both by grammar and by usages As is well known, the present 
is called by the grammarians 6 ἐνεστὼς χρόνος, and in business transactions 
ἡ ἐνεστῶσα ἡμέρα was the regular name of “this day,” eg. Berl. dg. Urk. 
Nos. 394. 19; 415. 18, 30 ; 536.6; 883.3; 891 verso, line 15. 

3. (P. 226.) The ἔτι, ii. 5, which does not occur in iii. 10, indicates nothing 
as to the length of time that had elapsed since the Thessalonians had been 
reminded of the things in question, cf. Luke xxiv.6; Rom. v.8; Heb. vii. 10. 
It is only intended to emphasise the fact that these teachings were not an 
afterthought, of which the readers were informed by a subsequent letter from 
the apostle, or by Timothy at the time when he was sent back to Thessalonica, 
but a part of the missionary preaching, and so an original part of the Christian 
message. That the Thessalonians missed entirely the point of these teachings, 
or immediately forgot them, is unlikely. When, therefore, notwithstanding 
this message, many had fallen into the error opposed in ii. 2, the natural 
supposition is that it had been represented to them that the man of lawless- 
ness, who after the casting aside of all restraints was to set himself up as God, 
had already come, doubtless in the person of Caligula. But if the “anti- 
christ” made his appearance in Caligula (n. 7), then with Caligula’s death 
(Jan. 24, 41) began “the Day of the Lord,” which naturally was not thought of 
as a day of twelve or twenty-four hours’ length, but as the epoch during which 
constantly—almost hourly—the visible return of Christ was to be expected. 


236 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


If, now, Christian prophets declared Caligula to be the expected man of law- 
lessness; if Pauland his helpers saw in this figure of the recent past, whom 
all remembered, a foreshadowing of the antichrist, and pointed to it as'a 
proof that the μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας was already working ; and if, as was un- 
doubtedly the case, the missionaries in Thessalonica spoke of the present as 
the end of the age, as is everywhere done in the N.T. (1 Cor. x. 11; Jas. v. 
3, 5, 8,9; 1 John ii. 18; 1 Pet. i. 20; Heb. i. 1; Acts ii, 16 ff.),—nothing is 
more natural than the rise of such errors and delusions as Paul here opposes. 
But there was no event corresponding to the prophesied falling away (below, 
nn. 4, 9). If, moreover, the readers really knew from the earlier teaching 
who and what the κατέχων and the κατέχον were, then they must understand 
that the power which is keeping back the full manifestation of the man of 
lawlessness isnot yet set aside, but is still in active operation, so that the time 
characterised by the reign of this power (viv τὸ κατέχον, ver.6; ὁ κατέχων. ἄρτι, 
ver. 7) continues, and the time of the “antichrist” has not yet come. Finally, 
the detailed description of the activity of the lawless one, and, above all, the 
fact that Paul refers to the destruction of the same by the returning Christ, 
made it impossible to suppose that the antichrist was Caligula, or any other 
person who had lived and disappeared. There is no philological reason 
why νῦν, ii. 6, cannot be connected with κατέχον, ef. John iv. 18; νῦν ὃν 
ἔχεις, cf. 1 Cor. vii. 29; Xen. Cyrop. i. 4. 3, dei τοὺς παρόντας ; Hell. ii. 
1. 4, del ὁ ἀκούων, especially numerous in designations of time, ef. Kühner- 
Gerth, i. 617; Winer, 561. 4; but also in numerous other cases, where, for 
the sake of stronger emphasis, objects and other modifiers precede the par- 
ticiple and its article (Epitaph. Avercii, i. 19, Forsch. v. 71, ταῦθ᾽ ὁ νοῶν) or 
the conjunction which governs the sentence, cf. A. Buttmann, 333 (Eng. 
trans. 388). Even if we translate as if the reading were ra viv, “As for 
the present, ye know the power restraining,” the logical necessity of connect- 
ing νῦν with κατέχον still appears, (1) from the analogy of ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι 
in ii. 7; (2) from the contrast running through the entire context of the 
present (νῦν, ἤδη, ἄρτι), not to the past, when Paul was in Thessalonica, but 
to the future revelation of the man of lawlessness ; and, finally, (3) from the 
fact that the νῦν gives no clear sense when taken with οἴδατε, from which, 
moreover, it is unnaturally separated. 

4, (P. 227.) With ii. 1 (ἐπισυναγωγῆς) cf. Matt. xxiv. 31; Mark xiii. 27; 
1 Thess. iv. 14, 17, above, p. 223f. With ii. 2 ef. Matt. xxiv. 6; Mark xiii. 7 
(μὴ Opoeiode); Luke xxi. 9. With ii. 3a ef. Matt. xxiv. 4, 23, 26; Mark xiii. 
5, 21; Luke xxi. 8, xvii. 23. With ἡ ἀποστασία, which appears partly to 
precede the appearance of the “antichrist” (ver. 3), and partly to be the result 
of the same (vv. 9-11), ef. for the first aspect Dan. viii. 12, 23, xi. 30, 32; 
1 Mace. i. 15 (ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ διαθήκης ἁγίας) ; for the second, 1 Mace. i. 41-53, 
ii. 15 (οἱ karavayralovres τήν ἀποστασίαν). Also for the first aspect, Matt. 
xxiv. 10-12, and for the second, Matt. xxiv. 21-24; Mark xiii. 19-21. With 
6 ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ver. 3 (NB, cf. among other authorities also Just. Dial. 
xxxii; still τῆς ἁμαρτίας has strong support), and ὁ ἄνομος, ver. 8, cf. Dan. vil. 25 
(ἀλλοιῶσαι καιροὺς καὶ νόμον), Xi. 37f.; Matt. xxiv. 12; Didache, xvi. 4; Barn. 
xv. 5. With ver. 4a (6 dvtixe(wevos—oéBacopa) ef. Dan. vii. 7, 11, 20, 25, xi. 36 
(LXX ὑψωθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεόν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν, τῶν θεῶν ἔξαλλα λαλήσει) ; 
1 Mace. i. 24. No entire equivalent to ver. 4b is to be found in Dan. viii. 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 237 


11-13, ix. 27, xi. 31, ΧΙ]. 11; 1 Macc. i. 54-61, iv. 38, 43-45, vi. 7; 2 Mace. vi. 
1-7 ; Matt. xxiv. 15, still less Isa. xiv. 13f.; Ezek. xxviii. 2. In Mark xiii! 
14, the only thing that would seem to indicate that the evangelist thought of 
the “ desolating abomination” as aman who set up himself or his image in the 
holy place, is the grammatically abnormal reading ἑστηκότα (NBL), if indeed 
this reading be correct. The deification and self-deification of the monarch 
which reached a high point in Antiochus Iv., the θεὸς ἐπιφανής (6.0. Jos. Ant. 
xii. 5. δ), did not come to the climax which is indicated in 2 Thess. ii, 4 
until Caligula; cf. below, n. 7. With ver. 8 cf. Isa. xi. 4 (from which the 
expression is borrowed); Dan. vii. 11, 26, viii. 25, xi. 45. With ver, 9 οἵ, 
Dan. vill. 25; Matt. xxiv. 24; Mark xiii. 22. With ver. 11 cf. Isa. xix. 14; 
Jer. iv. 11 (especially if the apocryphal form of this verse which Hippol. 
de Antichr. 57 on Dan. iv. 49, quotes is ancient). In all these parallels it is 
to be remembered that Paul was not confined to the Sept. version of Daniel, 
much less to the translation of Daniel by Theodotian which was sometimes 
used in the Church instead of the LXX. Hence, e.y., he might well have trans- 
lated yes Dan. viii. 12 (ix. 24) by ἀποστασία, and Dyws (viii. 23) by ἀποστάται. 

5. (P. 227.) According to Spitta (139), Timothy, the alleged author of 
2 Thess., here gives out as his own opinion what he learned from his source, 
which was a Jewish apocalypse of the time of Caligula, of which apocalypses 
Spitta has discovered no less than three (137 f., ef. also his Offenb. des Joh. 
498). Such an apocalypse, he thinks, was among the “sacred writings,” the 
contents of which Timothy under the direction of Eunice “ piously absorbed” 
from his youth up (129, 139, cf. 2 Tim. i. 5, iii. 15). In this way he eame 
to have eschatological views which Paul did not share (above, n. 1), although 
later in his life Paul directs him to those (τὰ) ἱερὰ γράμματα which were 
γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, points out that this is the right source from which 
Timothy is to draw instruction both for himself and others (2 Tim. iii. 15 f.); 
and, on the other hand, warns him against ucholy and Jewish fables (1 Tim. 
i, 4,iv. 7; 2 Tim. iv. 4; cf. Tit. i. 14). 

6. (P. 227.) Paul never claimed to be a prophet, although he could boast 
of having received revelations (2 Cor. xii, 1-4; Gal. i. 12-16, ii. 2), and did 
declare that he had other charismata (1 Cor. xiv. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Rom. 
xv. 19). But from the very beginning of his ministry he had about him men 
who in their own circles were regarded as prophets (Acts xi. 27, xiii. 1, 2,4, xx. 
23, xxi. 9-11. Thus, both at the time when the letters to the Thessalonians 
were written and when the Church in Thessalonica was founded, he had with 
him the prophet Silas (above, p. 207, n. 1). That in their preaching there 
Paul and Silas emphasised strongly the kingship of Christ and hence the 
eschatological elements in the gospel, is attested by Acts xvii. 17. The fact 
that, so far as we know, none of the discourses of the Christian prophets was 
written down, does not prove that they had no influence upon the develop- 
ment of the beliefs of the Churches. How highly they were valued by Paul 
appears from 1 Cor. xii. 10, 28f., xiv. 1-39; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv. 11; Rom. 
xii, 6; 1 Thess. v. 20; 1 Tim. 1. 18, iv. 1, 14. 

7. (P. 228.) For the decrees of Caligula relating to the Jews, ef. Schiirer, 
1. 495-506(Eng. trans. 1. ii, 90-103) ; for the Jewish traditions, ef. Derenbourg, 
Hist. de la Palestine, 207 ; for its influence in Christian circles, cf. the writer’s 
essay, Z/KW, 1885, S. 511 f., also the writer’s Ev. des Petrus, 41f. The prin- 


238 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


cipal event is the deeree of Caligula of the winter of 39-40, in which he 
ordered that a colossal statue of himself be set up in the temple at Jeru- 
salem, which, notwithstanding long preparations, was never accomplished ; 
cf. Philo, Leg. ad Cui. xxx.; Jos. Ant. xviii. 8.2; Bell.ii.10.1. Still this is 
only the climax—to Jews and to Christians most horrible climax—of this 
emperor’s unlimited contempt for everything moral and religious, and his 
mad self-deitication (Suet. Calig. xxii, “ Hactenus quasi de principe, reliqua ut 
de monstro narranda sunt,” which occupies the narrative up to chap. lx. ; Dio 
Cassius, lix. 4, 26-28). Η. Grotius (Annot. in NT, ed. Windheim, ii. 715 ff., 
721 ff.) was the first definitely to connect this passage with Caius Caligula. 

8. (P. 228.) ψευδόχριστοι 18 used in two senses, For the wider meaning— 
any assumed authority over Israel—ef. John x. 8 with reference to the past, 
John v. 43 with reference to the future. For the stricter meaning—any 
deceptive counterpart of the returning Jesus Christ—cf. Matt, xxiv. 5, 28 f. ; 
Mark xiii. 6, 21 f.; cf. Luke xvii. 23. 

9. (Pp. 229, 230.) For the analogues of κατέχων and κατέχον in Dan. x.-xii., 
ef. Hofmann, i. 319-326, also his Schriftbeweis, i. 330-335, iii. 671. Both the 
words themselves and Paul’s manifest didactic purpose indicate clearly that 
the reference is not to those preservative forces which lie in the background of 
national life operating in the spirit world, but to something that is manifest, 
from the existence of which it is possible to discern that the ‘ antichrist,” 
and so “the day of our Lord,” has not yet come, Neither does Hofmann 
offer any adequate explanation of the interchange between κατέχων and 
κατέχον (NT, i. 326; Schriftbewers, iii. 672). It is evident that the view 
of the emperor and of the empire expressed in these words is in perfect 
agreement with Rom. xiii. 1-7, and that it had then or afterward the cor- 
roboration of Paul’s own personal experience, cf. Acts xiii. 7-12, xvi, 35-39, 
xviii. 12-17, xix. 31 (the asiarchs were the priestly representatives of the 
imperial idea), xxi. 32-40, xxii. 24-30, xxiii. 16-30, xxiv. 22-26, xxv. 4-12, 
16-27, xxvii. 3, xxviil. 16, 30f.; Phil. i.13. The general friendly judgment 
of the Roman State by Clemens Romanus, Melito, Irenzeus, and others, does 
not signify a falling away from Paulinism. This interpretation of 2 Thess. 
ii. 6f. is the oldest that we have. Wedo not find it definitely stated by 
Irenzeus,—indeed, not until Hippol. in Dan. iv. 22; Tert. Resurr.xxiv. But the 
general eschatological views of these writers, which agree in their main 
features and many of their details, are evidence enough that the reference of 
κατέχον to the Roman empire was from the first common to them. The 
empire must be rent in pieces before the “antichrist” can come (Iren. 
v. 26. 1, 30.2; Hippol. Antichr. 25, 27, 43, in Dan. iv. 5-6, 14; Tert. 
Resurr. xxiv. Tertullian (loc. cit.) translates 2 Thess. ii. 6 f. “nune quid teneat ” 
(al. “detineat”), and “qui nune tenet”, which makes it appear as if the 
reference to the Romans in Ireneus by the phrases “qui nune tenent” 
(Iren. v. 30. 3) and “qui nune regnant” were suggested by 2 Thess. ii. 6£., 
if indeed in both passages the original reading was not οἱ νῦν κρατοῦντες, as 
in Hippol. de Antichr. 28, cf. 43, 50, in Dan. iv. 5, 9, 17 (ed. Bonwetsch, 
pp. 196. 2, 206. 16, 228. 20f.). This does not exclude the possibility of a 
certain connection between the empire of the antichrist and the Roman 
empire. Irenzus (v. 30. 3) declares it possible that the number 666 may 
mean Aareivos, and the empire of the antichrist may bear this name, although 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 239 


he prefers the interpretation which makes it mean Teirav, an old discarded 
name which was borne by none of the Roman emperors. Hippolytus regards 
the world-empire which had existed since the time of Augustus as a Satanic 
imitation of the world-rule of Christ (in Dan. iv. 9), and thinks that the 
antichrist will return to the form of government existing under Augustus 
(Antichr. 49). Accordingly, in clear distinction from Irenzeus, Hippolytus 
prefers to all others that interpretation of the number 666 which makes it 
mean Aareivos (Antichr. 50). On the other hand, Hippolytus agrees with his 
master Iren&us in the opinion, which is certainly much older than either of 
these writers, that the antichrist is to be a Jewish pseudo-Messiah of the 
tribe of Dan (Iren. v. 30. 2, cf. v. 25.4; Hippol. Antichr. 6, 14-15, 54-58, 
in Dan. iv. 49 ; Theophil. Lat. in Evv. i. 29, 111.7 ; Forsch. ii. 58, 71; ZfKW, 
1885, S. 570). It is probable that even Marcion interpreted 2 Thess. ii. as 
referring to a pseudo-Messiah of the God of the Jews (Tert. ¢. Marc. v. 16; 
GK, i. 589). Ina peculiar form this idea is to be found in Ephrem (Comm. 
in Epist. Pauli, 193 f.). The man of sin is a circumcised Jew of the tribe of 
Judah, who sends his apostles or false prophets before him who bring about a 
“falling away ” (2 Thess. ii. 3), but when the man of sin himself comes he 
does not connect himself with a sect, but appears in the holy Church, declar- 
ing himself to be God. According to this interpretation, the power which 
at the time of Paul was restraining his appearance was the continuance of 
the Jewish temple and worship, and the fact that the conversion of the Gen- 
tiles was not yet complete. The theory of a Jewish anti-Messiah, which, 
mutatis mutandis, has been advocated even in modern times by many (6.0. 
Schneckenburger, published by Böhmer, JbDTh. 1859, S. 405 ff. ; B. Weiss, 
ThStKr. 1869, S. 22 ff. ; Spitta, Z. Gesch. d. Urchr. i. 140 ff.), is as difficult to 
maintain as the theory that the man of lawlessness was a Roman emperor. 
The latter theory does not agree with the opinion mentioned above held by 
Paul and the ancient Church concerning ‘the emperor and the empire. 
Neither can it be maintained on the ground that the insane acts of the 
emperor Caligula were really due to the conception which Paul and his 
contemporaries had of the man of lawlessness. Still less does it follow 
from the fact that in the conception of the man of lawlessness there are 
certain parallelisms with Christ which were afterwards stereotyped in the 
expression ἀντίχριστος (not ψευδόχριστορ), that Paul thought of him as a 
ψευδόχριστος of Jewish origin. Against this view (1) argues the fact that 
the lawless one, following in the footsteps of Antiochus and Caligula, is to 
desecrate the temple of God by idolatrous deification of himself. Even 
assuming that “temple” is here used in a figurative sense, there is nothing 
which connects this picture with the Christ-hostile Judaism of the apostolic 
and post-apostolic periods. In general, it may be said that the antichrist as 
here described by Paul, and the unbelieving Judaism as elsewhere depicted 
by him, have no points in common. (2) According to Paul’s view, the opposi- 
tion of the majority of his nation to Christ had already reached its climax. 
The wrath of God, which was to visit upon them outward punishment, had 
already attained its object and would soon abate (1 Thess. ii. 165 see below, 
§ 16, π. 4). That inward judgment to which they are now exposed, namely, 
the hardening of heart against the gospel, makes the Jewish nation during 
the whole period of the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles a fossil 


240 INTRODUCTION ΤΟ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


capable of practically no change. "This state of things is to be ended not by 
the revival and increase of hostility to Christ, but by the conversion, of 
Israel to Christ. This is not a passing fancy of Paul’s in some moment 
when his feelings were conciliatory, but is stated by him as a truth’ of 
revelation in line with the prophecies of Jesus and based upon the O,T, as 
he understood it (Rom. xi, 25-32). (3) The term avrixpıoros, which is not 
used by Paul, although in content its meaning corresponds to Paul’s deserip- 
tion, does not by any means justify the conception of a Jewish. pseudo- 
Messiah ; for, in the thought of the apostle, Christ is not simply a Jewish 
Messiah, but also the second Adam, who unites the whole world under His 
headship as its Lord and King because He is the incarnation of that human 
righteousness which comes from God. For that reason the man who repre- 
sents the incarnation of all human lawlessness and of all human opposition 
to God, and who with Satanic power subjects mankind under his sway, is ἃ 
caricature of Christ, an “antichrist,” whatever his origin may be. ; The 
ἀνομία, from which his name is derived, exists naturally wherever sin exists 
(1 John iii. 4), and so even among the Jews (Rom. ii. 23-27; Acts xxiii. 3); 
Matt. xxiii. 28). But the characteristic of Jewish hostility to God and 
Christ is neither lawlessness, nor idolatry, nor self-deification, but false zeal 
for God and His law (Rom. ix. 31-x. 3 ; Gal. 1. 18 f.; Phil. 1.6). On the 
other hand, ἀνομία is such a characteristic feature of heathen life and of sin 
in the heathen world (Rom. ii. 12; 1 Cor. ix. 21; 2 Cor. vi. 14), that it is 
necessary to think of the lawless one as springing out of the heathen world. 
When in ii. 4 he is declared to be the foe of all religion, it does not follow 
that he might not assume the forms of existing religions. On the contrary, 
Caligula’s attempt at self-deification connected itself with the emperor 
cult, that of Antiochus with the worship of Zeus, and both these forerunners 
of the antichrist undertook by force to identify these heathen cults) with 
that of the Jews, thereby destroying the latter. But even Christianity is 
not free from lawlessness. Just as the confessors of Christ are not free from 
ἀνομία (1 Cor. vi. 7-20; 2 Cor. xii. 20-xiii.2; Matt. vil. 23, xiii. 38-42), so 
there are points of connection between the lawless one and the Chureh. On 
the basis of the prophecies of Jesus (Matt. xxiv. 10-12, 24; cf. Luke xviii, 8), 
and following the prophecies in Dan. and the history of Antiochus (above, 
p. 236, n. 4), the Christian prophets announced a falling away within the 
Church as one of the characteristics of the last days (1 Tim. iv. 1-4; 2 Tim. 
iii. 1-5; Acts xx. 29-31; 2 Pet. ii. 1, iii. 4; Didache, xvi. 4), and both Paul 
and John directed attention to the signs of the same in their own time 
(1 Tim. i. 19, vi. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 16-18, iti, 5-9; 1 Cor. xi. 19; 1 John ii. 
18-23, iv. 1-3). Of this character must be the falling away which in 2 'Thess. 
ii. 3 is referred to as something specifically known. It could not be some 
sort of a political revolution, a revolt against the Roman authority established 
by God, or a falling away on the part of the Jews from the law of their 
fathers, since for Paul and the Christians of that age and of the ages follow- 
ing, the holy people, who at the end of the days will have to endure in 
increased measure what Israel ‘suffered at the time of Antiochus, are not the 
Jewish people who owed their obligations to Moses, but the Church of Jesus. 
To what extent this falling away conditions the appearance of the antichrist 
it is not possible to determine from Paul’s, brief reference to what had 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 241 


been said about it in his earlier preaching. In view of the ἐκ μέρους 
προφητεύομεν in 1 Cor. xiii. 9, we have no right to assume that the elements 
and fragments of Christian prophecy that here come to view formed in Paul’s 
mind a finished and completed picture. 

10. (P. 230.) It is a noteworthy fact that, with the exception of Luke 
ii. 1, iii, 1, Acts xi. 28, where mention of the emperor could not be avoided, 
no name of an emperor is to be found in the N.T. Very little thought was 
devoted to Tiberias or Caligula, Claudius or Nero, reference being made 
simply to the emperor who was reigning at the time (Matt. xxii. 17-21; Mark 
xii. 14-17; Luke xx. 22-25, xxiii. 2; John xix. 12, 15; Acts xvii. 7, xxv. 
8-12, xxvi. 34, xxvii. 24, xxviii. 19; Phil. iv. 22; 1 Pet. ii. 13,17). So are 
mentioned the government of the empire and its agents (Rom. xiii. 1-75 
1 Pet. ii. 13, 17) or different classes of kings (Matt. x. 18, xvii. 25; Luke xxii, 
25; Acts iv. 26, ix. 15; 1 Tim. ii. 2, vi. 15; Rev. i. 5, vi. 15). 

11. (P. 231.) Grotius (Ann. in NT, ed. Windheim, ii. 715 ff.), Ewald 
(Sendschreiben des Pl. 17 f.), Laurent (ΝῊ. Studien, 49 ff.), on the presupposi- 
tion that both Epistles are genuine, declare 2 Thess. to be the older of the two. 
Baur reaches the same conclusion, on the assumption that both are spurious 
(Paulus, ii. 368f.). Grotius thinks that 2 Thess. was written as early as 38 
A.D., before Paul visited Thessalonica, to certain Jewish Christians there. 
Ewald and Laurent make Bercea the place of composition (Acts xvii. 10), and 
think that it was written during the weeks immediately following the found- 
ing of the Church. Here again reference must be made to II. i. 4 in addition 
to what has been said above, p. 231. It is not a question here as in I. i. 8f. 
of personal contact of Paul and his helpers with Christians from outside 
of Europe (above, p. 205 f.), but of reports spread by the missionaries in a 
number of Churches where they had sojourned since their flight from Thessa- 
lonica, or where they were sojourning at the time when the letter was written. 
Hence they must have gone at least as far as Bercea and Athens and Corinth. 
The language used would still seem unnatural if it referred simply to reports 
made in the preaching that gathered congregations in Bercea, Athens, and 
Corinth. The reference is to conditions in Churches already existing. 
During the eighteen months of continuous “ residence” in Corinth (Acts xviii. 
11), Paul may have made an occasional visit to other Churches, but only to 
such as that in the port town of Cenchrea (Rom. xvi. 1). This is not the case, 
however, with Silvanus, and Timothy, in whose name II, i. 4 is also written. 
The latter, upon his return from his mission in Thessalonica, certainly stopped 
in Bercea and probably also in Athens, and so had opportunity to do what in 
II. i, 4 is declared to have been done by all three missionaries. From II. iii. 
17 it is not to be inferred that the Church had never before received a letter 
signed by Paul’s own hand. Notwithstanding the fact that the Corinthians 
had previously received a letter from him (1 Cor. v. 9), he calls attention to 
the concluding greeting in his own hand (xvi. 21); while the fact that in 
2 Thess. iii. 17 he calls attention even more expressly to the form of his own 
handwriting, stating in addition that it is the same in every letter, is fully 
explained by the circumstance that henceforth the ending of the letter in his 
own hand is to be regarded by the Church as a proof of genuineness. A 
point in the tradition which tends to confirm the priority of 1 Thess. is the 
fact that the two letters were not arranged in the Canon according to the 

VOL. I. 16 


242 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


prineiple which came into use eomparatively late and which is still in vogue, 
namely, the determining of the order of the writings in accordance with their 
respective lengths. They had their present order as early as the Canon of 
Marcion, who knew nothing of the later principle of arrangement, from which 
we may assume that they were always circulated in their present order. 

12. (P. 232.) If IL iii. 14 stated simply the possibility that someone might 
disregard the exhortation of iii. 6-13, the language would be different, reading 
somewhat as follows : ἐὰν δέ τις οὐχ ὑπακούσῃ τούτοις τοῖς λόγοις ἡμῶν ; While, 
apart from its character as a conditional sentence, it would be compared not 
with I. v. 27, but with I. iv. 18. Paul refers to a definite passage in an earlier 
letter (cf. 1 Cor. v. 9), I. iv. 11 f., and on the basis of reports received (IT. ii. 
11), declares that the exhortation of the letter is now actually being disre- 
garded. The language in II. ii. 15 is less definite: “oral or written,” Hence 
it may refer to something in the letter in which it occurs. Since, however, 
there are to be found in this letter no new instructions and directions supple- 
menting the missionary preaching, such as I. iv. 13-18 certainly is, and pos- 
sibly also such detached sentences as I. iv. 1-8, 11f.; v. 12-22 (cf. per contra 
I. iv. 9, v. 1), Il. ii. 15 also is to be taken as a reference to 1 Thess. In 
particular does 11. ii. 1, ὑπὲρ τῆς . . . ἡμῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, sound like 
a recollection of I. iv. 14, 17. 


$ 16. THE GENUINENESS OF THE FIRST THREE 
EPISTLES. 


These three Epistles, which, if written by Paul at 
all, were all composed within a single year at intervals 
of from one to three months (above, p. 233), are all 
entitled to the benefit of the eritical prineiples laid down 
above (pp. 156-162). The difficulties which are always in 
the way of getting forged letters of apostles into circulation 
in Christian Churches (p. 159, paragr. 5) are enormously 
increased in the case of 2 Thess., the genuineness 
of which has been far more seriously questioned than 
that of the other two letters, because of what is said 
in the Epistle itself about possible or actual forgeries 
(ii. 2, ii. 17). Remarks of this kind would at once call 
for criticism on the part of the original readers, and it is 
difficult to see how within thirty or forty years after Paul’s 
death the Thessalonian Church could have been made to 
believe that this Epistle had been received from Paul 
during his lifetime, unless it contained at least a fragment 
that looked like an original document, and unless it were 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 243 


signed in a peculiar hand in characters distinetly different 
from those appearing in the body of the letter. In view 
of what is said in 2 Thess. 11. 2, 111. 17, it is quite out of 
the question, not only for us modern readers, but all the 
more for those readers from whom the letter passed into 
circulation and for whom it was intended originally, to 
suppose that 2 Thess. is a more or less harmless fiction 
“in the spirit of Paul” ; simply because this passage raises 
the question in the mind of every reader, no matter 
how unsophisticated, whether it is a genuine writing of 
Paul’s that he has before him, or some document. that has 
been forged in a manner the boldness of which is un- 
paralleled (n. 1). In addition to this, more traces are to 
be found of 2 Thess. than of either 1 Thess. or Gal. in the 
Church prior to the time of Marcion and outside of his 
Apostolicon (n. 2). 

The questions discussed in Galatians had less general 
interest for the Church of the second century than had the 
statements of eschatological doctrine and the practical 
advice of 1 and 2 Thess. Only Marcion is an excep- 
tion. After his fashion he values Galatians very highly, 
and in testimony of this esteem places it first in his 
collection of Pauline letters, calling it principialem 
adversus Judaismum epistolam, and making it the start- 
ing-point for his criticism of the entire tradition (Tert. 
c. Mare, iv. 3, v. 2). So also the comprehensive critique 
of the Pauline Epistles and of the entire N.T., begun by 
Baur, started by assuming that Gal. was a source the 
genuineness of which did not need to be proved in order 
to show, on the basis of the clear and fundamental opposi- 
tion between Jewish and Pauline Christianity which comes 
out in this Epistle, that Acts and most of the Epistles 
which bear Paul’s name are the product of a biassed (ten- 
denzwös) attempt to tone down this opposition, and are 
consequently spurious. Perhaps this is the chief reason 
why, by the latest critical method popular in Holland, 


244 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


it is customary to begin with the discussion of Gal. 
(n. 3). 

The arguments advanced by these critics against the 
genuineness of Gal., and by the critics of the older 
school against that of 1 Thess. (n. 4), have made a 
lasting impression only upon very few. Not so, how- 
ever, in the case of 2 Thess. Assuming the genuine- 
ness of both Gal. and 1 Thess., it must be admitted 
that Paul was able, as occasion demanded, in the course 
of a single year to write letters very different both in 
thought and spirit. This renders all the more strik- 
ing the resemblance in plan (above, p. 224 f.), thought, 
and language of 1 and 2 Thess., which were written 
with scarcely a longer interval than that between Gal. 
and 1 Thess. There is only one very obvious differ- 
ence, namely, 2 Thess. is far inferior to 1 Thess. in 
freshness of emotion, in vividness of language, and in 
the winsome expression of friendly fellow-feeling. It 
is this difference principally, taken along with the fact 
of the great similarity of the letters in plan and lan- 
guage, that has given rise to the suspicion that someone 
familiar with 1 Thess. used it as a model by which to 
compose 2 Thess. Still this observation has less weight 
critically than the similarity of the two letters. What 
contrasts of feeling and expression do we find, for ex- 
ample, in a single letter of Paul’s like 2 Cor.! 1 Thess. 
was written under the immediate stimulus of the extremely 
gratifying news brought by Timothy, which had revived 
the apostle’s spirits that had been so long depressed by 
heavy cares. The news which led to the writing of 
2 Thess. was less cheering. The exhortations of 1 Thess. 
had been entirely disregarded by some, and had to be 
repeated with severity (iii. 6-16). The teachings about 
the parousia of Christ and the events connected with it 
(ii. 5, 15), which he had recalled to their minds and 
enlarged upon in 1 Thess., had not been effective in put- 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 245: 


ting a stop to certain misleading reports. Moreover, 
means were being used for the circulation of these reports 
which, to say the least, were hardly honourable (ii. 2, ef. 
ii. 17). Of course, the steadfastness of the Church, in 
spite of constant suffering (i. 3f.), was something to be 
thankful for, though for Paul there was something de- 
pressing in the thought that the only prospect of a change 
in this condition of affairs was that offered by the hope 
of the judgment connected with the return of Christ. 
When one takes into consideration also the opposition 
with which Paul had to contend in the place where he 
was (iii. 2), and the missionary work in Corinth which 
claimed his entire attention (ii. 1; Acts xvi. 5-17), it 
it quite easy to understand the spirit and tone of this 
letter. On the other hand, it is hardly likely that a 
person forging such a letter would have put into Paul’s 
mouth twice a sentence like this: “ We are under obliga- 
tion at all times to give thanks to God for you” (i. 3, ii. 13, 
above, p. 225), which is not to be found elsewhere in Paul’s 
letters, genuine or spurious (n. 5), instead of imitating 
l Thess. i. 2 and other similar sentences at the beginning 
of Paul’s letters (Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor. 1. 4; 2 Cor. i. 3; 
Kph. i. 345 f. ; Col. 1. 3; Phil. i. 3; Philem. 4; 2 Tim. 
i. 3). On the other hand, the similarity of the two 
letters is quite natural in view of the fact that they were 
written within a comparatively short time of each other to 
the same Church, that conditions were such that it was 
necessary in part to write about the same things (the 
sufferings of the Church, eschatological questions, and un- 
ruly idleness), and, finally, t that there were definite reasons 
for back references in 2 Thess. to the former letter (ii. 
15, 1]. 14). If the claim was being made in Thessa- 
lonica on the basis of oral and written communications 
from the vicinity where Paul was, that Paul himself held 
the opinion which in this letter he feels called upon to 
pronounce absurd (ii. 2, above, p. 226), it is perfect 


246 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


natural that he should recall what he had written to 
the Church a few months before, and that in dictating 
2 Thess. he should have in mind the argument and the 
language of the former letter (n. 6). 

Of course, 2 Thess. could not have been written by 
Paul if 2 Thess. ii. 3-12 is based upon the legend of 
the return of Nero as antichrist from Parthia or from 
the dead, still less if it presupposes the description of 
antichrist in Rev. xii. and xvii. 8 (n. 7). The latter 
assumption is purely arbitrary, because the most dis- 
tinctive feature in Paul’s description, which it is im- 
possible to derive from Dan. or 1 Mace, and which 
certainly cannot be referred to Matt. xxiv. 15, Mark 
xiii. 14, namely, that the antichrist is to set himself up 
in the temple of God and demand that he be worshipped, 
is not to be found at all in Rey. On the contrary, it is 
to be explained as a prophetic reflection of historical 
events which took place in the reign of Caligula (above, 
pp. 228, 237, n.7). There is not the slightest suggestion 
in 11. 3-12 of Nero’s conduct nor attitude toward the 
Roman Christians. If, as is at least doubtful, we really 
have here a description of the miraculous return to life of 
some historical personage (n. 8), this personage cannot 
be Nero. For, so far as our knowledge goes, the idea that 
Nero was to come back from the dead could not and did 
not originate until through the lapse of time it was no 
longer possible to retain the older notion that he was 
hidden somewhere among the Parthians, 1.6. the idea did 
not originate until the beginning of the second century. 
As a matter of fact, we know that it was not until 150 
that the legend was adopted from the Jewish into the 
Christian Sibyllines with some other material taken from 
the Johannine apocalypse, and that it was not until the 
third century that the legend secured wide circulation in 
the Church (n. 9). But there is absolutely no trace in 
@&, Chess. of this older view, that Nero, who was still living 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 247 


in the far East, was to reascend the ımperial throne by the 
help of the Parthians and by the general aid of the powers 
of this world. Least probable of all is the supposition 
that the rise of some pseudo-Nero, due to the influence 
of this superstition, furnished the motive for the writing 
of 2 Thess. (n. 10). The fact that elsewhere in his letters 
Paul does not refer to the man of lawlessness, is no reason 
for suspecting 2 Thess., unless a passage can be pointed 
out elsewhere where he had the same occasion to refer to 
him which according to 2 Thess. ii. 2 he has here. No 
inconsistencies between the eschatological views set forth 
here and those developed elsewhere in Paul's writings, 
and no peculiarities of style, can be pointed out which 
make improbable the identity of the authorship of this 
Epistle and of the other Epistles of Paul (n. 11). 


1. (P. 243.) While the majority of critics up to the time of Schmiedel, 
HK, ii. 1, 12, are content merely to cite imperfect analogies, Weizsäcker, 251, 
admits that it “really is not easy to get over” 2 Thess. iii. 17, but makes not 
the slightest attempt to remove the difficulties suggested above. As even Baur 
admits, ii. 105, these words are of just the character to betray a forgery, not 
only because so manifestly designed, but also because the motive for the 
subscription in Paul’s own hand is different from that in 1 Cor. xvi. 21; 
Gal. vi. 11 (not really a comparable case, see above, p. 170; per contra, Col. 
iv. 18). It is wrong to say that Paul did this always “in order to give his 
readers direct proof of his affection for them” (Baur, ii. 105) ; in 1 Cor. xvi. 
21 it is used to introduce an anathema. Even more arbitrary is the claim 
that 2 Thess. iii. 17 is meant to explain this custom of Paul’s. Confessedly 
in all the realms of nature and of art, where distinctions are possible, a 
phenomenon which recurs regularly under given conditions is a characteristic, 
even when no reason is given for the distinction and no explanation of its 
origin offered. Even if, as Weizsiicker suggests, II. ii. 2 be a “hypothetical 
explanation of the meaning of this genuine Epistle” (1.6. cf 2 Thess.), that 
does not make it any more credible that an interpolator should be so utterly 
shortsighted as to lay himself open to criticism by referring so blindly to 
alleged utterances of Paul’s without any indication of their historical setting. 
Hilgenfeld’s theory, Einl. 646, that II. ii. 2 was written in order to cast sus- 
pieion upon 1 Thess., which is genuine, while not so meaningless as Weiz- 
säcker’s statement, is not more credible. For (1) there is no reference here 
to a spurious Pauline Epistle (above, p. 235) ; (2) this theory does not har- 
monise with the faet that in II. ii. 15, iii. 14 (above, p. 232), 1 Thess. is re- 
ferred to as a genuine Epistle ; (3) to cast suspicion upon a recognised work 
of Paul’s was the worst possible way in which to introduce a forgery which 
had to establish its own claims. 


248 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


2. (P. 243.) For traces of Gal. in Clemens Rom. (?), Ignatius (?), Polycarp, 
Justin, cf. GK, 1. 573 f., 828, n. 2. For traces of 2 Thess. and fainter traces 
of 1 Thess. in the same authors, cf. GK, i. 575, 815, 826, n. 1. 

3. (P. 244.) The attacks made heretofore on Gal. are of so little signifi- 
cance that it is sufficient in a handbook like this merely to mention them, 
above, p. 163, notes 5 and 6. 

4. (P.224.) Baur, ii. 94, in proof of his contention that in the originality and 
importance of its contents 1 Thess. is inferior to all the other Pauline letters, 
makes the statement that with the exception of iv. 13-18 “it does not contain 
even a single dogmatic idea of special importance.” But what dogmatic 
idea of special importance is to be found in 1 Cor. i.-xiv., xvi., or 2 Cor. 1.) 11.) 
vi.-xiii.? Only when the apologetic purpose of the first main section of the 
letter is denied (above, p. 215f.), and the strong emotion which it reveals 
ignored, is it found to contain simply superfluous reminders of things already 
known. It is also wrong to affirm that the historical material is taken from 
Acts (Baur, ii. 95, 97). On the contrary, the facts that come to light in 
1 Thess. ii. 17-iii. 5 are new, and not always easy to reconcile with Acts 
(above, pp. 204 f.,214f.). Where their agreement is apparent (ii. 2= Acts xvi. 
22-40), there is no trace of the dependence of the one upon the other. 
Resemblances between 1 Thess. and 1 and 2 Cor. Baur felt to be particularly 
open to suspicion (95f., 342 ff.). So long as barren and ineffective words 
continue to exist in the world, the contrast between λόγος and δύναμις is 
natural (1 Thess. i. 5, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 20); its occurrence in 1 Thess, is 
certainly very inadequate proof for the statement that 1 Thess. “ emphasises 
the more general ideas that are to be found specifically applied in 1 Cor.” 
(343). This is not the case, for 1 Thess. i. 5 has reference only to the 
preaching in Thessalonica, while in 1 Cor. iv. 20 (cf. i.18; Rom. i. 16) a 
general proposition is in mind, and even in 1 Cor. ii. 4f. the method of 
preaching in Corinth is brought under a general principle. The expressions 
ἐν βάρει εἶναι (1 Thess. ii. 7), ἐπιβαρῆσαι (ii. 9, cf. II. iii. 8), suggest 2 Cor. 
xi. 9, xii. 16; but the resemblance is not verbal, consequently the words 
are not copied from 2 Cor. Baur contends (345) that what we have here is 
only a generalisation of what is said in 1 and 2 Cor. with reference to special 
conditions in the Corinthian Church. But here again it is to.be observed 
that in 1 Cor. ix. 6-18 Paul speaks of his refusal to avail himself of that right 
of the evangelist, of which he and Barnabas had regularly availed them- 
selves ever since the beginning of the first missionary journey ; whereas in 
1 Thess. ii. 7,9; 2 Thess. ili. 7-9, reference is had only to his conduct in 
Thessalonica. Of like value with these observations are those of Holsten 
(JbfP Th. 1877, S. 731), that in 1 Thess. i. 3 the Pauline trilogy “faith, hope, 
and love” (1 Cor. xiii. 18) is confused with the trilogy of the Jewish Apoca- 
lypse, ἔργα, κόπος, ὑπομονή (ii. 2), and that the pseudo-Paul, who wrote this 
letter, like the one who wrote Phil., did not venture to speak of Paul in the 
greeting as an apostle. As if a forger, who depended for the acceptance of 
his work upon readers who held the apostle and the genuine Epistles in high 
regard, would not be tempted to imitate, even to outdo, the genuine letters 
(Gal. i.1; land 2 Cor. 1. 1; Rom. i. 1) in emphasising as strongly as possible 
Paul’s apostleship. Then this theory overlooks the emphatic Χριστοῦ 
ἀπόστολοι in 1 Thess. ii. 7. Baur thought the chief objection to the letter 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 249 


lay in its recognition of the Christian Church in Judea (ii. 14), notwithstand- 
ing the fact that their Christian standing is fully admitted in Gal. i. 22-24 
(cf. 2 Cor. viii. 18 f.; Rom. xv. 27; indirectly also 1 Cor. xiv. 36). Had 
Paul in this passage, as Baur thinks he ought to have done (97), said some- 
thing about his participation in the persecution of the Jewish Christians on 
the part of the Jews, it would be a stronger reason than anything Baur has 
suggested for suspecting an imitation of 1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 13; since such 
a reference would have been out of place in this connection, where the point 
of comparison between the persecution of the Thessalonians and of the Jewish 
Christians was the fact that by their Christian confession both had incurred 
the bitter hatred of their own countrymen. It is possible to speak of the 
vague polemic against the Jews (Baur, 97, 347) only when the fact is over- 
looked that the persecution of the Thessalonians began with the attack of 
the Jews upon the missionaries (above, p. 203f.), and that shortly after the 
arrival of Timothy and Silas in Corinth, .e. about the time 1 Thess. was 
written, Paul was compelled by the opposition of the Jews to separate him- 
self from the synagogue (Acts xviii. 5f.). Of course, the letter is spurious 
if ii. 16 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem as already past. But this is 
so evident a blunder that even Baur (97, 369) does not venture to make the 
forger directly responsible for it. The avenging wrath of God has reached 
the rebellious nation, but the cloud has not yet broken. Having rejected 
both the testimony of Jesus and of the apostles, Israel is fallen and rejected 
(Rom. xi. 11-15), and the judgment of hardening has already been visited 
upon them, which must and will soon show itself in judgment of a more 
external character (Rom. xi. 7-10, ef. ix. 32f.). There is no reference to 
present internal conditions in Palestine, nor any indication of the banish- 
ment of the Jews from Rome by the emperor Claudius (as held by Paul 
Schmidt, Der Erste Thessaloniker-Brief, 87 ; ef. below, XI. [Chron. Survey]). 
Only in a very young Church could the deaths which thinned their ranks be 
felt to be irreconcilable with the word of life received by faith ; presumably 
this would be felt most strongly in the case of the first deaths, cf. also 1 Cor. 
xi. 30. Positive proof of the genuineness of the Epistle is to be found in 
iv. 15-17; for no one ascribing a letter to Paul after his death could have 
made him say—more definitely here than in any passage in the unquestioned 
letters of Panl —that he himself expected to experience the parousia. More- 
over, the particular kind of grief for the dead which appears in iv. 13 ff. is 
inconceivable in a Church which for decades had been losing its members by 
death one after the other. Consequently Baur (99, ef. 94) is wrong when, in 
the eschatological teaching of the Epistle, iv. 13 ff., which has not even first 
place among the discussions in the passage appended to the main section of 
the Epistle, beginning with λοιπόν, iv. 1 (above, p. 220f.), he discovers the 
purpose which, after Paul’s death, led to the composition of the entire letter. 

5. (P. 245.) Even the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, ver. 3, repro- 
duces the usual Pauline formula, @K, ii. 584; while the Third Epistle to the 
Corinthians, ver. 2, ed. Vetter, p. 54, is dependent upon Gal. i.6. On the 
other hand, the καθὼς ἄξιόν ἐστιν of 2 Thess. i. 3 has a parallel in Phil. i. 7. 

6. (P. 246.) Ability to reproduce from memory what has been written or 
spoken earlier, naturally varies greatly with different individuals, The question 
recurs in connection with 1 Cor. v. 9-11; 2 Cor. i. 13, and all the references 


250 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of 2 Cor.to 1 Cor. But to the author it seems unlikely that the letters of 
Paul were sent to the Churches in the form in which they were written 
down by the amanuensis from dictation, Generally it would be necessary to 
revise the letter after it was dictated, and to prepare a new copy. This waa 
sent to its destination, while the original copy might remain for some time in 
the hands of Paul or of his amanuensis. Cicero usually treated his letters 
in this manner ; cf. H. Peter, “Der Brief in der röm. Literatur,” 1901 (Abh. 
der Sächs. Ges. ἃ. Wiss. phil. hist. Kl. xx. 30), 8. 29f., 35. Now, busy as Paul 
was, and knowing as he did his emotional temperament, nothing was more 
natural in the circumstances than for him to read over again the original 
copy of 1 Thess., if he still had it, before dictating 2 Thess. 

7. (P. 246.) Since Kern, TZfTh. 1839, ii. 145-214, and Baur, ii. 351- 
364 (Baur asserts more positively than Kern the dependence of 2 Thess, on 
Rev., which has since been generally accepted; cf. Weizsicker, 503, and 
Hilgenfeld, 647, who holds an entirely different view regarding the date and 
purpose of 2 Thess. Schmiedel, however, HK, ii. 143, holds that literary 
dependence cannot be proved),—since Kern and Baur, many have been 
inclined to regard 2 Thess. ii. 3-12 as a reproduction of the popular supersti- 
tion concerning Nero redivivus. Nero is held to be the “mystery of law- 
lessness,” active in the present, secretly preparing for his own return (Baur, 
354, and Kern, 205, “the continued longing for this prince after his downfall,” 
ef. Tac. Hist. i. 78). The κατέχων, on the other hand, is Vespasian (Kern, 
200, “with his son Titus”), or Otho, or even Galba (Schmiedel, 43) ; in any 
case “the emperor reigning at the time when the letter was written ” (Baur, 
355). This is the πρῶτον ψεῦδος held in common by these critics and 
numerous defenders of the Epistle’s genuineness (6.0. Dillinger, Christent. u. 
Kirche zur Zeit der Grundlegung, 2te Aufl. 288). Since, in ii. 4, the existence 
of the Temple at Jerusalem seems to be presupposed (Kern, 157, 207; P. 
Schmidt, 119; Baur undecided on this point, 358), on this view 2 Thess. 
must have been written between June 68 and August 70. According to 
Baur (356), the occasion for the forgery was the appearance of the first pseudo- 
Nero in 69 A.D. (see below, nn. 9, 10). In order to explain the address of 
the forgery, Baur (357) assumes gratuitously that not only the provinces of 
Achaia and Asia (Tac. Hist. ii. 8), but also Macedonia, were set in commotion 
by this adventurer. Furthermore, the champions of this so-called historical 
interpretation, which, according to Schmiedel (39), is the only scientific one, 
pass over very lightly the fact that the pre-existence of the expected 
antichrist is not by any means so clearly affirmed as in Rev. xvii. 8,11. It 
is impossible to find in 2 Thess. a single characteristic feature of the brief 
history of the pseudo-Nero in question, nor of the real Nero (comparison of 
Suet. Nero, lvi, with 2 Thess. ii. 4, only serves to reveal the extremity to 
which this theory is reduced), nor of the representative of the Nero redivivus 
(n. 9) in the Sibylline books. It has not been shown how, after the pseudo- 
Neronic movements were passed and before 120,—to judge from the literature 
of the time,—when Gentiles and Jews alike looked only for a restoration of 
the Neronic rule through political means, a Christian could have formed the 
conceptions which are to be found in 2 Thess, This difficulty is somewhat | 
lessened by Hilgenfeld’s suggestion that “in the end 2 Thess. proves to be a | 
short Pauline apocalypse written in the last years of Trajan’s reign” (Hinl. | 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 251 


642, old paragraphs). But this hypothesis is not advanced save as a con 
jecture (650). It is difficult to understand how Christians who, with the 
emperor’s approbation, were condemned to execution, and, according te 
Hilgenfeld, led, by this constant persecution, to entertain false hopes con- 
cerning the parousia, could come to regard Trajan not as the Nero redivivus, 
but as the κατέχων (651) ; particularly so if, as is suggested by Hilgenfeld, 
the Nero redivivus of this apocalypse is not the historical matricide or the 
persecutor of the Christians, but the leader of the falling away of which 
there were already signs in the Church in the current Gnosticism. With 
this interpretation of the mystery of lawlessness is severed the one slender 
thread by which 2 Thess. ii. 3-12 can possibly be connected with the 
legends concerning Nero. Bahnsen (JbfPTh. 1880, S. 681-705) still feels it 
necessary to retain the connection, although he too understands by the 
mystery of lawlessness the rising Gnosticism as he finds it described in the 
Pastoral Epistles. He, however, interprets the κατέχον as the spiritual office, 
and makes the κατέχων refer either to one distinguished ἐπίσκοπος, or the 
ἐπίσκοπος of the Ignatian Epistles, who occupied a position of authority over 
the other ἐπίσκοποι-- πρεσβύτεροι. To such vagaries the theory of Kern is 
preferable. P. Schmidt (127) endeavours to relieve the theory of a number 
of fatal objections by assuming—but without giving his reasons—that ii. 2b-12 
and several expressions in chap. i. were introduced into the Epistle, which 
is otherwise genuine, sometime between 68 and 70. Klöpper justly remarks 
(56) that nothing has caused more confusion in connection with the question 
regarding the origin of 2 Thess. than its association with the person of Nero. 

8. (P. 246.) With praiseworthy impartiality, Hofmann (i. 331-334, ef. 
Schriftbeweis, ii. 2.674) admits that, strange as it may seem to us, Paul does 
conceive of the entrance of the lawless one into the world after the analogy of 
the return of Christ from the other world, as a return from the dead. And 
certainly the threefold occurrence of ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι (iii. 6, 8, cf. 1. 7), followed 
immediately by παρουσία (viii. 9), used of the coming of Jesus and of the 
lawless one, does give the coming of the antichrist the appearance of a carica- 
ture of the parousia of Christ, preceding this latter event. But it is to be 
observed that the meaning of μυστήριον (7) is the same here as in other 
passages (1 Cor. ii. 7, 10, xiv. 2,6; Rom. xvi. 25; Eph. iii. 3-12; Col. i. 26 f. ; 
1 Tim. iii. 16), there being an implied contrast to the ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι which 
precedes and follows, and that the “ mystery of lawlessness” means—admitted 
even by Hofmann (i. 329, 331)—not the person of the lawless one, but the 
increased spirit of lawlessness which is an active force even in the present. 
Consequently it would seem as if it were this impersonal power which is now 
concealed, but is to be revealed in the person of the lawless one. That the 
passage speaks not of the revealing of this impersonal power, but of the man 
of lawlessness, is sufficiently explained: (1) by the fact that the latter is 
presented as a caricature of the returning Christ; (2) by the fact that the 
spirit of lawlessness assumed personal form for the first time not in the 
“antichrist,” but in all his forerunners (Antiochus, Caligula), In this way 
the conception was reached of a pre-existence of the lawless one not purely 
ideal. He, i.e. the personal ἀνομία, has existed again and again, but, before 
the complete development and revelation of his character, he is to be set 
aside, that he may operate for a time only as an impersonal power, eventu- 


252 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ally finding his complete personal manifestation, and so, his revelation in the 
man of lawlessness whose appearance immediately precedes the parousia of 
Christ. A partial analogy is to be found in the sayings about the coming 
Elias, Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10-13, not all of which, however, indicate a personal 
return (cf. Matt. xiv. 2, xvi. 14, but are to be understood in the sense of 
John i. 21; Luke i. 17). 

9. (P. 246.) Cf. the present writer’s essay, Nero der Antichrist, ZFKW, 
1886, S. 337-352, 393-405. Nero (born December 5, 37 ; died June 9, 68) him- 
self believed, because of certain predictions, that he would lose his throne, 
but rise to power again in the East, and live until his seventy-third year, 2.e. 
until 110 a.p. (Suet. Nero, xl). Up to about this time the popular belief 
seems to have survived that he was still alive, and would regain his power 
(Dio Chrys. Or. 21). This led to the rise of a pseudo-Nero, who established 
himself on the island of Cythnus in 69 a.D., but was soon easily overpowered 
and beheaded by Asprenas, who had been appointed governor of Galatia, and 
stopped at the island on his way thither (Tac. Hist. ii. 8. 9; Dio Cass. 
lxiv. 9; Zonaras, xi. 15). A second pretender, Terentius Maximus by name, 
appeared under Titus (79-81 Zonaras, 11. 18), if, indeed, he be not identical 
with a third, who in 88 came near causing a Parthian war (Suet. Nero, lvii ; 
Tac. Hist. i. 2). The spread of this belief, which led to these political 
uprisings among Hellenistic Jews of the time, is indicated by Szbyll. v. 
137-178, 361-385 (71 A.D.) and Szbyll. iv. 117-139 (80 A.D.). It is not until we 
come to the Sibyllines written between 120-125 (v. 28-34, 93-110, 214-227) 
that we find the return of Nero represented as supernatural in character, and 
himself described as an avrideos whom the Messiah is to destroy. About 150 
this last prophecy was worked over in connection with others of earlier date 
in Sibyll. v. by a Christian. About the same time, either by this Christian, 
or by one of kindred mind (Sibyll. viii. 1-216), these conceptions were fused 
with important features of the Johannine Apocalypse. Cf. also the picture 
of the Antichrist, supplied with the features of Nero, Ascensio Isai, chap. 
iv. 2. The Sibyllines, which date from the first century, and with which alone 
2 Thess. can be compared in point of time, reproduce simply the historical 
picture of Nero, the matricide, the stage-hero who celebrated his own burn- 
ing of Rome, and the builder of a canal through the isthmus of Corinth. 
Though, in punishment of his own misdeeds, compelled to flee beyond the 
Euphrates, the missing one is to return from Parthia with a great army as 
a scourge to Rome. The Jewish conception of Nero during the first decades 
after his death shows no trace of an antichrist and of a mysterious super- 
natural being. 

10. (P. 247.) Assuming that the Christians in Thessalonica were stirred 
up by the appearance in 69 A.D. of the pseudo-Nero whom they regarded as the 
antichrist,—though 2 Thess. ii. 2 assigns an entirely different reason,—this 
excitement must have been thoroughly allayed by his immediate downfall. 
The opinion that the day of the Lord had already come because the anti- 
christ had appeared, would then have disappeared of itself, for the reason that 
the pretender perished miserably before he was able to extend his authority 
over the little island of Cythnus, and to do anything that could establish his 
character as the antichrist. The only conceivable effect of disillusionment 


would be doubt as to the nearness of the parousia, or as to the truth of the 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 253 


prophecies concerning the event. Furthermore, an author, sharing all the 
essential presuppositions of his deluded readers, who desired to prevent a 
recurrence of such deceptions and disillusionments, must have indicated the 
signs by which a false Nero, or antichrist, might be distinguished from the 
true one. But there is no trace of this antithesis in the letter. On these 
presuppositions reference to the κατέχων would be without point; for, as each 
new pseudo-Nero appeared, there was nothing to prevent the expectation that 
he would replace the reigning emperor and remove all other hindrances to 
his power. 

11. (P, 247.) For example, P. Schmidt (111) and Schmiedel (HK, ii. 1. 9) 
find a contradiction in the fact that in I. v. 1 the time of the parousia can not 
be determined, the Lord coming as a thief in the night; whereas, according 
to II. ii. 1-12, the approach of the parousia is indicated by numerous signs, 
many of which are to be observed even in the present. But the same contradic- 
tion can be said to exist between Matt. xxiv. 7-33 (Mark xiii. 9-29; Luke xxi. 
10-31) and Matt. xxiv. 35-44 (Matt. xii. 32-37 ; Luke xvii. 20-30, xxi. 34-36 ; 
Acts i. 7), or between Rev. ili. 3, xvi. 15, and other parts of Rev. In reality 
there is no contradiction, only the same difference that existed between Noah 
and the men of his time. To those absorbed in the present earthly life the 
day of the Lord will come as a snare and the Lord as a thief ; the disciples of 
Jesus are to watch, be sober and ready in order that He may not so come 
to them. They are to give heed to the signs of the times which portend the 
end ; not to pay overmuch attention to those that are remote from the event, 
but not to overlook those that are near. If they are to avoid the latter 
mistake, they must know what those signs are to be ; if the former, they must 
have a general idea of what is to happen before they appear. But since it is 
fundamentally impossible to know when the end will come and when the 
signs immediately preceding will appear, it is the part of wisdom as well as 
the natural impulse of love to live in constant readiness for the approaching 
end. The genuine prophecy of the apostolic age retains these fundamental 
features of the eschatological teaching of Jesus (cf. Rev. xix. 10). So does 
Paul. The impossibility of determining when the end would come (I. v. 1-3), 
and the knowledge that the man of lawlessness had not yet appeared, and 
could not appear until the existing government, the Roman empire, had 
given place to a different order of things (II. ii. 3-7), did not prevent him 
from believing that the parousia was near (I. iv. 17 ; cf., however, II. i. 5 ff.), 
though he does not assert this belief dogmatically (I. v. 10 ; cf. Rom. xiii. 
11-14, xiv. 7-9; 1 Cor. xv.51f.). On the other hand, his attention to exist- 
ing signs of the coming end (II. i. 5, ἔν δειγμα, ii. 7a, ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται), and to 
the events which had happened since he had become a Christian (above, p. 
237, τι. 7), saved him from an error such as he opposes in II. ii, 2, and from 
making a prophecy which would be proved false by the next succession to the 
throne at Rome. 2 Thess. i. 5-10 has been proved un-Pauline ; indeed, it is 
said to breathe a spirit of revenge quite unchristian (Kern, 211, cautiously ; 
more strongly stated, e.g., by Schmiedel). But of the general principle of the 
retributive righteousness of God (Rom. ii. 2-10), Paul very often makes 
severe application (Rom. iii. 8, xi. 9f., xvi. 20; 1 Cor. iii. 17, xvi. 22 ;-2 Cor. 
xi. 15; Gal. i. 8, v. 10, 12; Phil. iii. 18f.; 2 Tim. iv. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 16), 
and in addressing those who were afflicted, with whom he does not identify 


254 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


himself, he could without objection say things which would be more objection- 
able if said by themselves. Without parallel in Paul’s other writings is the 
use of κλῆσις, in i. 11, in the sense not of a call to martyrdom (Hilgenfeld, 
647), nor of the future glory (Klopper, 23), but probably of a forthcoming in- 
vitation to enter into the possession and enjoyment of the promised glory. This 
meaning is particularly clear, if we follow Hofmann’s suggestion and connect 
ev τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ With ἀξιώσῃ. But Paul uses κλῆσις only once (Rom. xi. 
29) of the call of the Israelitish nation which was involved in the call of 
Abraham. In the first passage the meaning approaches that of of κεκλημένοι 
in Matt. xxii. 3, 4,8; Luke xiv. 17, 24; in the latter, that of καλέσαι, Matt. 
xxli. 3, the object of the verb being those long since called (cf. Matt. xxv. 34; 
Rev. xix. 9). The usage in Rom. xi. 29 departs much farther from Paul’s 
customary usage than 2 Thess. i. 11; since the call of the gospel has much 
more direct reference to the future glory of Christians (1 Thess. ii. 12, v. 23f.; 
2 Thess. ii. 14; Eph. i. 18, iv. 4; Phil. iii. 14) than to the call of Abraham 
and of Israel. It is claimed that the use of κύριος for God instead of 
Christ (Hilgenfeld, 646),—a use which occurs only in quotations from the O.T. 
(1 Cor. i. 31), and in passages suggested by the O.T. (2 Cor. viii. 21 = Prov. iii. 
4),—that this use is un-Pauline. But in I. iii. 12, 6 κύριος, which occurs in a 
context where the distinction is twice made between God the Father and 
“our Lord Jesus” (I. iii. 11, 13), cannot mean Jesus in distinction from the 
Father, but only the Lord who, according to the Christian conception, 
has been revealed as “God and Father” and “our Lord Jesus.” Hofmann 
(i. 214) compares Rom. xiv. 1-12 (3 ὁ θεός, 4-8 ὁ κύριος, 9 Χριστός), and the 
usage is to be constantly observed where Paul makes O.T. passages refer to 
Christ, when he knows as well as we do that the anarthrous κύριος means 
Jahveh and not Jesus, e.g. Rom. x. 9-15. Why should ὁ κύριος be understood 
differently in II. iii. 3,5 and I. iii. 12, especially in view of the numerous 
resemblances between these passages, e.g. αὐτὸς δέ, I. iii. 11, II. ii. 16; 
κατευθύναι, 1. 111. 11, 11. iii. 5; στηρίξαι, 1. 111. 13, 11. ii. 17, ii. 3? It is true 
that Paul, who in II. i. 7-ii. 14 has constantly before him the Christ who is 
to return in glory, when he comes to speak of God and Christ together in 
II. ii. 16, places Christ’s name first (in contrast to I. iii. 11), and that in IT. 1. 
12 he calls Christ “our Lord and God” (ef. Rom. ix. 5 ; Tit. 1. 3). It is also 
true that in this Epistle ὁ κύριος oceurs in combinations where analogy might 
lead one to expect ὁ θεός (πιστὸς. . . ὁ κύριος, 11. ili. 3, cf. per contra, 1. v. 
24; 1 Cor. 1. 9, x. 13; 2 Cor. 1. 185 ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ κυρίου (al. τοῦ κυρίου 
and θεοῦ), II. ii. 13, cf. per contra, I. i. 4; 6 κύριος τῆς εἰρήνης, II. iii. 16, cf, 
per contra, 1. v. 23; Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. iv. 9; also 
Heb. xiii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 33). This usage can be considered un-Pauline only 
if, in striking eontrast to other Christians of his time, Paul did not recognise 
Christ as the Faithful One (2 Tim. 11. 13), the Redeemer through His love 
(Gal. ii. 20; Rom. viii. 37; Eph. v. 2, 25), the Bringer of Peace (Eph. ii. 
14-18 ; Col. iii. 15, with Phil. iv. 7; “peace from God and Christ” in the 
greetings). It is evident, on the other hand, that a forger would not have re- 
placed an expression like “The God of Peace,” which occurs so frequently 
in Paul’s writings, by the unusual “ The Lord of Peace.” The same is true of 
the use of ἐγκαυχᾶσθαι between two €v’s, in IL. i. 4, instead of the single verb 
which occurs more than thirty times in Paul’s writings, and which a copyist 


THE THREE OLDEST EPISTLES OF PAUL 255 


of an early date thought ought to be inserted here. It is asserted also that 
having used ἐξελέξατο in two passages of his letters (1 Cor. i.27f.; Eph.i. 4), 
Paul could not have written εἵλατο in a third, II. ii. 13, although naturally 
he is familiar with the word (Phil. i. 22), and although the word is excellently 
chosen in this passage, where there is a contrast implied to the destruction of 
unbelievers over whom the Christians have the advantage. ἡ ἐπιφάνεια, 
which is not at all superfluous, along with τῆς παρουσίας, but, like the 
expression, “the breath of his mouth,” indicates the outward manifestation of 
the coming of Christ (II. ii. 8, cf. i. 7-10), cannot be considered un- Pauline 
simply because it is used in a similar connection in Tit. ii. 13 and elsewhere 
with reference to the return of Christ, 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8. It is 
quite without point to reject as un-Pauline the phrase ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος 
αὐτοῦ, 11. 1. 9, from Isa. ii. 10, because used instead of δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, which 
it is alleged is the only expression Paul uses (cf. per contra, Eph. i. 19, vi. 10), 
and the word eriovvayoyn, II. ii. 1 (ef. I. iv. 14,17; Mark xiii. 27), for which 
no genuine Pauline equivalent can be named. The difficult construction of 
sentences in the first main division of the letter, amounting in several 
passages (1. 10-12, ii. 3-9) to anacolutha, and the succession of short sentences 
at the end (iii. 25, with the contrast in iii. 3; the sentence, iii. 10; antithesis, 
ii. 110; all from ii. 13 on), are signs of genuineness. 


IV. 


THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL WITH 
THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH. 


$ 17. THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. 


THE city of Corinth, which was destroyed and depopulated 
by Mummius in the year 146 B.c., and rebuilt by Ceesar 
and made a Roman colony (‘ Laus Julia Corinthus”), was 
the capital of the province of Achaia, which since the 
year 27 B.c. had been separate from Macedonia, and which 
in size corresponded practically to the modern kingdom of. 
Greece. Here resided regularly the propreetor, who had 
the rank of proconsul. After its restoration Corinth 
developed rapidly into a flourishing city, and at this time 
was the principal city in the province in point of popula- 
tion, industry, and commerce. The celebration there of 
the Isthmian games made it a centre of Greek life in spite 
of the mixed character of its population, though after its 
restoration, as before, Corinth was a “city of Aphrodite” 
Cael): 

Paul came to Corinth from Athens in November 52 
(Acts xvii. 1). As the result of eighteen months of labour 
there, the Corinthian Church was organised. Of this 
Church Paul declares himself to have been the sole founder 
with an exclusiveness and an emphasis which would have 
been out of place in the case of the Thessalonians, and 
there is nothing in Acts nor in Paul’s own writings which 
calls for any dispute of his right to this position (n. 2). 


If, as seems to be the case, there were already in existence 
266 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 257 


at this time a number of small Churches in the vicinity of 
Corinth, there is no necessity for assuming that Paul 
himself had taken an active part in their organisation. 
More probably the same plan was adopted that was 
followed later in Ephesus. While the apostle remained 
in the capital and bent all his energies to kindle a central 
flame of Christian life, sparks from this fire were scattered 
in every direction through the province. In Corinth, as 
in Ephesus, Paul’s helpers did: valiant service in spreading 
the gospel in localities which the apostle did not visit in 
person. | 

' The circumstances under which Paul came to Corinth 
were peculiar. for whatever cause, whether on account of 
the experience which he had had in Athens, or on account 
of continued anxiety about the Thessalonian Church, he 
was in an unusually discouraged state of mind when he 
began his Corinthian work.. As he himself intimates, it 
was for this reason that in Corinth he confined himself so 
strictly to the simple preaching of the cross, refusing more 
than at other times and in other places to make the foolish- 
ness of the gospel attractive to his hearers by the use of 
rhetorical art and of learning: (1 Cor. 11. 1-5; cf. Acts 
xvii. 9). The manner in which he lived in Corinth was 
also such as to foster this feeling. While in Athens, he 
made no attempt to earn his living by working with his 
own hands, a course of action which was natural in those 
surroundings, and quite possible on account of contribu- 
tions sent by the Macedonian Churches (Phil. iv. 15; 
2 Cor. xi. 8f.). As a result, he not only preached on the 
Sabbath in the synagogue of the Jews and proselytes, but 
also sought opportunities on week days to converse in the 
public places with those who resorted thither. In Corinth, 
on the other hand, after he obtained quarters in the house 
of Aquila and Priscilla, the Jewish couple who from this 
time on were’ associated with him closely and constantly, 


he worked for wages during the week in their tent shop, 
MOL. I. 17 


258 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


so that his religious activity was confined to the Sabbath 
and the synagogue (n. 3). The relief which came with 
the good news brought by Timothy from Thessalonica 
(1 Thess. iii. 6), and the encouragement which naturally 
resulted from reunion with his two trusted helpers, stimu- 
lated him to preach with greater energy, in consequence of 
which the opposition of the Jews became more pronounced, 
and Christian preaching was forbidden in the synagogue 
(Acts xviii. 5-7). It was a triumph for Paul when 
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and his entire family 
were baptized by him, an example which was followed at 
once by a considerable number of the Corinthians. In 
this manner originated the Church, which continued to 
assemble in the house of an uncircumcised proselyte 
adjoining the synagogue. During the succeeding months 
its membership was materially increased by the addition 
of Gentiles from all classes (n. 4). 

Having now succeeded in establishing a Church separ- 
ate from the synagogue, Paul might have considered his 
work in Corinth at an end. And he seems actually to 
have had it in mind to leave Corinth at this time, lest 
the continuation of the preaching should lead to further 
outbreaks of fanaticism on the part of the Jews. But, 
encouraged by a vision, he remained at this post longer 
than at any of the mission stations where he had 
worked heretofore. This period was not altogether with- 
out opposition (2 Thess. i. 2); but an attempt on the 
part of the Jews to charge the apostle, before the proconsul 
Gallio, with teaching a religion contrary to the laws of the 
State, was frustrated by this statesman’s ability to see at 
once that it was a question of differences about Jewish 
doctrine, and by his determination to have nothing to do 
with such matters (n. 5). The Jews gave vent at once to 
the indignation which they felt at this miscarriage of their 
plans upon Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, before 
the tribunal from which the accusers were driven by 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH — 25¢ 


Gallio, 1.6. as the accusing party were leaving the judg- 
ment-hall, doubtless because, as their spokesman, he had 
not shown positiveness nor tact enough in presenting 
their case. If this is the same Sosthenes who is men- 
tioned in 1 Cor. i. 1, this painful experience probably 
helped him to decide fully in favour of a cause which 
previously he had not had the requisite hostility and 
decision to prosecute (n. 6). As will be presently shown, 
the development of the relation between the synagogue 
and the Church was not yet at an end when Paul left 
Corinth, at Pentecost 54, and went to Ephesus. 

With this departure begins a period of three years , 
devoted mainly to the spread of Christianity in Ephesus | 
and the province of Asia (Acts xx. 31). It was toward 
the end of this period that the first of the Corinthian 
letters preserved to us was written. Plans had been 
under consideration for some time for making a journey 
in the near future to Corinth. This purpose was now on 
the point of being carried out, since the route, by way of 
Macedonia, and the time of departure, Pentecost, had been 
already determined upon (1 Cor. iv. 18-21, xi. 34, xvi. 
2-9). Timothy and, according to Acts xix. 22, a certain 
Erastus, who apparently was the treasurer of the city of 
Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23, ef. 2 Tim. iv. 20), had been sent 
on by the same indirect route which Paul intended to take 
(1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10). It is assumed that on account of 
the indirectness of the route through Macedonia and the 
commissions to the Churches there which they had to 
fulfil, Timothy will arrive in Corinth somewhat later than 
the letter, which has been sent directly by the sea route. 
He therefore gives the Church certain instructions as to 
how Timothy is to be received when he arrives (1 Cor. 
xvi. 10). At the same time he makes request that 
Timothy be sent back at once from Corinth to Ephesus, 
where he plans to await his arrival. When the cause 
which was keeping Paul in Ephesus until Pentecost (xvi 


260 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


9) is also taken into account, we must assume that the 
letter was written from four to eight weeks before this 
date. This makes it very probable that the figurative 
language used in 1 Cor. v. 7f. was suggested by the 
Jewish passover, which was being celebrated about the 
time when the letter was written (n. 7). 

Of the things affecting the relation of the Church 
to Paul which happened between his departure from 
Corinth at Pentecost 54 and the composition of 1 Cor. at 
Easter 57, there are some which without difficulty may be 
determined. The immediate presupposition of 1 Cor. 
is a letter from the Church to Paul (1 Cor. vii. 1). 
From the apostle’s expression of joy in xvi. 17 at the 
arrival of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (a. 8), who 
in large measure made up to him for the deficiencies of 
the Church toward him, and from the request that the 
Church recognise these men and follow their advice (xvi. 
15-18), we ascertain what did not need to be told the 
readers, that these three Corinthians had come recently to 
Ephesus and were now returning to Corinth. [Ὁ is there- 
fore very probable that they had brought the communica- 
tion of the Church to Ephesus, and were about to take 
Paul’s answer back with them to Corinth. Assuming that 
vii. 1 refers expressly to written opinions and questions 
of the Church, it may be inferred from the formule by 
which the several topics are introduced in vil. 25 (zept 
δὲ τῶν παρθένων), Vill. 1 (περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων), zii. 1 
(περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν), Xvi. 1 (περὶ δὲ τῆς λογίας), XVI. 
12 (περὶ δὲ ᾿Απολλῶ), which are similar to the formula of 
vii. 1, only abbreviated, that all the discussions introduced 
in this way, namely, chaps. vii., vill.—x., xiL-xiv., XVI. 
1-12, are in reply to this communication of the Church. 
This conclusion is confirmed by the observation that in 
these connections Paul repeatedly states principles and 
then proceeds at once to limit their application (vil 1f, 
vill. 1, x. 23; ef. § 18, n. 1). This is true even in the 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH δ6ι 


case of the commendation in xi. 2, to which the following 
context is only a contrast. Paul quotes these statements 
from the letter of the Church, and appears for the time 
being to give his assent to them, but only in order at once 
to qualify them, xi. 16f. The expression used in xi. 34 is 
natural only if the Church had asked some questions or 
expressed some opinions about the celebration of the 
Lord’s Supper. Thus also chap. xi. is in answer to ques- 
tions asked by the Church in their letter, which does not 
exclude the possibility of Paul’s having taken account 
here (xi. 18), as in other passages after vil. 1, of separate 
oral reports. But there are traces of the letter of the 
Church even before vii. 1. The principle stated in x. 23, 
of which Paul admits only the general truth, pointing out 
its limitation as applied to the practical question in hand, 
is to be found also at the beginning of vi. 12-20. So in 
v. 9-13 he corrects a misinterpretation of instructions 
which he had given the Church in an earlier letter, without 
mentioning the source of his information or without any 
suggestion of doubt as to the fact of the misinterpreta- 
tion. Consequently this misinterpretation of his earlier 
advice must have been found in the letter of the Church. 
We have therefore to assume that, with the exception 
of certain chapters and passages, the whole of 1 Cor. 
is a reply to a letter of the Church which itself in turn 
had been written with reference to an earlier letter of Paul 
to the Corinthians, in fact was a direct answer to such 
a letter. The chapters excepted are i.-iv., the occasion 
and material for which were supplied by particular infor- 
mation, probably oral, coming to him from the members 
of the household of a certain Chloe (i. 11); the passages 
are v. 1-8, possibly also vi. 1-11, and probably chap. xv., 
in which Paul seems to speak of his own initiative about 
things that had happened in the Church, with regard to 
which he had been definitely informed, though not by the 
Church itself. 


262 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


While this lost, correspondence (n. 9) is to be dated 
only a few weeks or at most months before the writing 
of 1 Cor., the coming of Apollos to Ephesus is to be 
placed a few weeks or a few months after Paul’s first 
departure from Corinth. According to Acts xviii. 24 ff, 
Apollos (n. 10) was an Alexandrian Jew distinguished for 
his Greek culture and rhetorical training (λόγιος), as well 
as for his Jewish learning. Though when he came to 
Ephesus he had not been baptized and so received into 
the membership of the Christian Church, he not only 
possessed a fairly accurate knowledge of the facts about 
Jesus, but also entered into the synagogue in Ephesus 
and taught with enthusiasm a form of Christianity which 
was not current in the Church. This brought him into 
contact with Aquila and Priscilla, who had come to 
Ephesus with Paul, and who remained there during the 
several months while Paul was absent on his journey to 
Palestine and Antioch, attending the synagogue services 
as Paul did when he first came to Ephesus (xviii. 19), and 
for the first months after his return (xix. 8). After Apollos 
had been instructed by this couple in the form of Christi- 
anity taught in the Church, he was all the more anxious 
to continue his preaching journey. So, when he came to 
Corinth bearing letters of recommendation from Aquila 
to the Christians there, it was not primarily in the röle of 
a teacher in the Christian Church, but as a missionary 
preacher among the Jews in Corinth. And it was chiefly 
through his success among this class that he contributed 
materially to the growth of the Church (n. 11). This 
does not, of course, preclude the possibility of Apollos’ 
having been a very acceptable teacher in the Christian 
gatherings ; indeed, it is most natural to assume that it 
made him more so. How long he remained in Corinth 
we do not know. When 1 Cor. was written, he had 
been for some time with Paul in Ephesus. But he had 
not been forgotten in Corinth. From 1 Cor. xvi. 12 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 263 


we learn that in their letter the Church had expressed to 
Paul the desire that Apollos might return to Corinth. 
Althoush he was strongly urged by Paul to comply with 
this request and to go back with the messengers from the 
Corinthian Church, for the time being Apollos steadfastly 
refused to do so. 

Some time after Apollos’ appearance in Corinth, but 
apparently a considerable time before the correspondence 
with the Church which took place just before 1 Cor. 
was written, the apostle himself had made a visit to 
Corinth. No mention of this visit 15 made in Acts, which 
gives very few details of the period of three years when 
Paul was engaged chiefly in organising the Ephesian 
Church, and which here as elsewhere omits all reference 
to the imtercourse which took place between Paul and 
the Churches that had been already organised. Nor is 
anything said about it in 1 Cor. (n. 12). On the 
other hand, there are several passages in 2 Cor. where 
it seems to be presupposed that Paul had been in 
Corinth twice before the visit that he was now on the 
eve of making (n. 13). If, now, as will be shown, it is 
impossible to assume that the second visit took place in 
the interval between 1 and 2 Cor., we must suppose that 
prior to the correspondence of which we get information, 
partly from the remains of it which we have and partly 
from the testimony of 1 Cor., Paul had interrupted his 
work in Ephesus by a visit to Corinth, which presumably 
was short (n. 14). The impressions which he had received 
on his visit were thoroughly depressing. He had been 
humiliated to find that not a few of the members of the 
Church which he had spent so much effort in organising 
were living as unchastely as their heathen neighbours (2 
Cor. xii. 21, i, 1). He had exhorted them very earnestly, 
but had refrained from employing disciplinary measures of 
a severer kind (2 Cor. xiii. 2). He had given them instruc- 
tions with reference to this matter in the letter of his 


264 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 9. The eommunication from the 
Church, in which, among other things they had replied to 
this letter of the apostle’s, together with the numerous 
oral reports that had recently come to him concerning the 
condition of the Church and events that had taken place 
(n. 15), had pressed the recollection of this short visit 
into the background, and had created a condition of 
affairs which called for the writing of 1 Corinthians. 


1. (P. 256.) MARQUARDT, Röm. Staatsverw.? i. 321-333 ; MOMMSEN, Rom. 
Gesch.? v. 234 ff.; BranDıs in Pauly-Wissowa RE, i. 190 ff. From the days of 
Augustus, Achaia’ was a senatorial province; and again, after a temporary 
union with Macedonia under Tiberius and Caius, it held this position at, 
the time of Claudius. It is with the period of Claudius that we are concerned. 
Regarding Corinth see Curris, Peloponnesos, ii. 514-556, 589-598. On 
account of its former glory it was termed “lumen totius Gracie” (Cie. pro 
lege Mamil. 5, cf. de Nat. Deor. iii. 38). This “ bimaris Corinthus ” (Hor. Od. i. 
7..2), on account of its location on the isthmus between the ports of Keyxpeat 
and Σχοινοῦς on the Saronic Bay and Λέχαιον on the the Bay of Corinth, 
soon reassumed its importance as a commercial centre for the trade between 
Asia Minor and Italy (Strabo, p. 378 [here also the proverbial οὐ παντὸς ἀνδρὸς 
ἐς Κύρινθόν ἐσθ᾽ ὁ πλοῦς], 380; Aristides, Or. iii., Dindorf, i. 37). In view of 
the dangers attending the voyage around Cape Madéa and the difficulties 
involved in transporting wares and ships via ‘the ““Diolkos,” which crossed 
the isthmus from Scheenus (Strabo, 335, 380; Plin. H. Nat. iv. 4. 10), there 
were repeated attempts to cut a channel through the isthmus, the last of 
these being made by the emperor Caligula (Suet. Calig. xxi; Plin. i. 1). The 
channel, was not completed until 1893. The management of the Isthmian 
games (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 24-27), which had been transferred to Sicyon during the 
time when Corinth was in ruins, was afterwards intrusted again to the latter 
city (Pausan. ii. 2. 1). Among the sanctuaries in and near the city were 
those of Isis, Serapis, and Melikertes (Pausan. ii. 1. 3, ii, 3, iv. 7). Like 
Argos and Athens, Corinth was a residence place of Jews (Philo, Leg. ad Cat. 
xxxvi, οἵ. Justin. Dial. i). It was an ambition of students also to see Corinth 
(Epict. Diss. ii. 16.32), although as an educational centre it! was not: to, be 
compared with Athens. Here near together lay the graves of the philosopher 
Diogenes and of the famous courtesan Lais (Pausan. ii, 2. 4). 

2. (P. 256.) Paul was the sole founder of the Corinthian Church, 1 Cor. 
iii. 6-10, iv. 15, ef. ix. 2, xi. 23, xv. 14, This is not contradicted by 2,Cor: i} 
19 ; for, 2 Cor. is not diverted exclusively to the Church in Corinth, as in 
1 Cor., but to the Christians of all Achaia (2 Cor. i. 1). There is conse- 
quently to be considered as included in the address primarily both Corinth 
and Athens, where Paul had tarried for some time with Timothy, in whose 
name also 2 Cor. was written, and where he had also spent some time 
with Silas (1 Thess. iii. 1-5, above, p. 205f.). The broad term used (πᾶσιν, 
ὅλῃ) permits us, however, to include a number of places in the province 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 265 


where there were Christians. According to the reading of Codex D, Acts 
xviii. 27 would seem to indicate that immediately after the departure of Paul 
there were several ἐκκλησίαι in and near Corinth. According to 2 Thess. i. 4 
(above, p. 241, n. 11), such ἐκκλησίαι existed as early as the middle of Paul’s 
sojourn in the city. But only at a somewhat later date (Rom. xvi. 1) is refer- 
ence made to a particular ἐκκλησία, namely, that at Cenchrea. From 2 Cor. 
i. 19 we infer that Timothy and Silas, who, according to 1 Cor., could have 
had no appreciable share in the founding of the local Corinthian Church, 
laboured successfully in the vicinity of Corinth. Nor is this assertion con- 
tradicted by Acts. Just as Paul had prosecuted his labours at Corinth for 
some time before his assistants arrived (xviii. 1-4), so when he leaves Corinth 
nothing is said about them (xviii. 18). Even after their arrival at Corinth, 
allusion is made only to Paul (xviii. 5-17, cf. per contra, e.g. xvii. 1-15). It 
does not follow because Timothy and Silas were with Paul when 1 and 
2 Thess. were written, that they remained in Corinth continuously even for 
several months. While Paul “dwelt” in Corinth alone for eighteen months 
(Acts xviii. 11), Timothy and Silas were probably engaged in missionary 
activities in the province, working from Corinth as a centre. 

3. (P. 258.) Acts xvili. 1-4. Concerning the edict of Claudius, see § 11. 
The fact that Priscilla, or Prisca (according to the decisive testimony of Rom. 
xvi. 3; 2 Tim. iv. 19—perhaps also 1 Cor. xvi. 19), is regularly mentioned along 
with Aquila and more than once before him (Rom. xvi. 3; 2 Tim. iv. 19; 
Acts xviii. 18, perhaps also xviii. 26), permits the supposition that she was 
the more important of the two. Because Aquila (Acts xviii. 2) is designated 
as a certain Jew of this name, and because Paul’s introduction into his house- 
hold is due merely to the fact: ἦσαν yap σκηνοποιοὶ 7 τέχνῃ (xviii. 3), we 
are not to imagine that they were already Christians, or had heen: previously 
acquainted with Paul. Paul “found” Aquila in looking for lodgings and 
opportunity for work. It is easy to understand why in such commercial 
centres as Thessalonica (1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8) and Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 
7-12, xii. 13-18 ; 1 Cor. iv. 12, ix. 4-18) Paul'should not desire his mission- 
ary activity to be looked upon as a money-making pursuit. On the other 
hand, this humble character of his daily work was in keeping with the spirit 
in which he came to Corinth. His occupation also was an &avröv rameivovv, 
2 Cor. xi. 7. 

4. (P. 258.) Paul himself baptized Crispus (Acts xviii. 8), and also a cer- 
tain Gaius (1 Cor. i. 14). There isno'good reason for doubting that the Crispus 
mentioned in the two passages is the same person, nor for questioning the 
accuracy of the statements concerning him (Heinrici, Comm. i. 1880, p. 10 ; 
Holsten, Ev. des Pl. i. 186). In 1 Cor. Paul had no occasion to mention 
his Jewish origin, or the fact that he was a ruler of the synagogue, or 
even to refer to the time of his baptism. The objection that the representa- 
tion of Acts xviii. 1-17 is constructed after the model of Rom. i. 16, ii. 9f. 
is entirely without foundation. In Thessalonica and Bercea, Paul preached, 
as arule, only in the synagogue; in Athens, both in the market-place and on 
the streets ; in Corinth, first in the synagogue, then in a private house. In 
Bercea, almost the whole Jewish populace, to which must be added certain 
proselytes, especially women, seems to have accepted the gospel (Acts. xvii. 
10-12). On the other hand, in Thessalonica and Corinth the opposition of 


266 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the Jews was so pronounced that the first converts were almost all Gentiles. 
Where, then, is the model that Luke is supposed to have followed in compos- 
ing his narrative? The argument that in Corinth the gospel found its first 
believers in a Greek home, which Holsten, i. 187, makes from 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 
is based primarily upon the incredible error that Greek names such as 
Stephanas were borne by Greeks only and not by Jews (see above, p. 63, n. 
10); and, secondly, on the further mistake of supposing that Stephanas was 
a Corinthian. Since the household of Stephanas is termed ἀπαρχὴ τῆς 
*Ayaias (1 Cor. xvi. 15), and since Paul before coming to Corinth was not 
unsuccessful in his preaching at Athens, which belonged to Achaia, Stephanas 
must have been converted and baptized at Athens. This is not contradicted 
by the fact that about the time 1 Cor. was written Crispus had come from 
Corinth to Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 17), had won credit for himself by aid- 
ing the collections in Corinth and Achaia for the Christians in Jerusalem 
(1 Cor. xvi. 15, cf. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. ix. 2),and very probably at that time re- 
sided in Corinth. The fact that Paul names Stephanas in such incidental 
way in 1 Cor. 1. 14f.—evidently bethinking himself of one whom he could 
name in addition to Crispus and Gaius—can be explained only on the ground 
that Stephanas was not one of the early converts of Corinth, to say nothing 
of his not being the ἀπαρχὴ Κορίνθου ; though at the time the Epistle was 
written his relationship to the Corinthian Church was such that the failure 
to mention him in 1 Cor. i. 14 f. would have seemed unbecoming. It is 
obvious that the agreement reached by the Church at Jerusalem, Gal. ii. 9, 
did not prevent Paul from beginning his preaching in the synagogues 
wherever he had an opportunity to do so (cf. Skizzen, 70-76, and NKZ, 
1894, S. 441f.). That this was what he did in Corinth we should infer 
from 1 Cor. i. 22-24, vil. 18, ix. 20, even were it not reported in Acts xviii. 
with so many lifelike details, and consequently in a manner so worthy of 
credence. Whether the Gaius mentioned along with Crispus, who, accord- 
ing to Rom. xvi. 23, was a man of great hospitality, was a Jew or not we do 
not know. ‘Titus (al. Titius), or Justus, or Titus Justus (Acts xviii. 7), who 
cannot be identified with the Titus of Gal. ii. 3; 2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6-xii. 18 
(Wieseler, Chronol. 204), if the correct chronology is followed, was a σεβόμενος, 
i.e., according to the terminology of Acts (above, p. 212, τι. 6), a Gentile hold- 
ing allegiance to the synagogue, not a circumcised proselyte. Aquila and 
Priscilla, Paul had no reason to mention in 1 Cor. i. 14 as they had perma- 
nently left Corinth, Acts xviii. 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Rom. xvi. 3. They cer- 
tainly were won to the faith before Crispus, and must have been baptized not 
later than the formation of the independent Church in Corinth. The “many 
Corinthians ” who were influenced to a decision by the baptism of Crispus, 
Acts xviii. 8, must for this reason have belonged to those Hellenes who before 
that time had been more or less closely allied with the synagogue, Acts 
xviii. 4. This, however, does not hold of the λαὸς πολύς in ver. 10. At the 
time when 1 Cor. was written (vi. 11, viii. 7, xii. 2), the congregation was 
for the most part made up of native Gentiles, although later on Apollos was 
successful in bringing some Jews into the Church (nn. 6, 11). From 1 Cor. 
i. 26-31 we may infer that there were in the congregation several persons, 
though not many, of higher rank and of more thorough education. With 
regard to Erastus, see above, p. 259 (middle). 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 267 


δ. (P. 258.) Concerning Gallio, see XI. (Chron. Survey). It is not to be 
assumed that the Jews (Acts xviii. 13) accused Paul as a transgressor of the 
Mosaic law; for (1) there is wanting here any expression which would indi- 
cate such to be the case, as in John xix. 7, xviii. 31; Jos. Ant. xiii. 3. 4 (in the 
contest between the Jews and the Samaritans before Ptolemy Philometor, cara 
τοὺς Μωυσέως νόμους). (2) It is self-evident that the law to which the accuser 
appeals is that by which the judge must decide the case. It was a principle 
with the Jews that in legal process appeal might be made to Gentile as well 
as to Jewish laws (Baba Kamma, 1130). (3) It is no objection that Gallio 
says, ver. 15, περὶ νόμου τοῦ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς. On the contrary, this pointed expression 
implies that this was just the opposite of that law according to which Gallio 
had to judge. In the aceusation, which in ver. 13 is naturally presented in 
a very much abbreviated form, the Jews must have argued that Christianity 
- was not to be identified with Judaism, which was tolerated by the Roman 
law, but that it was rather to be treated as an apostasy from Jewish law and 
faith. This was the basis of fact for Gallio’s judgment. (4) It would have 
been folly, of which even blind fanaticism would be incapable (C. Schmidt, 
Apostelyeschichte, i. 533), to seek the defence of Jewish orthodoxy at the hands of 
a proconsul, especially outside of Palestine, where the conditions were especi- 
ally adverse to the success of such a plea. It would have been more clumsy still, 
before a judge whose religion and worship were opposed to Mosaism, to accuse 
Paul of teaching mankind (not Jews) to honour God in a manner contrary 
to the Mosaiclaw. The real accusation of the Corinthian Jews was essentially 
the same as that in Acts xvii. 7, cf. xvi. 21; Luke xxiii. 2; John xix. 15. 

6. (P. 259.) If in Acts xviii. 17, whether we read πάντες (RAB) without 
οἱ Ἕλληνες (DEHLP), or the very slightly attested oi ’Iousatoı, we can under- 
stand only the Jews who appeared before Gallio in great crowds (ver. 12, 
ὁμοθυμαδόν). If the ring of Hellenes on the outside were meant, statement 
to that effect would be necessary, and even then it would be impossible to 
exclude the Jews from the πάντες. If, as appears from xviii. 8, 17, and as 
was customary (Schiirer, 11. 439 [Eng. trans. 11. ii. 65]), there was only one 
ruler of the synagogue at Corinth, then Sosthenes was the successor of Crispus. 
He is not to be distinguished from the Christian Sosthenes of 1 Cor. i. 1. 
Paul does not usually mention the amanuensis to whom he dictates,—especially 
not in such a prominent place as the opening address (ef. Rom. xvi. 22). On 
the other hand, Sosthenes is not to be looked upon as the joint writer with 
him of the letter; for, from i. 4 on, Paul speaks only in hisown name. The 
only addresses which are strictly comparable are Phil. i. 1,3; Philem. 1, 3, and 
perhaps also Gal. 1, 2. If, however, it carried weight with the Corinthians 
to know that there was with Paul a Sosthenes who agreed with what was 
said in the letter, this person must have been well known to them and 
respected by them,—a description which suits the former chief of the syna- 
gogue in Corinth. If, later, he became a Christian, and we have no reason 
to believe he did not, Apollos may have helped him from his attitude of 
opposition to the gospel, which had already begun to waver, to a condi- 
tion of actual faith (seen. 11). According to Eus. H. E.i. 12. 1f., Clement 
Alex. reckoned this Sosthenes among the seventy disciples. He clearly 
distinguishes him from the Sosthenes of Acts xviii. 17, just as he attempts 
to distinguish the Cephas of Gal. ii. 11, and also of 1 Cor. i. 12, from the 


268 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Apostle Peter. Lipsius (Apocr. Apostelgesch. 1. 201; Ergänzungsheft, S, 3) 
has been misled through the careless reading of Eus. H. H.i..12 into stating 
that the author’s statement here and in Forsch. 111. 68, 148 is “simply 
untrue.” Eusebius writes: “It is said that to these (seventy disciples) 
belonged also Sosthenes, who, together with Paul, wrote to the Corinthians. 
And this narrative is found in ‘the fifth book of the Hypotyposes of Clement, 
in which he also says that “Cephas,” etc. The “also” (ἐν % καὶ Knpav) 
proves that this assertion regarding Cephas was not ithe only thing that 
Clement said, and that ἡ ἱστορία refers to the preceding remark ‚about 
Sosthenes (cf. Eus. H. H. ii. 15. 2). 

7. (P. 260.) Krenkel, Beiträge zur Gesch. u. den Briefen des Pl. (1890, 
18952), 233 ff, opposes the dating of 1 Cor. at about the end of the 
Ephesian activity of Paul, on the ground that an inference drawn from 
the combination of statements in Acts, which he alleges are entirely unre- 
liable, with those of 1 Cor. is not to be trusted. But the route taken by 
Paul, according to Acts, namely, by way of Macedonia and Corinth to 
Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21), is identical with that proposed in 1’Cor. xvi. 3-7. 
Nor is there any contradietion in the faet that, according to Acts xix. 21 
(ef: Rom. xv. 25), Paul looks upon Jerusalem quite definitely as his goal, 
whereas in 1 Cor. xvi. 4 he seems to speak of it hypothetically ; for the con- 
cluding clause in this latter passage—not σὺν αὐτοῖς πορεύσομαι, but ody 
ἐμοὶ mopevoovra—shows that it is not a question whether Paul will go to 
Jerusalem at all with the offering, but whether he will go in company with’ 
the delegates of the Corinthians. It is pointed out that in Acts xix. 22 
mention is made of Timothy’s journey only to Macedonia, not to Corinth, and 
that, on the other hand, it is not expressly stated in 1 Cor. xvi. 10 that 
Timothy was to go to Corinth by way of Macedonia. But in the: latter 
passage this is the clear inference (above, p. 259). On the other hand, in 
Acts, which does not touch at all upon the relations of Paul and the 
Corinthian Church, there is no occasion to mention the final goal.of Timothy’s 
journey.’ The mention in Acts xix. 22 (cf. Rom. xvi. 23) of the Corinthian 
Erastus would make it seem, quite apart from 1 Cor., that the journey 
was.to be’continued from Macedonia to Corinth. It is true that we are 
ποῦ able to infer from 1 Cor. what actually took place after Timothy 
was sent, but only Paul’s intention at the time of his departure. This in- 
tention is not only the same as that which, according to Acts xix. 21 f.,xx.1f., 
Paul had had shortly before and at the time of his final departure from 
Ephesus, but it excludes every thought of a return to his labours at Ephesus 
after having paid his projected visit to Corinth, Had this been Paul’s 
intention, or had he even thought of it as a serious possibility, consideration 
of the large opportunity afforded him of spreading the gospel in Ephesus, 
and the many obstacles with which he had to contend in doing this, would 
not have been sufficient reason for his remaining in Ephesus at least until 
Pentecost, instead of leaving at once (xvi. 8, 9). At all events, Paul could 
not have designated the limit of his stay by ἕως τῆς πεντηκοστῆς, if it had not 
been self-evident that he was referring to the coming Pentecost. | Inasmuch 
as this reckoning follows the order of the Jewish festivals, he could not have 
expressed himself very well in this way if the Jewish “Church year,” the 
Pentecost of which year was in question, had not yet begun, ze. if the first 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 269 


of Nisan were not already past,—which agrees with the apparent suggestion 
in 1 Cor. v. 8, that this Epistle was written about the time of ‘ unleavened 
bread” (14-21 Nisan). ‘The period of six to seven weeks until Pentecost was 
long enough to accomplish what is suggested in 1 Cor, xvi. 9, being twice as 
long as the period required for the founding of the Church in Thhessalonica 
(above, p. 212, n, 5). If Timothy’s return was delayed (xvi. 11), ib is quite 
possible that the period of Paul’s further activity in Ephesus was extended. 
All that Paul means to say is, that in view of conditions at‘ Ephesus, he 
could not bring himself to leave until Pentecost. Then there was before 
him the journey through Macedonia, which evidently he did not think of as 
one that would be executed hastily, since he admits that his proposed longer 
sojourn at Corinth may consume the entire winter (xvi. 6). Not before the 
following spring, t.e. about a year after the sending of 1 Cor., does he 
think of travelling to Jerusalem. It is true that his further intention οἵ 
going from Jerusalem to Rome is mentioned only in Acts xix. 21. But 
since 1 Cor. contains no contradictory suggestion, it is idle to question 
the historicity of the expression in direct discourse given in Acts xix. 21. 
Instead of the inference from 1 Cor. xvi. 19 that all the Christians of 
Ephesus assembled in the house of Aquila, whereas in a writing alleged 
to be directed to Ephesus (Rom. xvi. 5, 14 f.) reference is made to three 
house congregations (Krenkel, 234), the proper conclusion to be drawn from 
the accompanying greeting from all the brethren is, that the congregation in 
the house of Aquila formed only a part of the brotherhood at Ephesus, as 
did the congregation in the house of Philemon (Philem, 2) ‘at, Colossee. 

8. (P. 260.) Clem. 1 Cor. 65, τοὺς δὲ ἀπεσταλμένους ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν Κλαύδιον 
Ἔφηβον καὶ Οὐαλέριον Βίτωνα σὺν καὶ Φορτουνάτῳ ἐν εἰρήνῃ μετὰ χαρᾶς ev τάχεὶ 
ἀναπέμψατε πρὸς ἡμᾶς. If we take into consideration the distinct position 
here accorded to Fortunatus, it becomes evident that he is not one of the 
representatives of the Romans commissioned to the Corinthians, but merely 
the one in whose company these are travelling to Corinth, and in all prob: 
ability a Corinthian who made complaints at Rome concerning the disturbances 
in the home Church (GGA, 1876, 8. 1427 f. ; Lightfoot, 8. Clem. ii. 187). Τῇ 
the Fortunatus of 1 Cor, xvi. 17 was at that time (57 A.D.) a young man of 
thirty, he can easily be identical with the Fortunatus of 97 a.p., being one of 
the presbyters. of the Corinthian Church who was installed by the apostles, 
and who had grown grey in its service (Clem. 1 Cor. xliv. 3-6; xlvii. 6; 
liv. 2; lvii. 1). If Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus are the bearers, 
not only of the letter of the Corinthian Church to Paul, but also of 1 Cor., 
then they are the “brethren” in whose company Apollos might have gone 
back to Corinth, 1 Cor. xvi. 12. The order of the words does not agree 
with Hofmann’s interpretation of the verse, according to which the Chris- 
tians about Paul join with him in urging Apollos to undertake this 
journey. Assuming, on the other hand, that the order of the words in 
xvi. 11 does necessitate the reference of μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν to the Christians 
in whose company Paul will await the return of Timothy at Ephesus, they 
cannot have been the three Corinthians who were not to await the return of 
Timothy, but were to journey to Corinth at once (xvi. 12, viv) with 
1 Cor, in their keeping, and, in case Apollos could be persuaded to go 
in company with him. Neither can they have been the collective Christian 


270 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


community ab Ephesus (xvi. 20) ; they were rather those who were to travel 
with Paul via Macedonia to Corinth (see below, $ 19,n.6). The similarity 
of the expression, μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν, in xvi. 11, 12, does not Justify us in 
identifying the persons referred to in these passages. ὁ ἀδελφός or of 
ἀδελφοί may designate very different persons, according to the context or 
conditions previously known to the readers (cf. 2 Cor. viii. 18, 22, ix. 3, 5, 
xi. 9, xii. 18; Eph. vi. 23). 

9. (P. 262.) The references to the two early Epistles of Paul which are not 
in the collection of his letters, 1 Cor. v. 9-11, vii. 1, led in the second century 
to the fabrication of an Epistle from the Corinthians to Paul, and an answer 
from Paul to the Corinthians, both of which were embodied in the Canon of 
the Church of Edessa in the fourth century, bearing the common title, The 
Third Epistle to the Corinthians. From the Syrians they reached the 
Armenians and also some of the Latins. The best texts—Armenian and 
Latin, the former with a German translation—are those of P. Vetter, Der 
apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief (Tübinger Programm, Wien, 1894). Origin- 
ally these pieces were a portion of the old Acta Pauli, as previously con- 
jectured by the present writer (@K, ii. 607, 611, 879), and as is now proved 
to be the case by the Coptic fragments (©. Schmidt, NHJb. vii. 122; NKZ, 
1897, S. 937, n. 2); also Acta Pauli, ed. C. Schmidt, pp. 74-82 

10. (P. 262.) ᾿Απολλῶς (nominative), 1 Cor. iii. 5,22 (G incorrectly Απολλω); 
Acts xviii. 24 (Ὁ) ᾿Απολλώνιος, of which the shorter form is a contraction, 
N Copt. Απελλης) ; ᾿Απολλῶ (genitive), 1 Cor. i. 12, iii. 4, xvi. 12; Berl. tg. 
Urk. 295. 7; ᾿Απολλῶτι (dative), 811. 1, cf. 449. 1 (with a correction see also 
the address there ; on the other hand, Greek Pap. ed. Kenyon, ii. 333, No. 
393, ᾿Απολλῶ, dat.) ; ᾿Απολλώ, acc. 1 Cor. iv. 6 (CDGLP, Απολλων N*AB*); 
Acts xix. 1 poorly attested also Απολλων, N Copt. ArmeAAnv, D does not here 
contain the name); Tit. iii. 13 (XH have AmoMMwv, G Απολλωνα). The 
reading AreAAns seems to be of Egyptian origin (cf. besides X Copt., Ammonius 
in Cramer’s Catenew in Acta, p. 311. 1, 7, 13, apparently also Didymus, ibid. 
p. 309. 31, 312. 18), and goes back to the modest question of Origen (Delarue, 
iv. 682), whether Apelles, Rom. xvi. 10, be not identical with Apollos, Acts 
xviii. 24, as Didymus (loc. cit.) asserts. This was claimed also by those who 
made Apelles=Apollos, a bishop of Corinth, In commenting upon Acts 
xvili. 24, Blass suggests the Doric form ᾿Απέλλων for ᾿Απόλλων. Though not 
so strongly attested as ᾿Απολλώνιος, there is abundant proof of this abbreviated 
form in Egypt, the home of the Apollos of Acts (see the indices of vols, i. ii, 
111. of the Berl. dg. Urk.). We find that even down to the present, German 
scholars of distinction write the name of the man Apollo. This, as is well 
known, is the Latin form of the name of the god, ᾿Απόλλων, and it is there- 
fore necessary in a text-book to warn against this mistake. Or shall we soon 
read and hear Mino, rhinocero, ete. ? 

11. (P. 261.) The scene of the public disputations, Acts xviii. 28 (δημοσίᾳ, 
to which E alone adds καὶ κατ᾽ οἶκον), was certainly not the assembly of the 
Christians, nor a public place, but the synagogue, in which Apollos held forth 
at Corinth as he had done previously at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 26). The con- 
nection between Acts xviii. 28 and 27 leaves no doubt that the advantage 
of which Apollos proved himself to those who were already believers (or, 
according to another text, to the congregations of Achaia) was due to his 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 271 


frequent triumphs in these disputations with the Jews. The use of the 
strong word διακατηλέγχετο points likewise to actual results. From 1 Cor. 
iii. 5 we learn specifically that part of the Christians who composed the 
Church at the time of 1 Cor. owed their conversion to Apollos (ἐπιστεύσατε). 
It is therefore wrong to interpret the figure in 1 Cor. iii. 6-8 to mean that 
the special work of Apollos was the religious or intellectual training of those 
who had already been converted by Paul. It is not the individual Christians 
and their spiritual life, but the congregation in general, which constitutes the 
θεοῦ γεώργιον and θεοῦ oixodoun. According to 1 Cor. iii. 10-15, the activity 
of those who, like Apollos, continued the work of Paul, consisted in adding 
further material to the building, 7.e. in winning men to the faith and 
bringing them into the Church (cf. Eph. ii. 20-22 ; 1 Pet. ii. 5-7). According 
to the original text of Acts xviii. 27, certain Corinthians stopping in Ephesus 
heard Apollos preach and invited him to come to Corinth with them. This 
was the beginning of the “ Apollos party” in Corinth. 

12. (P. 263.) Hofmann, ii. 2. 396 (comp. also Holsten, 189, 445), was 
minded to find in 1 Cor. xvi. 7 reference to a former visit to Corinth. Were 
this the case, however, we should expect not äprı, which does not mean “on 
this occasion,” but rather πάλιν (2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 21, xiii. 2), or, if it is decided 
to associate the coming again with the present, ἄρτι πάλιν (Gal.i. 9). Further- 
more, the reason for this statement given in 75 would be somewhat tautological. 
Finally, in its present context ἄρτι must mean “ even now” in contrast with 
a later point of time (John xiii. 7, 33, xvi. 12). There is no force in the 
objection that Paul could speak in this way only if he were already on the 
journey (Hofmann, 395), because, even in this case, ἰδεῖν would still refer to 
the future ; while, from the eriticisms of the Atticists, we learn that ἄρτι was 
very commonly employed to designate the immediate future (cf. Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. 18 f.). What Paul says is this: He does not wish to visit Corinth 
at once coming directly from Ephesus, which would permit him to stop at 
Corinth only for a brief stay on his way into Macedonia. Then he gives as 
his reason for this decision not to come now, his hope of a longer visit, which, 
nevertheless, will have to be delayed (ver. 5), since, in any case, he must pro- 
ceed soon to Macedonia. 

13. (P. 263.) The testimony of 2 Cor. to a visit not mentioned in Acts is 
denied by Grotius (ii. 488, 539-541, with the stereotyped evasion est et hic 
trajectio), Reiche (Comm. Crit. i. 337 f.), Baur (i. 337-343), Hilgenfeld (Hinl. 
260, n. 2), Heinrici (ii. 9-13 and elsewhere). But the only possible sense that 
can be given to 2 Cor. xiii. 1 is that Paul, at the time when he was writing 
2 Cor., was on the point of coming to Corinth for the third time. In the light. 
of this verse xiii. 2 must be understood ; τὸ δεύτερον is to be taken with παρών, 
νῦν with drrov, so that the προείρηκα must have taken place during the second 
visit. Similarly xii. 14 and xii. 21 must be taken together. There is no gram- 
matical objection to taking τρίτον with ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, and this is the only 
interpretation that fits the context (cf. Krenkel, Beiträge, 185); for to say that 
this was the third time that Paul was ready to come to Corinth, even if it were 
possible, would be without point in connection with xii. 14. In order, with 
good conscience, to separate ev λύπῃ from πάλιν (ii. 1), which Theodoret, 
contrary to the word arrangement and Paul’s linguistic usage (Krenkel, 202), 
undertook to connect with ἐλθεῖν, making it refer to Paul’s return to 


272 INTRODUCTION TO 'THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Corinth, in some eursives the πάλιν was placed after ἐλθεῖν, and in the 
Coptic, which omits πάλιν, after ὑμᾶς. . But in all the other MSS. it is clearly 
stated that Paul had visited in Corinth once in sorrow, in fact, as the context 
and the comparison xii. 21, xiii. 2, show, in sorrow for the Church’s condition. 
This can have no reference to the despondency with which Paul appeared 
for the first time in Corinth (1 Cor. ii. 3), but must refer to, the second visit, 
of which we are speaking. Wrongly assuming that 2 Cor. x. 10 represents 
the words of one of the Jewish Christians who had come! to Corinth from 
without (see per contra, below, § 18, n. 8), Krenkel (210) finds in this passage 
also definite reference to the second visit. If, however, the speaker is rather 
a native Corinthian, his words may well represent the impression which Paul 
made at the time of his first visit.. If the second visit is also included, no 
conclusion can be drawn regarding the time of the same. 

14. (P. 264.) Krenkel, 154-174, thinks he proves that 1 Cor. itself excludes 
the assumption of a second visit to Corinth prior to the time when 1 Cor. was 
written. If this visit occurred in the first year of his work in Ephesus—say 
in the summer or fall of 55 or in the spring of 56—the aryumentum e silentio 
(n. 12) is particularly weak. We are unable to determine all that took place 
in Corinth in the twelve or twenty months which elapsed between this time 
and that of the writing of 1 Cor., and all the transactions between Paul and 
the Church. But the character of the facts that do come to light in 1 Cor,, 
the immediately preceding correspondence which has not been preserved to 
us, and the reports concerning the factional differences, and various other 
disorders in the Church (1 Cor. i. 11, xi. 18), make it clear that Paul has no 
more occasion to speak of that visit. In the letter spoken of in 1 Cor. v. 9, 
and in numerous other letters of which we know nothing, he. may have 
spoken of it. It is argued that there is no expressly stated distinction in 
1 Cor. ii. 1-5, iii. 6-10, xv. 1 ff. between the first and second visits (as in 
Gal. iv. 13); but this is true also of 2 Cor. i. 19, xi. 8 f. The only inference 
to be drawn from all these passages is that, on his second visit to Corinth, 
Paul did not carry on a missionary activity as he had done during his second 
visit in the province of Galatia (above, p. 171, n. 2). This, however, would 
need no explanation if Paul interrupted his fruitful missionary activity at 
Ephesus for only a brief time in order to visit the Corinthian Church. The 
instructions, exhortations, and discussions with the believers which took 
place at that time do not come properly under the idea of an ἐποικοδομεῖν 
(1 Cor. iii. 10-15, above, n. 11). To the view advanced first by Baronius 
and most reeently by Anger, de Temp. in Actis Ratione (73), that the second 
visit to Corinth was only a return from a short excursion made during the 
eighteen months of his residence there (Acts xviii. 11), the following objec- 
tions may be made: (1) the use of the word ἐκάθισεν (see above, p. 263 f., 
n. 2), to which there is nothing analogous in the report of his stay in 
Ephesus; (2) such a resumption of labours after a brief interruption could 
not be classed as a second visit along with his-first appearance in Corinth and 
his last visit, which was months in preparation. Still less, since 2 Cor. 
is addressed to the Christians of entire Achaia, could it be compared toa 
journey to that region. Even more questionable is the suggestion of Neander 
(Pflanzamg und Leitung, 5te Auf. 320), that we read into Acts xix. 1 a journey 
to Achaia. 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 2573 


15. (P. 263.) Since the persons who brought the Epistle of the Corinthians 
were in entire harmony with Paul, at least at the time when they started back 
to Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 17, above, p. 260 f.), there is no doubt that of their own 
accord, or in response to his questions, they reported many things to him 
which were not in the communication of the Church. From them he may 
have learned the facts touched upon in iv. 18, v. 1 ff., vi. 1 ff., xi. 18, xv. 12, 
Inasmuch, however, as it was not from them but from those of the household 
of Chloe that Paul learned of the strifes mentioned in i. 11-iv. 6, it is evident 
that these “members of Chloe’s family” must have reached Ephesus before 
the bearers of the Epistle from the Church. On the other hand, the informa- 
tion brought by the members of Chloe’s family must have concerned events 
which had just occurred ; for manifestly in i. 11 ff. Paul is speaking of the 
conditions in question for the first time. This situation must have been as 
yet unknown to him when he wrote his previous letter (v. 9), for otherwise 
he would have discussed it, and from the tone of i. 11-iv. 6 it is evident that 
he did not. Still less, then, could Paul have noticed these discords at the 
time of his visit to Corinth. The only respect in which he compares the 
impressions which he received on this second visit with those which. he fears 
he will receive when he comes again, is that of sorrow (2 Cor. ii. 1, xii. 21). 
He clearly distinguishes, however, between the unchastity which had caused 
him sorrow then (II. xii. 21, xiii. 2), and the factional strifes which he fears 
he shall now find (II. xii. 20). 


§ 18. THE CONDITION OF THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 
AT THE TIME WHEN FIRST CORINTHIANS WAS 
WRITTEN. 


In striking contrast to the situation of the Christians 
in Thessalonica, the Church in Corinth was enjoying a 
condition of undisturbed peace. There are a number of 
things which account for this condition, e.g. the mixed 
character of the population of a great commercial city, 
where men are constantly coming and going from all parts 
of the world, the great number of different religious cults 
tolerated in Corinth, the impartiality in religious matters 
of the proconsul in whose term of office the Church became 
established (above, p. 267, n. 5), the social standing of 
some of the members of the Church, and the prominent 
place of others even in the government of the city (above, 
pp. 258, 268 ἢ, n. 4). But, as indicated by the ironical 
comparison which the apostle makes between the situation 
of the Corinthians, who were living in this world as if it 

VOL. I. 18 


274 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


were the millennium (iv.8-13), and that of himself and 
his fellow-missionaries, this condition of peace had been 
secured at too great cost. The word of the Cross, the 
sharp contrast which it implies to all natural wisdom 
with the practical inferences therefrom (1. 17-31; Gal. 
vi. 14), had not made an impression sufficiently deep. 
They need to be reawakened to a sense of the fact that 
they were a body of persons separated by faith and 
baptism from the world about them, and from their 
own past (i. 2, ili, 17, vi. 11). Members of the Church 
were actually bringing suit against each other in heathen 
courts (vi. 1-8). No scruples were felt about maintaining 
friendly and social intercourse with the heathen (x. 27). 
Many even went so far as to take part in festivities con- 
nected with idolatrous worship, in the banquets held in 
heathen temples (vill. 10, x. 21). Although this dangerous 
approach to the worship of idols which had been so recently 
abandoned was not approved by all, so that, as may be 
inferred from the detail with which it was answered 
(viii. 1-x. 33), the question was submitted to Paul in 
the communication of the Church whether it was per- 
missible to use meat that had been offered to idcls, it was 
the opinion of the majority, expressed in the communica- 
tion from the Church, that this liberal attitude toward 
heathen worship was entirely justifiable. Because every 
Christian knew that the heathen conception of the gods 
was entirely false, it was argued, everyone was free to con- 
sider everything associated with heathen worship a matter 
of indifference so long as he did not engage in the worship 
itself. Indeed, it was said, to act with this freedom was 
an obligation, in fulfilling which an encouraging example 
might be given to such of their fellow-Christians as were 
still undeveloped in knowledge and in the sense of moral 
freedom. By this it was hoped they might be raised to a 
level with themselves (n. 1). Without disputing at all 
the theoretical presupposition of this position, but rather 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 275 


himself affirming repeatedly the nothingness of the gods 
believed in and worshipped by the heathen (viii. 4, x. 19), 
Paul combats such an employment of their Christian 
knowledge and such a use of their Christian liberty. 
The principle advocated by the Church, πάντα ἔξεστιν 
(x. 23, ef. vi. 12), he holds, must be limited in two 
directions. In the first place, not everything permissible 
is advantageous to one’s neighbour. Out of tender regard 
for a fellow-Christian less developed than himself, particu- 
larly for the sake of the conscience of such a person, the 
Christian must stand ready to give up his undoubted 
rights and liberties (viii. 1-3, 7-12), an example which 
had been set by Paul himself in the conduct of -his 
ministry (vill. 13-ix. 22). In the second place, not 
everything permissible is best for the Christian himself 
the use of whose freedom is in question. Just as the 
apostle for his own spiritual good foregoes many things 
in themselves pleasant (ix. 23-27), so for their own sakes 
the Corinthians ought to avoid dangerous contact with 
heathen worship (n. 2). The history of Israel in the 
wilderness proves by terrible example that wantonly to 
long after the pleasures enjoyed in the old life before 
conversion, to incline toward the use of heathen forms 
of worship, and to indulge in the practice of heathen 
unchastity, is to tempt God, and to bring down destruction 
even upon the redeemed (x. 1-11). In order to correct 
the spirit of false confidence with which many of the 
Corinthians had been treading upon this slippery ground 
(x. 12, 22), the apostle insists that, quite apart from the 
question whether or not there is a Zeus or an Apollo, an 
Aphrodite or an Isis, there are evil spirits whieh work in 
connection with the worship of these so-called gods, to 
whose influence everyone is exposed who has anything to 
do with heathen worship, even though so indirectly as was 
the case among the Corinthians (x. 15-21). From x. 13, 
taken in connection with x. 14 (διόπερ), it appears that 


276 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the Church had argued that it was impossible to cut 
themselves off entirely from contact with heathen life, 
because it would only be to subject themselves to greater 
temptations than it was possible for human powers. to 
endure (cf. Hofmann, ii. 2, 207, and the similar line of 
thought in 2 Cor. vi. 14-18). Similarly, the casuistie 
questions which Paul was required to answer in x. 25-30 
were asked for the purpose of showing that in the inter- 
course of daily life it was quite impossible to avoid eating 
εἰδωλόθυτα. This same principle, the necessary limita- 
tions of which Paul here points out, the Church had 
applied also to questions about sexual relations (vi. 12). 
In view of the manner in which Paul replies, it is very 
probable that the Church had represented the gratifica- 
tion of sexual desire to be a natural function, like the 
satisfaction of hunger, although we are no longer able 
to determine how far the comparison was carried and 
how much it was made to cover. Certain it is, however, 
that the Church had not agreed with what Paul had 
said on this subject. An exhortation in his previous 
letter to refrain from intercourse with wicked persons, 
particularly with unchaste persons, had been misunder- 
stood, or, as Paul hints when making his transition to 
this subject in v. 8, unfairly misconstrued. He was 
represented as demanding an impossible avoidance of 
all contact with immoral persons, whereas his exhorta- 
tion was meant to apply only to immoral members of 
the Church (v. 9-13). It was the general opinion in 
Corinth that Paul, being himself unmarried, had been 
too rigorous in his demands affecting this side of the 
natural life. So in their letter the Church had taken 
him to task for holding that entire abstinence from all 
sexual intercourse was something to be commended. 
Paul confesses this to be the principle upon which he 
stands, and makes various applications of it (vil. 1, 8, 
26-35, 40), but in such a way as to make it appear 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 277 


that marriage is to be the rule, the right to remain 
single being conditioned upon personal possession of the 
charismata requisite thereto (vü. 2,7, 9). At the same 
time we learn that there were some in Corinth who 
were opposed to the position taken by the majority, and 
treated marriage contemptuously, possibly on the strength 
of what Paul had said, recommending or even insisting 
that married persons should refrain altogether from sexual 
intercourse or even dissolve their marriage relation alto- 
gether, particularly in cases where husbands remained 
non-Christians; also rejecting as sinful marriage subse- 
quent to conversion, particularly the re - marriage "of 
widows (n. 3). Although Paul tells this minority 
quietly and earnestly that marriage is a natural right 
(vu. 3-5), reminding them of the command of Jesus 
by which the marriage bond is declared to be inviolable 
(vu. 10 ff), against the majority, whose opinion was 
expressed in the letter, he defends his point of view 
not without some show of irritation. Where the case 
is not covered by an express command of Jesus, while 
not speaking with apostolic authority, he does speak as 
one who has been given the grace to become a faithful 
Christian (vii. 25). He thinks that he has the spirit of 
God quite as much as this self-sufficient Church (vii. 40). .- 
This feeling on the part of Paul was due as much as 
anything else to the concrete case with the discussion of 
which this second section of the letter (chaps. v.-vii.) begins. 
He does not need to mention the source whence he had 
derived this information ; for this case of one of their own 
members who was living in incestuous relations, or in 
relations of concubinage, with his father’s wife, 1.6. with 
his step-mother, was talked of quite publicly, more openly 
than was customary in such cases even among the heathen 
(n. 4. The haughty manner in which the Church had 
written the apostle, not about this particular case, to 
be sure, but about kindred questions (v. 9 ff, vi. 12 ff, 


278 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


vii. 1 ff.), and the general moral condition of the Church 
(v. 6), show that there was no feeling of shame about the 
matter, and that nothing had been done to remove the 
scandal. As shown by the relation of v. 2, 13 to Deut. 
Xvil. 7, 12, xxiv. 7, the only atonement which Paul 
deemed adequate was the removal of the offender from the 
Church by official condemnation to death. He had decided 
at once how this requirement of God’s law could be carried 
out consistently with the nature of the Church of the new 
-covenant; and since he could not, or would not, act 
alone in the matter, he communicated his view to the 
Church, with the suggestion that they adopt it and unite 
with their absent founder in carrying it out. The apostle 
in Ephesus proposes that the Church in Corinth join with 
him in the name of Jesus and in the confidence that Jesus’ 
miraculous power will be vouchsafed to them (cf. Matt. 
Xvill. 19 f.), to constitute a court which shall deliver the 
offender over to Satan in bodily death, in order that his 
spirit may be saved in the day of judgment. It is not to 
be an act of excommunication by the Church, but a judg- 
ment of God, a miracle in answer to prayer, in which Paul 
and the Church are to unite, and for which a definite day 
and hour are to be arranged. 

While the two sections chaps. v.—vil. and chaps. vill.—x. 
show that the moral life and the moral judgment of 
the Church were imperilled by lack of separation from 
the customs and ideas of their heathen neighbours, from 
chap. xv., particularly from the poetical quotation xy. 33, 
we learn that in the case of some (xv. 12, 34, τινές), things 
had reached the point where their judgment about matters 
of faith was being formed under the influence of heathen 
conceptions. As Paul’s argument shows, the contention 
of some of the Corinthians, “ There is no resurrection of 
the dead,” was not intended to refer to the resurrection of 
Christ. In this case; on account of Christ’s exceptional 
character and the close relation in time between His death 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 279 


and resurrection, those denying the resurrection of the 
dead would necessarily have had to make an exception 
of this event of gospel history. What they did mean to 
deny was only the Christian's hope of a future bodily 
resurrection. But this denial was so radical in character, 
and so fundamentally connected with the belief that the 
bodily resurrection of the dead was impossible and incon- 
ceivable, that Paul felt it necessary first of all to show 
that the resurrection of Christ, denial of which was after 
all involved in their premises (xv. 13, 16), was a fact 
amply attested, and an essential element not only in, 
the gospel which Paul preached and upon. which the 
faith of the Corinthians was based, but of all the apostolic 
preaching (xv. 1-11). 

Another source of degeneracy was the unusually rich 
endowment of the Church with χαρίσματα, especially with 
various forms of inspired speech (n. 5)... Not only did this 
increase the feeling of self-importance on the part of the 
Church as a whole, but the pride felt by individuals 
because of their special gifts, and the preference for one 
gift above another, produced discord and disorder in 
public worship. The Church had asked particularly for 
Paul's opinion about the so-called speaking with tongues 
(n. 5). Here, too, as in the case of questions about 
marriage and sacrifices made to idols, there was an oppos- 
ing minority view, as is evidenced by the two. principles 
which Paul lays down at the beginning of his discussion 
(chaps. xii.—xiv.). While to some the ecstatic and unin- 
telligible utterances of those who spoke with tongues 
seemed like the outbursts of enthusiasm heard in heathen 
worship, and, while in general these opposed the use of 
tongues for fear of the utterances of blasphemies in con- 
nection with it, the majority showed an abnormal, or, as 
Paul expresses it in xiv. 20, ἃ childish preference for 
tongues, regarding this gift as the strongest possible proof 
of the overwhelming power of the Spirit in the Church, 


, 


280 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which feeling on their part was due to the associations of 
heathen worship quite as much as were the exaggerated 
fears of the minority (xii. 2). These fears Paul sets at 
rest by the assurance that no one speaking by the Spirit 
of God can call Jesus accursed. On the other hand, in 
order to guard against an over-valuation of the gift of 
tongues, he lays down the principle that even the simplest 
confession of Jesus as Lord cannot be made without the 
Holy Spirit. Exelusive preference for a single charisma, 
no matter which one it was, and the giving of prominence 
to those possessing it, is contrary to the divine purpose in 
bestowing a diversity of gifts, and is inconsistent with 
the nature of the Church (xii. 4-30). The necessary con- 
dition for the proper valuation of the different charismata 
is the insight that it is in no sense these spiritual en- 
dowments and extraordinary powers which in this world 
bring human and even inanimate nature into the service 
of the Church, that give men value and insure their 
salvation, but only conformity of the heart to God, faith 
in the gospel, and hope in everlasting life, and above 
everything else love (xii. 3l-xii. 13). But love also 
teaches the proper valuation and right use of the charis- 
mata (xiv. 1-40). Judged by this standard, the prophet 
who, while speaking to the Church with enthusiasm and 
in the belief that he has a revelation, yet retains self- 
consciousness and self-control, who is able also when 
occasion offers to reach the heart and conscience even of 
unbelievers who come into the Christian religious services, 
stands infinitely higher than the person who speaks with 
tongues, and in a state of ecstasy gives utterance to unin- 
telligible prayers and praise. Because love does not seek 
its own, but the good of its neighbour and the prosperity 
of the whole Church, it supplies also the practical rules 
regulating the use both of tongues and of prophecy in the 
services of the Church. It was lack of discrimination in the 
use of this talent which led even women, as the connection 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 281 


shows, especially those who possessed the gift of glossolalia 
(speaking with tongues) or of prophecy, to speak openly 
in the public services of the Church (xiv. 33-35). Since 
Paul discountenances this practice altogether, what is said 
in xi. 3-16, where prayer and prophecy on the part of 
women are spoken of as if entirely allowable, objection 
being made only to the custom that had been introduced 
in Corinth of allowing the women to remove their veils, 
must refer to services held in private houses. It is quite 
easy to see how the woman who was capable and felt 
called upon to act as priestess or prophetess in her own 
household, perhaps because her husband was not a Chris- 
tian or not especially gifted, might feel that she ought to 
bear witness to this equality between man and woman in 
the eyes of men and of God, also by appearing in public 
and speaking (n. 6). 

Besides the arguments against this disposition on the 
part of the women to be independent, suggested by the 
nature of the subject in hand, Paul reminds the Corin- 
thians twice that in permitting such practices they are 
acting contrary to the custom of all the other Churches 
(xi. 16, xiv. 33). Their conduct is such as would become 
them if they were the oldest Church in existence, when 
the fact that the gospel had gone out from them might 
give them a certain authority in matters of custom in the 
Church ; or if they were the only Church in the world, with 
no need whatever to consult the judgement and practice of 
other Churches (xiv. 36). This same thought is the con- 
clusion also of the discussion about idolatrous sacrifices. 
The Corinthians need to be careful, lest in deciding these 
questions arbitrarily they offend Jews and Gentiles and 
the Church of God, 1.6. the entire community of Chris- 
tians (x. 32, n. 7). Even more clearly than by the 
passages cited and other hints less strong (iv. 17, vii. 
17), the supreme contempt with which the Church seemed 
to Paul to treat its relation to all the rest of the Church 


282 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


is brought out in the greeting of the letter, in which at 
the very start Paul endeavours to bring the readers to the 
realisation that they constitute a society of persons called 
to be saints not in and of themselves, but only as they 
stand related to all other persons in the world who call 
upon the name of Christ (n. 8). The same exaggerated 
sense of independence which influenced individuals to 
assert their personal views or preferences without regard 
to anyone else, even at the cost of sacrificing order and 
unity in the life and worship of the Church as a whole, 
threatened also to sever its connection with all the rest of 
the Church. 

This danger was all the more imminent, because at 
this time the Church was in peril of losing its respect for 
the authority of its founder and its reverence for him. 
This affected their relation to other Churches, because it 
was Paul’s personal influence, with the doctrinal traditions 
and the rules regulating practical life which they had 
received from him, that from the beginning constituted 
the bond of union between them and the rest of the 
Church (vii. 10, xi. 28, xv. 8, 11), particularly the 
Churches in the Gentile world, which like themselves had 
been organised by Paul, and of which also he was the 
head (iv. 17, vii. 17, xi. 16, xiv. 33, xvi. 1, 19). Con- 
sequently, when the apostle, moved by the insolent 
manner in which he had been talked about and criticised 
behind his back (iv. 3, 7, 19, ix. 3), and by the way in 
which the Church had taken him to task in their com- 
munication (v. 9 ff., above, p. 276), affirms very positively 
his general authority as an apostle of recognised position 
(i. 1, 17, ix. 1, xv. 10), and his special authority as the 
organiser of the Corinthian Church (ii. 10, iv. 15, 
ix. 2), far more is involved than his own honour or a 
specific obligation of reverence on the part of the Church. 

The existence of cliques in the Chureh, of which Paul 
had learned recently (above, p. 273, n. 15), and on the 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 283 


basis of which information he discusses at lenoth the 
question of factionalism at the very beginning of the letter 
(i. 10-iv. 6; n. 9), must have imperilled both the pleasant 
relations between the Church and its founder and its own 
inner harmony. Nothing could be more erroneous than 
to suppose that either in Paul’s thought, or in fact, the 
Church was divided into four factions or even sects. 
One party is not set over against another, e.g. the pro- 
fessed followers of Paul over against the followers of 
Apollos, and the Cephas party over against the party of 
Christ. But he is simply speaking of a deep-seated habit 
which more or less all the Corinthians had, namely, 
that the individual, without reference to others of like 
opinion, called himself the personal follower of Paul, «.e. 
he made Paul his hero, in contrast naturally to others 
who affected a like relation to Apollos, Cephas, or Christ 
(i. 12, i. 4, 22, iv. 6). If a leader is at all essential to a 
party, then, so far as we are able to ascertain, these alleged 
parties in Corinth had no leaders. Certainly the men whom 
individuals in Corinth professed to follow had no purpose 
of being such leaders. Paul does not simply find fault 
with those who were using his name as if that which 
they were doing was only an exaggeration of something in 
itself justifiable, or an awkward defence of his interests ; 
but, specifically, in connection with his own name, he 
shows the foolishness and unchristlikeness of such talk, 
thereby condemning in the severest terms the persons by 
whom his name was so used (i. 13). That Apollos also 
condemned the persons in Corinth who were using his name, 
is very clear from iv. 6, xvi. 12, above, p. 262f. It is self- 
evident that Paul assumes that Christ cannot approve 
what His apostle condemns, along with the other formule 
expressing this folly. The same is true with reference to 
the relation of Peter to the followers of Cephas, as is espe- 
cially evidenced by the fact that elsewhere Paul speaks 
of him only in terms of respect (xv. 5, 11, ix. 5, iii. 22; 


234 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Gal. ii. 6-9). Consequently the men whose followers 
the Corinthians were fond of calling themselves had either 
already disowned their admirers, or, Paul thinks, would 
have done so had they been asked about the matter. 
It is impossible, therefore, to suppose that the question 
here is one with reference to parties which relatively were 
clearly defined. In this case the difference of opinion 
which came out in the course of the letter regarding the 
relation of the sexes, sacrifices to idols, speaking with 
tongues, and the resurrection, would have to be referred 
necessarily to one or another of the four alleged parties, 
something quite impossible to do. If it were a question of 
distinct parties, it is also hard to understand why, after 
chap. v., Paul makes not the slightest reference to any of 
the four watchwords. Still less can we suppose that the 
reference is to sects which held their own religious 
services, having separated themselves in this way from 
the body of the Church. The communication which Paul 
had received shortly before, to which 1 Cor. is the 
apostle’s answer, had been written, and the messengers 
bearing it sent not by individual Christians in Corinth, 
but by all the readers, 1.6. by the Corinthian Church 
(vii. 1, xvi. 17f., above, p. 261f.). The whole Church 
was in the habit of assembling to celebrate the Lord’s 
Supper and for other religious services (x. 17, xi. 17-22, 
xiv. 4, 5, 19, 23-25, 33f.). In view of disorders of all 
kinds, and even of σχίσματα (xi. 18), in connection with 
these services, it is probable, at least there is nothing in 
what Paul says which excludes it, though he does not say 
it in so many words, that those whose views were expressed 
in the various watchwords sat together in groups. Only 
upon this supposition—and not by supposing that these 
groups were formed purely on the basis of kinship or on 
a social basis (xi. 22, 33)—can we understand how the 
apostle foresaw that inevitably the outcome of such 
manifest divisions in the religious service, which was still 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 285 


one, must eventually result in the formation of distinct 
parties, and the breaking up of the Church into a number 
of sects (xi. 19, αἱρέσεις). 

In a Church which had been founded by Paul there 
was no occasion for anyone to affirm that he was a 
follower of Paul with an emphasis implying opposition to 
someone else, unless some other teacher had made an 
impression in Corinth by which Paul was likely to be 
overshadowed. That this teacher was Apollos, and that 
it was his successful work as a teacher in Corinth (above, 
p. 262 f.) that gave rise to the use of the two watchwords 
first mentioned in i. 12, does not require proof. More- 
over, from iii. 4-8, iv. 6 it appears that up to iv. 6 the 
diseussion is concerned mainly with the differences between 
the followers of Paul and of Apollos. What these differ- 
ences were we ascertain from 1. 17b-11. 2. The purpose 
of the whole passage is to justify the way in which Paul 
had preached in Corinth during the eighteen months of 
his residence there (Acts xviii. 11) in the face of hostile 
criticism, and to show that his preaching was free from 
certain pretensions which were contrary to his principles. 
Paul’s statements could not well be more entirely misun- 
derstood than by Hilgenfeld (inl. 267), when he assumes 
that Paul is here replying to the criticisms of Jewish 
Christians, who represented his successes as due to the 
use which he made of Greek culture, since it is not the 
fact that he had refrained from the use of these means 
which Paul proves. On the contrary, always simply 
stating this fact or assuming it (i. 17, οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου, 
1. 23, 1. 1, 4, ill. 1; 2 Cor. xi. 6), he justifies his action at 
length by setting forth his reasons and objects. Conse- 
quently the objection which he is meeting must have been 
to the effect that his preaching showed a lack of requisite 
learning and of convincing eloquence. In reply to this 
criticism, he develops the principles which he regarded as 
rightly determining the method of preaching the gospel 


2 


286 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


in missionary fields, the method required by the nature of 
the gospel. Both in its essential content, as presenting 
the cross of Christ, and in its consequent character, as a 
foolish preaching, missionary preaching—and that is the 
only commission that he has received from Christ—is 
inconsistent with the use of rhetoric and of other forms 
of learning (i. 17-31). While Paul’s refusal to use these 
means in the presentation of his message, and his strict 
confinement of himself to the essentials of the gospel, was 
very natural in view of his state of mind when he came to 
Corinth, it was nevertheless in keeping with the principles 
which he regarded as regulative of the missionary preach- 
ing (11..1--ὃ). Nor does he omit to say that for those whose 
self-denying faith has led to their salvation through the 
gospel, this sharp distinction between the foolish gospel 
and the natural mind both of Jews and of Greeks largely 
disappears ; since for Christians Christ comes to be also 
the only wisdom (i. 24, 30). He points out also that it is 
not the office of Christian teachers to be continually 
repeating the word of the cross to those who have been 
converted and are of mature spiritual understanding, but 
also to develop those conceptions of divine truth, which, 
being fully realised in the glory of the world to come, will 
bring the reconciliation of all contradictions in the nature 
of things and of all differences between faith and reason 
(ii. 6-12). But even if it were untrue that the things 
which he taught them could not be set forth in the 
categories of human culture, but from their nature de- 
manded a method all their own (ii. 13), the immaturity of 
his hearers made it impossible for Paul, while he was 
engaged in organising the Church, to employ this method 
of teaching (iii. 1 f.). It is clear, therefore, that the differ- 
ence between the followers of Paul and of Apollos was 
not one affecting the essentials of the word of the cross 
and of the “wisdom of God,” any more than the differ- 
ence between Paul and Apollos themselves, but only 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH _ 287 


involved the question as to how these should be presented, 
and a difference of opinion as to the value of rhetorie and 
logie in setting them forth. Many of the Corinthians 
seem to have been so carried away by the brilliant dis- 
courses of the eloquent Alexandrian, that thereafter the 
unadorned preaching of the “ plain” (2 Cor. xi. 6, ἰδιώτης) 
Paul seemed in comparison very deficient. It was not 
until it had been presented to them by Apollos’ logic, so 
they thought, that they had come to have a true under- 
standing of Christianity. When Apollos was talked about 
in this way, it is easy to see how some would regard such 
remarks as disparaging to the founder of the Church, and 
the less such persons approved of the method of Apollos, 
the more earnest they would be in their championship of 
Paul. Instead of all judging these two men at their real 
value, in the light of what they had actually done for the 
Church and in accordance with their respective gifts, 
individuals formed their own estimates in accordance with 
their own feelings, with the result that they vied with 
each other in their championship of one or the other of 
these two men (iv. 6): That they believed such champion- 
ship gave them a better hold upon Christianity is indi- 
cated by Paul’s question, whether Christ is divided so that 
they possess Him in greater or less degree according as 
they follow one or the other of their teachers (i. 13). 
Paul condemns their procedure, not only because it in- 
volves presumption in the formation of their judgments, 
but also because, in a manner inconsistent with the dignity 
of a Christian, it involves submission to men who are no 
rivals of God and of Christ in the work of redemption 
and in the bestowment of pardon upon the individual 
(i. 135, iii. 4-7, 22). 

/ This condemnation applies also to those who called 
themselves followers of Cephas. Inasmuch as it is im- 
possible to suppose that at this time Peter had been in 
Corinth in person (n. 10), we must assume that Christians 


283 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


who had been converted through his influence, perhaps 
also baptized by him (n. 11), but who in any case had 
had personal relations with him, had come from their own 
home to Corinth, and had increased the existing confusion 
by their ἐγὼ δὲ Knda. This is confirmed by the conclusion 
of the letter. As he is on the point of adding the part- 
ing benediction in his own hand, Paul stops suddenly to 
insert an anathema against everyone who does not love 
the Lord (xvi. 22), before putting down the benediction 
which he had already started to write. In this way he 
means to "indicate that the persons referred to are ex- 
cluded from his greeting to the Church, and so from 
the Church itself, to which he gives assurance of the grace 
of Jesus and of his own love (xvi. 23 1). When to this 
anathema he adds a significant phrase in the language of 
the Palestinian Jews, it is clear that the persons whom he 
has in mind are Christians who had come from Palestine 
(n. 12). That ii. 16-20 is directed against the followers 
of Peter, we must infer from the fact that the name of 
Peter occurs again in iii. 22 along with those of Paul and 
Apollos, in striking contrast to 11]. 4-8, and in seeming 
contradiction to the reference in iv. 6 to an earlier passage. 
After speaking in iii. 10-15 of those who, like Apollos, with 
good intentions, but in a way not altogether skilful, had 
built upon the foundation of the Church in Corinth laid 
by Paul, in iii. 16-20 Paul turns to those who, though 
engaged upon the same structure, had done their work in 
such a way that, in an outburst of anger, he feels con- 
strained to eall it not the building but the destroying of 
the temple of God. He trusts, however, that God will 
frustrate their evil designs and overwhelm them with 
destruction. 

It was impossible for anyone to boast with pride that 
he was a follower of Peter in a Church founded by Paul, 
without at the same time belittling Paul, the inevitable 
result of which, especially where opposition already 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 289 


existed between the admirers of Paul and of Apollos, 
must have been an increase of the confusion and the in- 
subordination to Paul of which there were already tokens 
enough. These followers of Peter were responsible, at 
least primarily, for the aspersions against which Paul 
defends his apostolic dignity, even in 1. 1, more clearly in 
ix. 1-3, and in somewhat different tone in xv. 8-10. It 
was argued that a man who had never seen the Lord 
Jesus, the Redeemer, in the flesh, could not rank as an 
apostle in the full sense in which this title belonged to 
Peter and to the other disciples whom Jesus Himself had 
called and trained for their mission. But by placing 
the appearance of Jesus, to which was due his conversion 
and call, on the same level with the personal intercourse 
between Jesus and His disciples (ix. 1), especially with 
the appearances of the risen Lord to His disciples (xv. 
5-8), Paul claims for himself the full apostolic title and 
all the rights which belonged to the other apostles. In- 
asmuch, however, as he aims to avoid any protracted 
argument on this point with these opponents who had 
come from abroad, simply insisting that the Corinthians 
shall recognise him as their apostle (ix. 2, ef. iii. 10, iv. 
15), he makes in this letter only a few pointed remarks 
about these followers of Peter. One observes that Paul 
knows more than he writes, and fears more than he knows. 
Possibly he found it advisable, before saying any more, to 
wait until he saw the effect of the threatening hint which 
he makes in this letter, perhaps also until he was more 
accurately informed as to what these persons were doing. 

He does say more in 2 Cor., and such parts of this 
letter as bear upon this subject may be discussed here, 
though there is no doubt that in the meantime not only 
had Paul learned more about these persons, but also their 
work in Corinth had assumed larger proportions. If the 
followers of Peter mentioned in 1 Cor. were Jewish Chris- 


tians who had come from Palestine, and were exert- 
VOL. I. 19 


290 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ing a very active and in Paul’s judgement destructive 
influence in and over the Church in Corinth, then they 
can be no other than the persons against whom Paul 
directs his attack in 2 Cor. 11. 17 ff., v. 12, χι. 1-12, 18. 
They had come to Corinth with letters of recommendation 
from outside authorities (iii. 1), and on the basis of these 
letters they claimed to possess authority at least equal to 
that of Paul. They boasted the purity of their Judaism, 
and made the Gentile Christians in Corinth feel the 
superiority which this gave them (xi. 18-22); to which 
Paul objects that the assumption of this air of superiority 
on their part only shows that the advantages which they 
claimed were merely external and borrowed, and not 
based upon their consciousness of personal merit and 
personal service (v. 12, ef. iii. 2). [ἢ preaching the word 
of God, they employ all the tricks which the salesman uses 
to get rid of his wares (i. 17, ef. iv. 2, xi. 13, ἐργάται 
δόλιοι, cf. Phil. ui. 2). They were travelling preachers, 
and had therefore the same formal right to call them- 
selves apostles as Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy, and they 
thought also the same right as Paul (cf. Skizzen, 53-65). 
They accepted the hospitality of the Corinthian Church, 
and took advantage of their position as evangelists to 
claim support from their hearers. Paul’s refusal to do so 
they declared to be proof of lack of faith in his calling 
and of want of love for the Church ; it was only a shrewd 
device on his part, they said, to get the Church more 
entirely under his control (xi. 7-12, xii. 13-18). These 
facts make it very clear why he discusses this topic in 
1 Cor. ix. 1-18 with a detail which, considering the 
particular theme of 1 Cor. viii.—x., is out of all proportion. 
He does it because even here in the first letter he has in 
view these followers of Peter who refused to admit that he 
had the same apostolic rights as the Twelve (1 Cor. ix. 1). 
It is for this same reason that he makes special mention of 
Cephas among the brethren and apostles of the Lord m 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 291 


1 Cor. ix. 5. To a certain extent Paul recognises the 
formal right of these wandering preachers to call them- 
selves apostles, when with “foolish boasting” he com- 
pares himself to them (2 Cor. xi. 21 f.), and calls them 
‘“the: very chief apostles.” (xi. 5, xii. 11, ef, xi.'23, n. 13), 
But he does not hesitate at all to express his real opinion 
of them, comparing them to the serpent who deceived 
Eve, and calling them false apostles and servants. of 
Satan, who make pretence of being apostles of Christ and 
servants of righteousness (x1. 3, 13-15). It was because 
their only purpose was to deceive that they made no 
direct attack upon the gospel which Paul had brought to 
Corinth. That they did not is proved absolutely by 
the fact that, while these persons are condemned in the 
strongest possible terms by Paul, there is not a single 
passage in either of the letters in which he opposes or 
warns his readers against “‘ another gospel” (Gal. i. 6), or 
even against doctrine inconsistent with the one gospel of 
Christ (contrast with Col. ü. 6-8, 20-23; Eph. iv. 14; 
Heb. xii. 9). It was just because these teachers from 
abroad had no Jesus and no gospel to preach other than 
those which Paul had preached before them, and no Holy 
Spirit to offer their hearers other than the one they had 
received when the gospel was preached to them for the 
first time, that it seemed to Paul so incomprehensible and 
so uncalled for that the Corinthians should receive these 
intruders, and allow themselves to be alienated from their 
own apostle by their influence (2 Cor. xi. 4, n. 13). Paul 
is certainly afraid that they may succeed in accomplishing 
more, by their cunning devices depriving the Church 
altogether of its simple and primitive Christian faith 
(2 Cor. xi. 3). That, of course, would involve subsequent 
corrupting of the gospel which the Corinthians had 
believed (1 Cor. xv. 1). There could be no doubt as to 
the direction which this falsification would take. ΒΥ 
boasting the purity of their Judaism (2 Cor. xi. 22), these 


292 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


persons had made an impression upon the Gentile Chris- 
tians which amounted virtually to moral influence over 
them, and the Gentile Christians had allowed themselves 
to be imposed upon by them (ef. 1 Cor. vii. 18 1, above, 
p. 265f, n. 4). Hence to the apostle, who saw in the 
indirectness and deceitfulness of these persons only proof 
that their false Jewish ways had not been overcome by 
the life-giving truth of the new covenant and by the 
liberating spirit of Christ (2 Cor. 11. 14-iv. 6), it must 
have seemed that the only possible outcome of the un- 
healthy development of things in Corinth, which he was 
striving to check, was a form of Christianity corrupted by 
Jewish influences. But at the time when 2 Cor. was 
written, and less so when 1 Cor. was written, there were 
no positive indications that this was to be the outcome. 

It is only from the way in which they are contrasted 
with each other that we are able to understand the three 
watchwords in which the names of Paul, of Apollos, and of 
Cephas were misused; the same is true of the fourth, 
ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, which Paul condemns quite as much as he 
does the others (1 Cor. 1. 12). Since taken by itself no 
fault can be found with the expression Χριστοῦ εἶναι, which 
simply expresses the fact that to be a Christian means to 
belong to Christ (1 Cor. iii. 23; 2 Cor. x. 7; Rom. viii. 9; 
Mark ix. 41), what was to be condemned was the way 
in which individuals claimed this prerogative of belong- 
ing to Christ for themselves in opposition to the other 
members of the Church, instead of endeavouring, as Paul 
did, to impress upon the mind of the Church, so rent by 
factions, the fact that they all belonged to Christ, and 
that it was in the one indivisible Christ that they were 
to find their own unity and at the same time the bond 
between themselves and all other Christians (1 Cor. 1. 
2, 13, iii. 11, 28). Even if the Christ party had opposed 
their ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ to the other watchwords, thinking 
that thereby they raised themselves above the petty 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 203 


squabbling of the rest, they could not have expressed 
it in this way if they were endeavouring to defend the 
authority which Paul and Apollos possessed through their 
connection with the history of the Church, against the 
misuse which was being made of their names and against 
the despicable criticisms of the followers of Peter, as Paul 
himself was doing, and as he insisted the Church ought to 
do (1 Cor. iii. 5-iv. 5, ix. 1-6; 2 Cor. ii. 2f., ν. 12, xii. 11). 
As contrasted with the tendencies represented by the other 
watchwords, the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ represents a conscious and 
studied indifference to all human authority, an insolent 
ignoring on the part of those who used it of all depend- 
ence for their Christian faith upon things historical. If, 
now, it is clear from the way in which the Church expresses 
itself in the letter to Paul and from the way in which 
Paul addresses the Church in his reply, that the Corin- 
thians had an exaggerated sense of their independence of 
all authority, this watchword which some individuals were 
using can only be taken as an extreme expression of this 
feeling of independence to which the Church as a whole 
was inclined. Just as the self-consciousness of the Church, 
which was so inconsiderately expressed in their com- 
munication to Paul, was based upon the exceptional en- 
dowment of its members with natural and Christian gifts, 
so it is impossible to conceive of anyone as saying ἐγὼ δὲ 
Χριστοῦ unless he were possessed of exceptional ability, or 
thought that he was. If Paul charges the Church with 
being conceited (v. 2, ef. viii. 1f., xiii. 4), even more 
emphatically does he accuse individuals of so being (iv. 
18f.). It was presumptuous enough for individuals to 
take sides with Apollos or Cephas against Paul, and vice 
versd (iv. 6), but this was not to be compared with the 
presumption of the individual who, from an exaggerated 
sense of his own independent knowledge, met these 
expressions of some particular human authority with the 
assertion that he belonged to Christ. Consequently Paul 


294 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


endeavours to bring not only the Church in general (xiv. 
36), but also the individual who feels himself to be of 
importance (iv. 7, xiv. 37), to the consciousness that every- 
thing of which he boasts has been received from God 
through other men. 

This same relation between the Church as a whole, 
which Paul addresses in his letter as “you,” and the 
individuals whom he singles'out as leaders in this general 
movement toward independence, we meet again in 2 Cor. 
x. 1-11. Paul makes the return of the Church to a state 
of entire obedience (x. 6) the condition of any action on 
his part against individual revolters or evil-doers ; since 
he cannot and will not proceed to discipline such indi- 
viduals without the co-operation of the Church. If, now, 
it be asked why as yet the Church had not resubmitted 
itself entirely to Paul’s authority, we have the following 
answer :—There was someone in the Church who believed 
and boasted that he belonged to Christ, as if Paul could 
not claim this same distinction for himself (x. 7), some- 
one who was bold enough to talk about the apostle’s 
egotistical letters and his unimpressive ‘personal appear- 
ance (x. 10f, ef. x. 1). Just as we are unavoidably 
reminded by the Χριστοῦ εἶναι (x. 7), for which nothing in 
this context calls, of the watchword in 1 Cor. 1. 12, so we 
must assume that the strongest expressions of insub- 
ordination to Paul came from the Christ‘ party (eg. 
1 Cor. iv. 18; 2 Cor. x. 9-11), and that to them more 
than to anyone else was due the danger of a rupture 
between the Church and its apostle, and so between the 
Corinthian Church and the whole body of Christians. 

The fact that there are no long sections in either 
letter devoted especially to opposing the Christ followers, 
is explained by the relation, pointed out above, of this 
movement to the tendency of the Church as a whole. 
Very probably it was one of the Christ party who was 
entrusted by the Church with the preparation of the 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 295 


communication sent to Paul. What Paul said in replying 
to the Church he said primarily for the benefit of those 
members of the Christ party who were 30 conscious of 
their Christian knowledge and discernment with the free- 
dom and independence which these involved. 

It was high time that Paul should express his mind. 
It was impossible for him to leave the settling of matters 
in Corinth to Timothy, who possibly had left Ephesus 
before the arrival of the latest oral and written reports 
from Corinth, and who could not go to Corinth at once 
on account of his errands in Macedonia (iv. 17, xvi. 10, 
above, p. 259). Since, moreover, in spite of all possible 
haste, the summer now beginning (above, p. 259 f.) might 
end before his own arrival in Corinth (xvi. 5, iv. 19), 
Paul saw that there was occasion to discuss thoroughly 
in an extended letter not only the questions that had 
been asked him by the Church, but also the unfortunate 
condition of affairs of which he had been informed by 
members of the household of Chloe and by the three 
messengers of the Church. In this manner he hoped to 
prepare the way for the visit which had been announced 
some time before, and, so far as possible, to keep that 
visit free from the painful necessity of discussing off-hand 
and orally the numerous aggravated and threatening 
questions arising out of the conditions in the Church 
(cf. also xvi. 2). He presented himself to the Church 
rod in hand, but at the same time with all the love of a 
father who would much prefer to forgive than to punish ; 
it is for them to decide how he shall come to them 
(iv. 21). 

The agreement between the letter and the occasion 
for it indicated in the letter itself is so entire, and, besides 
this, the letter is so strikingly testified to by the letter of 
the Romans to the Corinthians, written in the year 96, 
that no reasonable doubt can be entertained as to the 
genuineness and unity of the Epistle. 


296 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


1. (P. 274.) Τῇ, with Semler and Hofmann, we read οἶδα μέν, viii. 1, we 
have only more definitely expressed what in any case is self-evident, namely, 
that πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν is a proposition which Paul simply accepts—in 
other words, his statement is nothing more than a quotation from the letter 
sent him by the Church. Between this preliminary concession and vill. 7 
there is no contradiction, particularly since here γνῶσις has the article. 
Even the “liberals,” who boast about their knowledge, lack the right sort 
of knowledge (viii. 1-3); while, on the other hand, those who are “weak” 
lack that complete knowledge which everybody assumes they have, and 
without which action such as theirs seems to be done against conscience, 
Moreover, the unexampled use of οἰκοδομεῖν, viii. 10, is explained only 
on the supposition that Paul is ironical, flinging back at the Corinthians 
their own expression, as if he meant to say: “Fine edification, this!” (cf. 
above, p. 260f.). It may be that i. 4-7 also are expressions quoted by 
Paul from the letter sent by the Church (cf. P. Ewald, NJbfDTh. 1894, 8. 
198-205). 

2. (P. 275.) Inx. 14 the correct reading is φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας, 
not φεύγετε τὴν εἰδωλολατρείαν (cf. vi. 18). The latter, taken literally, would 
be a superfluous exhortation ; and in any case an exaggerated characterisation 
of what had actually taken place. From x. 15-22 it is clear that Paul had in 
mind, primarily if not exclusively, participation in the sacred meals con- 
nected with the idol sacrifices (cf. viii. 10, x. 7). So also 2 Cor. vi. 16, which 
refers to nothing more nor less than an approach on the part of the 
Corinthians toward idolatry occasioned by too intimate sccial connection 
with their pagan environment. 

3. (P. 277.) In vii. 3-6, 10-14, 27a, 28a, 36, 38a, 39, Paul combats the false 
ascetic tendency of a minority for whose errors the Church, in its letter, 
evidently had made the example of Paul and occasional opinions expressed 
by him responsible. This is proved by vii. 6, which, rightly understood, 
cannot refer to the positive commands in ver. 2 or vv. 3-5a, but only the con- 
cession (εἰ μήτι) in 5b. 

4. (P. 277.) The expression γυναῖκα τοῦ πατρύς, v. 1, would be inconeeiv- 
ably weak if by it were meant the man’s own mother, not his stepmother, 
cf. Lev. xviii. 8 contrasted with xviii. 7. So also Sanhedr. vii. 4 (cited by 
Wetstein, ad loc.), where it is likewise stated that it makes no difference 
whether the father is still living or not. If 2 Cor. vii. 12 deals with the 
same case, the father was still living. A marriage contracted between a man 
and his stepmother, whether the father was living or not, was not admitted 
as legal by Roman law, and so would not be recognised in Corinth. It is 
clearly not such a marriage as this that is here described by ἔχειν ; neither, 
on the other hand, is it a single lustful transgression, one adulterous act, but 
the relation is that of concubinage (cf. John iv. 18). The stepmother had 
evidently left the house of her husband and taken up her residence with her 
stepson, at his request, who, for this reason, is described in v. 2 as ὁ τὸ ἔργον 
τοῦτο πράξας ; also in v. 3, particularly in view of certain aggravating eircum- 
stances unknown to us, a8 ὁ οὕτως τοῦτο κατεργασάμενος ; and, in view of his 
offence against the father, in vii. 12, as ὁ ἀδικήσας (cf. § 20, n. 6). Since Paul 
makes no reference whatever to the guilt of the woman, who must also have 
been involved in the transgression, it is probable that neither she nor her 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 207 


husband were members of the Church. And so Paul follows the rule laid 
down in 1 Cor. v. 12. 

5. (P. 279.) Itis a peculiar fact that thanks are given in i. 4-9 not for 
the religious and moral condition of the Corinthian Christians, nor for the 
practical proof of their faith in conduct and suffering (cf. per contra, 1 Thess. 
i. 3; 2 Thess. i. 3, ii. 13; Eph. 1. 15; Col. 1. 4; Phil. i, 5), but simply 
for their charismatic gifts, and it is specially worthy of note that in i. 5 
speech of every kind is mentioned before knowledge (ef. the order of gifts, 
xii. 8 ff, xiii. 1, 8, and the opposite order in 2 Cor. xi. 6). If from xiv. 37 
it is clear that πνευματικός does not mean simply the person who has a 
χάρισμα, but, like προφήτης, the one who has a special χάρισμα, and specifically, 
as the context shows, the person with the gift of tongues who spoke “in the 
spirit” in a higher degree than did the prophet and the teacher (xiv. 2, 
14-19, 23), then the theme περὶ τῶν πνευματικῶν, stated in xii. 1, does not 
refer to spiritual gifts in general, but either to those who speak with tongues 
(οἱ πνευματικοί), a8 in xiv. 37, or, as in xiv. 1, to the gift of tongues itself (ra 
πνευματικά distinguished from προφητεύειν), of which there were several 
kinds. 

6. (P. 281.) The principle advanced in the preaching, that no natural 
or social distinctions were to be recognised in the Church (xii. 13), seems to 
have been applied in Corinth to the question of slavery in a way not pleasing 
to Paul. For it will be observed that in vii. 18-23, where marriage is dis- 
cussed, the example of slavery is used as well as that of circumcision ; but it 
is highly improbable that Paul would have expressed such decidedly though 
briefly stated opinions about these two relationships in a purely theoretical 
way, and without any practical occasion from conditions to be found in 
Corinth. The slave is not to think his condition inconsistent with his Chris- 
tianity ; on the other hand, he is not to think that in all circumstances he 
must remain a slave (cf. Skizzen, 145, 348, A. 9-11). 

7. (P. 281.) Τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ r. θ., x. 32, does not mean the local Church at 
Corinth, but, as in xii, 28, the whole body of Christians; for there is no 
contrast here, as in xi. 22, between the individual members of the Church 
residing in different homes—some poor, others wealthy—and the assembled 
Church. Rather, in accordance with the general principle laid down in x. 
31, is it the entire body of Corinthian Christians, who, in x. 32, are urged to 
conduct themselves in such a way as not to offend the non-Christians among 
whom they live, nor the larger Christian body of which they are only a part. 
Otherwise we should read not τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τ. ., but τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν, 
ἀλλήλοις, or something of the sort. The correctness of this interpretation 
is confirmed also by such passages as xi. 16 (ai ἐκκλησίαι τ. 0.), iv. 17, vii. 17, 
xiv. 33, 36. 

8. (P. 282.) The placing of ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Xp. Ἰ. right after θεοῦ, i. 2, in 
BD*G is too original not to be genuine. If, however, we place these words 
after Κορίνθῳ, then the immediately following «Anrois ἁγίοις seems to be a 
needless repetition of essentially the same thought of the holiness belonging to 
the Corinthians as members of the Church, unless the idea of “called saints ” 
goes with the following σὺν πᾶσιν «rd. by which it is rounded out. In no 
case can σὺν πᾶσιν κτλ.» following the delusive analogy of 2 Cor. i. 1; Phil. i. 1, 
be joined with τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ... Κορίνθῳ as a completion of the address; for 


298 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


“all who call upon the name of Christ” is the broadest possible designation 
for all who profess Christianity (Rom. x. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 22; Acts ix. 14,21). 
Nor can the necessary restriction be secured by connecting αὐτῶν after τόπῳ 
with the remote κλητοῖς ἁγίοις... Κορινθίοις instead of with τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις 
and taking σὺν πᾶσιν κτλ. to mean the worshippers in every locality belonging 
to the Corinthians, 2.e. in the cities belonging to Corinth. For τόπος τινός 
does not mean the region belonging to one, but the place which one occupies ; 
and, besides, the other cities of Achaia where there were Christians (Cenchrea, 
Athens) did not beiong to the Corinthians. Holsten’s view (456) that “all 
the worshippers of Christ in all their places” mean the Christians who had 
migrated to Corinth from all possible places, requires no refutation. “The 
Catholic idea” (Holsten, 453), which such distortions as this are intended 
to explain away, characterises the letter throughout (above, p. 281). To 
this point of view Paul commits himself personally when he adds καὶ ἡμῶν 
(without re, following 8*A*BD*G and the earlier translations). If αὐτῶν καὶ 
ἡμῶν is certainly to be taken with τόπῳ and is not a supplementary explana- 
tion of the preceding 76v»—which no reader could surmise—Paul says, using 
a not unfamiliar form of expression (Rom. xvi. 13), that every place where 
there are worshippers of Christ is his own and Sosthenes’ place, 1.6. they 
feel themselves at home there. The Corinthians lack this genuinely catholic 
or ecumenical sense. 

9. (P. 283.) Räbiger (Krit. Untersuch. über den Inhalt der beiden Briefe an 
die kor. Gemeinde, 2te Aufl. 1-50) gives a relatively complete summary of the 
various views about party conditions in Corinth. Clement’s view (1 Cor. xlvii.) 
of the condition mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 12, διὰ τὸ καὶ τότε προσκλίσεις ὑμᾶς 
πεποιῆσθαι, and immediately afterwards ἡ πρόσκλισις ekeivn . . . προσεκλίθητε 
γὰρ ἀποστόλοις μεμαρτυρημένοις καὶ ἀνδρὶ δεδοκιμασμένῳ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς, is more 
correct than that of the majority of modern crities. Because Clement takes 
no account of ἐγὼ δὲ Xp. as occasionally Origen (Hom. ix in Ez., Delarue, iii. 
388, but not tom. xiv. 1 a Mt. p. 616) and Adamantius (Dial. in. Mare. i., 
Delarue, 809 ; Caspari, Anecd. 12) fail to do, Räbiger, 2, ascribes to him the 
opinion that in Paul’s time there were not four but three parties at Corinth, 
“who, appealing to the respective teachings of Paul and of Peter and of 
Apollos, opposed one another.” In reply, it is to be observed (1) that the 
opinion that these so-called parties were founded upon special teachings of 
Paul, Peter, and Apollos is arbitrarily read into Clement’s words, while it is 
just the opposite view that we find in Paul’s 1 Corinthians. (2) There is no 
justification for saying that it would have been inappropriate for Clement, 
who found no corresponding party in the Corinthian Church of his time, 
mechanically to have repeated the fourth watchword. Certainly that does 
not apply to Adamantius, whose purpose was to prove to the Marcionites that 
men ought not, like them, to bear the name of a man (Marcion), but only the 
name of Christ. (3) It is taken for granted that πρόσκλισις means “ party,” 
which is refuted by the description of all these varied προσκλίσεις by the 
singular ἡ πρόσκλισις ἐκείνη (see just above). The term means rather an 
inclination toward, preference for, attachment to individuals (Clement, 1 Cor. 
xxi. 7, 1.2; 1 Tim. v. 21). In contrast to the careful language of Clement 
is the manner in which the elder Lightfoot (Hore hebr. ad 1 Cor. i. 12) and 
Vitringa (Observ. sacre, ed. Jenens. 1725, pp. 799-812) and also Baur (i, 292 fF) 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 299 


speak of a schisma in the later ecelesiastical sense of the word, and of four 
secte into which the congregation had been divided and which possibly held 
their religious services in different places (Vitringa, 812). The very first 
presupposition upon which a correct interpretation rests is the recognition 
of the fact that the situation as disclosed in i. 12 is not a sort of μετασχημα- 
τισμός, iv. 6, as was taught by the Syrian Ephrem (Comm. in ep. Pauli, ed. 
Mechith. 48), by Chrysost. (Montf. x. 16, iii. 138, 347), by Theodoret and 
others ; in other words, that the names there mentioned are not mere dis- 
guises for entirely different persons who were party leaders in Corinth. 
This is an error which Beza was the first definitely to oppose (NT, 1582, ii. 
93). As clearly proved by the λέγω δὲ τοῦτο, which shows that the following 
words are explanatory, by the earnest defence of Paul’s manner of preaching 
i. 17 Εἰ, and by the statement in iii. 4-8, there is no question that Paul and 
Apollos, Peter and Christ, were the persons whose names were actually used 
in Corinth as party watchwords. Furthermore, it is clear beyond question 
that the term ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ was employed by certain Corinthians to distin- 
guish their point of view from that of other members of the Church. Had 
Paul desired in this formula to set his own standpoint over against the three 
other views, and to recommend it to the Corinthians (as the older critics sug- 
gested, especially Mayerhoff, Hinl. in die petrin. Schriften, 1835, 8. 81) in 
opposition to the ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει, it would have been necessary for him to say, 
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι Χριστοῦ εἰμι, or more correctly, ὅτι ὑμεῖς (ἡμεῖς) πάντες 
Χριστοῦ ἐστε (ἐσμεν), OF ἀντὶ τοῦ λέγειν ὑμᾶς (Jas. iv. 15) ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐσμεν. 
Still more preposterous is the interpretation of Räbiger (76 f.), according to 
which ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ is taken with each of the three other watchwords as a 
sort of supplement: “I belong to Paul, but in belonging to Paul I, for this 
reason, belong to Christ,” ete.; for, apart from the absolute grammatical impos- 
sibility of this construction, the opinion that in these sentences we must seek 
the common confession of movements in all other respects divergent, rests upon 
a misunderstanding of ἕκαστος ὑμῶν, which here has its ordinary distributive 
force (1 Cor. iii. 5, 8, 13, vii. 7, 17, xi. 21, xiv. 26, xv. 23, xvi. 2), and is to be 
contrasted with τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες (i. 10). Furthermore, the suggestion 
that the Christ party might appeal to Paul himself in justification of their 
watchword is without foundation ; for Paul never claimed the Χριστοῦ 
εἶναι for himself as opposed to other Christians; but, on the contrary, in 
i. 2-10 he repeatedly speaks of “the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ” as the 
unifying term which excludes all schism, and gathers together into one all 
the Churches in the world and all members of the several Churches. This is 
referred to again in 111. 23 and in 2 Cor. x. 7, where, opposing the Christ party, 
Paul asserts that the Χριστοῦ εἶναι belongs to him as well as to them ; οἵ. 
1 Cor. vii. 40, where there is the same contrast. Nor is any difficulty presented 
by the first question in i. 18, for it is a question in spite of the absence of 
μή, Which is not absolutely necessary, and which is omitted here because of 
the repetition of the same sound that would be caused by its insertion. Cer- 
tainly it is not directed against the Christ followers alone (Baur, i. 326 ; 
Hofmann, ii. 1, 18), but to them along with the rest. The members of the 
Christ party were quite like the representatives of the other movements, who, 
because of their attachment to Paul or Apollos or Cephas, thought themselves 
in possession of a better Christianity than the others, possessing as it were a 


300 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


larger portion of Christ ; but without denying that the others were Christians 
Only the watehword which the Christ party adopted was the most pre- 
sumptuous of all, and expressed most strongly the opinion that they had an 
incomparably greater interest in Christ than all the rest. It is exegetically 
and historically impossible to suppose that the Christ party was composed 
of Jewish Christians from Palestine, who either boasted that they had 
heard the preaching of Jesus (Grotius, ii. 366; Thiersch, 141; Hilgenfeld, 
265), or who, although essentially identical with the followers of Peter, called 
themselves the Christ party, because those to whose authority they appealed, 
namely, the older apostles and brothers of Jesus, had been called and 
taught by Christ Himself as Paul had not been (Baur, ii. 296 ff.), or because 
of their attachment to James the brother of the Lord (Weizsäcker, 277). 'The 
latter suppositions rest upon the error that Paul is merely contrasting the 
other party names with his own, and so is able to put side by side all manner 
of watchwords—even such as are practically synonymous—in order to present 
the confusion in the Church in a realistic way. But Paul does not say “the 
one says this and the other that” ; on the contrary, he introduces the watch- 
words in contrast to each other. In the mind of those who are here repre- 
sented as speaking, the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ stands in just as sharp contrast to the 
ἐγὼ δὲ Kya as it does to ἐγὼ δὲ ᾿Απολλῶ, and as the latter expression does to 
the ἐγὼ μὲν Παύλου. It isa piece of purely arbitrary criticism to reduce the 
tendencies expressed in the four watchwords to two fundamental groups, a 
Gentile Christian and a Jewish Christian, which divisions would again fall 
into two closely related groups, the followers of Paul and Apollos on the one 
hand, and of Cephas and of Christ on the other,—particularly in view of the 
fact that Paul dwells at length only upon the alleged minor contrast between 
the followers of Paul and Apollos. Furthermore, it is incomprehensible how 
those who could boast only of their relationship to the personal disciples or 
relatives of Jesus could on that basis ascribe to themselves a special relation- 
ship to Christ. They had no advantages over any of the disciples of the per- 
sonal disciples of Jesus in the world (Heb. ii. 3; 2 Pet. 1. 16; 1 John i. 3), 
certainly none over the party of Peter, from whom they desired to be distin- 
guished, and whom at least they tried to outdo in boasting. Most fantastic 
and unhistorical of all is the idea of a Jewish Christian party which refused 
to acknowledge the authority of Peter—only a party of that character could 
describe itself as ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ in contrast to ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ. The Judaisers 
in Galatia looked upon Peter, John, and James as being equally pillars of the 
Church (Gal. ii. 9), and in spite of their high estimation of James the pseudo- 
Clementine literature nevertheless chooses Peter as its hero. Finally, it 
cannot be denied that the name of the Saviour, personal contact with whom 
gave Peter and James an advantage over Paul and other preachers, was Ἰησοῦς 
not Χριστός (1 Cor. ix. 1, xi. 23; 1 Johniv. 3). _ For this reason we are not 
to imagine that in 2 Cor. v.16 Paul is referring to personal contact with 
Jesus. Here, as indeed from ii. 14 onwards, Paul speaks of himself in such 
a way as to include with himself Timothy (i. 1) and the others who had 
laboured with him in a true Christian spirit, as opposed to the Petrine 
followers who had come to Corinth bringing letters of recommendation (ii. 
17-iii. 1, v.12). Not until vii.3 does the “I” take the place of the “we.” 
If Paul says of himself and of his fellow-workers, first passionately and 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH _ 301 


then more soberly (v. 13), things that sound like self-praise, the Corinthians 
must know that the fear of Christ before whose judgment-seat they must 
give account and the love of Christ who died for all men are the standards 
by which they judge and act toward all men, both those who are yet to be 
converted and those who are Christians, and the standards also for their 
judgment of themselves. To do the opposite would be an εἰδέναι or a 
γινώσκειν κατὰ σάρκα (v. 16). Both the order of the words and the context 
make it clear that this latter expression means a human judgment determined 
by one’s inborn nature and natural powers (cf. i. 17, x. 2-4). Before God 
brought Paul to a recognition and acceptance of the reconciliation in the 
death of Christ, recreated him in Christ, and committed to him the pro- 
clamation of the word of reconciliation, his judgment was the judgment of 
man, 7.6. κατὰ σάρκα, because his estimation of Christ, of whom ‘he had 
heard and whom he was persecuting, was κατὰ σάρκα. Since his conversion 
and call his situation has been different. The contrast to the party of Peter 
again suggested in v. 12 would clearly imply that the manner in which these 
missionaries judged and treated people, and the manner in which they sought 
to obtain favour among the Corinthians, proved that their estimation of men 
was κατὰ σάρκα, which in turn was due to the fact that they did not know 
Christ as Paul had known Him since his conversion. It may not be pos- 
sible to identify καυχᾶσθαι ἐν προσώπῳ (v. 12) with ἀνθρώπους εἰδέναι κατὰ 
σάρκα (v. 16), nor can we assert that Paul makes the foolish affirmation that 
followers of Peter are fanatical antagonists of Christ and of Christianity, as he 
himself was before his conversion. Nevertheless, here as in iii. 4 ff., iv. 1f., 
5f., there comes to light Paul’s opinion that the petty, secretive, selfish con- 
duct of these persons was due to the fact that they had not, like the true 
preachers of the gospel, experienced in themselves the renewing and liberat- 
ing power of the revelation of God in Christ, but had retained their Jewish 
nature. The principal source of the confusion which has obtained regard- 
ing these parties is the utterly untenable theory that 2 Cor. x. 7 and sentences 
in the immediate context are connected with the polemic against the false 
apostles at whom xi. 1-12, 18 and even ii. 17-vi. 10 are directed. The latter 
were wandering teachers who came to Corinth from abroad, bringing letters 
of recommendation from the place whence they came, whom Paul every- 
where distinguishes from the congregation. In 2 Cor. they are not once 
- included in asingle “you” with the Corinthians, If they are identical with 
the followers of Peter (see above, p. 288 f.), then they are included among the 
Corinthian Christians addressed in 1 Cor. i. 12, but nevertheless in iii. 16-20 
they are distinguished from the congregation which they are represented as 
making the subject of their harmful work, and in xvi. 22 are expressly ex- 
cluded from the Church to which Paul sends his greeting. On the other 
hand, in 2 Cor. x. 1-11 Paul is dealing exclusively with the Church itself, 
and that, too, in its corporate capacity as it was beginning again to subject 
itself to his authority, without having gone far enough to lend him full sup- 
port in the performance of the required act of discipline in the Church (x. 6). 
It is impossible to assume that the individual to whom λογιζέσθω (x. 7b) refers 
belonged outside the circle to whom the βλέπετε (x. Ta) applies. Practically 
the same charge which Paul refutes x. 9-11, in x. 1 is assumed to be generally 
made throughout the Church. If the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ in x. 7 refers to 1 Cor, 


302 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


i. 12, then the members of the Christ party were not travelling teachers from 
abroad, but had been members of the Corinthian Church ever since conversion. 
Furthermore, one of the characteristics of a false apostle was lack of genuine 
self-reliance (v. 12), and of that openness and boldness of which Paul boasts 
in his own case and in that of all true servants of the new covenant (ii. 
17-vi. 10). They make boasts after a fashion, but only superficially and con- 
cerning mere externalities (v. 12, xi. 18, 22), especially about the authorities 
from whom they have letters of introduction (iii. 1). Their weapons are 
malice and hypocrisy (ii. 17, iv. 2, xi. 3, 13-15, cf. 1 Cor. iii. 19 f., above, 
p. 288). How is it possible to identify these people with those in x. 7-11, 
where we have pictured in strong, almost reckless language a self-conseious- 
ness very blunt in its expression of itself, relying not upon foreign author- 
ities nor upon external advantages, but upon its own attachment to Christ ! 
At any rate, the contest against. these false apostles from abroad does not 
begin, as in xi. 1, abruptly without any previous word of introduction. In 
x. 12-18, especially x. 15 (καυχώμενοι ἐν ἀλλοτρίοις κόποις), there is a very clear 
contrast to other missionaries. The polemic against the teachers from with- 
out which extends to xii. 18 begins with the command that the Church pay 
heed to what is before their eyes (x. 7). Between himself and his opponents 
the Church shall decide from the known facts in the case, to which he pro- 
ceeds immediately to call their attention—particularly from xi. 7 on. But 
before he begins the presentation of these facts, it oecurs to him that in the 
Church itself which he is challenging to an impartial consideration of the 
respective claims of himself and the followers of Peter, there are persons who 
boast of their indifference to the distinctions between the followers of Paul, 
Apollos, and Peter, and treat with contempt any appeal whatever to the 
authority of these persons, saying ἐγὼ de Χριστοῦ (above, p. 292 f.). Even this 
prevented the proper adjustment of the matter. They accused Paul of de- 
fending his personal honour, especially against the followers of Peter, in just 
as perverted a way as did they, and of constantly sounding his own praises 
in his Epistles (iii. 1, v. 12, x. 12, 18, xii. 19). For this reason Paul prefaces 
his polemic against the party of Peter (xi. 1-xii. 18) with his apologetie 
remarks addressed to the Christ party, x. 7b-18. καυχήσομαι, x. 8, 13, refers 
to the unavoidable self-praise beginning with xi. 1 (cf. xii. 1, ἐλεύσομαι 
which follows). The τινὲς τῶν ἑαυτοὺς συνιστανόντων, X. 12, can refer to none 
other than the followers of Peter; and so throughout the entire polemic 
against the followers of Peter (xi. 1-xii. 18) there are interspersed apologetic 
remarks directed to the Christ party (xi. 1, 16-21, 30, xii. 1, 5f. 11, 19). 
Hints of a defensive character directed against the Apollos followers occur 
only incidentally (xi. 6). Inasmuch, however, as only a single πεποιθὼς ἑαυτῷ 
Χριστοῦ εἶναι is addressed in x. 7-11, whereas elsewhere the Church is addressed 
in quite the same apologetic tone without any such distinction of indi- 
viduals, we must conclude that the representatives of ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, while 
not numerous, had great influence in determining the attitude of the Church. 

10. (P. 287.) The opinion of Dionysius, who was bishop of Corinth about 
170 A.D., that Peter as well as Paul had part in the founding of the Churches in 
Corinth and at Rome (Eus. H. E. ii. 25. 8),—an opinion that may have been 
shared also by Clement of Rome (GK, i. 806),—probably grew up as an infer- 
ence out of 1 Cor., from which source also (iii, 6 f.) Dionysius took the expres- 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH _ 303 


sions φυτεύσαντες, φυτεία. Or it is possible that a later sojourn of Peter at 
Corinth may have helped to give rise to the tradition. Only at the time 
when 1 Cor. was written, and even before that time, such a visit would have 
been impossible, because of the division of fields of labour made between 
him and Paul (Gal. ii. 7-9; cf. Skizzen, 72f., 90f.). Additional evidence is 
found in the complete silence not only of Acts, but also of 1 and 2 Corinthians. 

11. (P. 288.) The question, “Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” 
(i. 13) is directed against those who laid great stress upon the importance of 
being baptized by some one particular individual. In referring to himself as 
an example in this question and in the discussion that follows, Paul does not 
have in view particularly the followers of Peter, nor the two or three men in 
Corinth whom he had actually baptized, eg. Stephanas (i. 16, xvi. 15), of 
whom he has nothing but good to say: for if these men had boasted of this 
fact, Paul could not have expressed his gratification that this talk had no 
application to himself because of the very few instances in which he had 
performed the rite of baptism in Corinth. Rather does he complain that 
his carefulness about this matter has been without effect. It is another case 
of the ravra μετεσχημάτισα eis ἐμαυτόν of iv. 6. It is possible that Apollos 
baptized his own converts (above, p.270f., n. 11); but it is not likely that any 
special importance would have been attached to baptism administered by 
Apollos. He was a gifted teacher, but could not be considered an important 
link in the spiritual succession. On the other hand, it goes without saying 
that a decided impression would have been made at Corinth by a Christian 
from Palestine who said, “No less a personage than Peter baptized me at 
Pentecost or later” (ef. Hofmann, ii. 2. 21). The writer surmises that it was 
with a thrust at Peter and the original apostles generally, whom Jesus had 
actually sent to baptize (Matt. xxviii. 19; cf. John iv. 2), that Paul disavowed 
this custom for himself (i. 17). Cf. ZKom. Matt. 716. 

12. (P. 288.) If we make the component parts of papavada (xvi. 22), pm 
and xnx, then the most natural translation is, “Our Lord has come” (not “18 
coming,” or “will come”). Thus: S! xnx 2 (according to the Nestorian 
pronunciation xpx, bibl. Ar. ans Ezra v. 16, or apx Dan. vii. 22), and the 
interpreters more or less familiar with Syriac: Chrysostom (Montf. x. 410, 
ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἦλθεν) ; Jerome, Onomast., ed. Lagarde, 75. 24, venit as perfect ; 
and Theodoret (Noesselt, 215), who remarks correctly that this is not Hebrew 
but Syriac (cf. a scholion in Scrivener, Cod. Augiensis, p. 488), and who, 
following the ancient Syriac usage, translates 717, 6 κύριος, and κύριε (6.0. 
Matt. vil. 22, Ss), without ἡμῶν, leaving the suffix=juéry untranslated. Cf. 
the three scholia in Wetstein, ad loc., ὁ κύριος (with or without ἡμῶν) ἦλθε, 
al. mapayeyove, al. ἥκει. Linguistically this translation is entirely correct, 
and was, moreover, known to a Latin interpreter of about the year 370 a.p., 
the so-called Ambrosiaster (Ambros. Opp., ed. Ben. ii. App. 170). It is also 
accepted by Delitzsch (Z/LTh. 1877, S. 215; see also his Hebrew N.T., 11th 
ed., and Neubauer, Stud. bibl., Oxon. 1885, p. 57). For the incorrect trans- 
lation, 6 x. ἔρχεται, Onomast. sacr., ed. Lagarde, 195. 65, and other impossible 
interpretations, cf. Klostermann, Probleme im Aposteltext, 224 ff. Kloster- 
mann’s own interpretation xpx jw “Our Lord is the token,” stands or falls 
with his bold exegesis of ver. 22a, “If one does not kiss the Lord Jesus,” 
1.6. “Tf anyone refuse the fraternal kiss” (ver. 20), and more than this fails 


304 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to harmonise with the later liturgical use of this formula (see below). This 
is true likewise of Hofmann’s interpretation anix 7p “Lord art thou” (cf. Ps. 
xvi. 2). Moreover, it is doubtful whether in Palestine the original n and the 
final ὦ in the pronoun were still pronounced. ‘The most probable interpreta- 
tion is that first suggested by Halévy (REJ, 1884, ix. p. 9), and afterwards 
accepted by Bickell (Z/KTh. 1884, S. 403) and Nöldeke (GGA, 1884, 5. 1023 ; 
cf. also Siegfried, Z/(W Th. xxviii. 128, and Dalman, Gr.? 152), namely, sn xp 
“(our) Lord, come.” The fuller form of the suffix -ana sının to be found in 
Nabatean inscriptions dating from the reign of Aretas rv. (2 Cor. xi. 32), 
and so from the time of Paul (0. I. Sem. ii. Nos. 199. 8, 201. 4, 206. 7, 208. 6, 
209. 8), is just as likely to have been used by the apostle as the shorter form -an ; 
while xp, the common Syriac form of the imperative from xnx, was current 
among the Jews (cf. Dalman, @r.? 357), especially in combinations of words, 
e.g. π᾿ Xn=€pxov καὶ ἴδε; John i. 46, and νοῦ xn “come and hear” (cf. Levy, 
Neuhebr. Lexicon, i. 184 ; Buxtorf, Lex. talmud. rabb. 248). So interpreted, the 
formula is quite the equivalent of the ἔρχου κύριε ᾿Ιησοῦ (S? yw nn an); ef. 
Rev. xxii. 20; for it makes no difference in the sense whether the exclamation 
precedes or follows (Ps. lix. 2, Ixxi. 4, 12; 2 Sam. xiv. 4, 9). This accounts 
also for the occurrence of this formula at the close of the Eucharistie prayer 
in Didache, x. 6 (Const. Ap. vii. 26), no matter whether this prayer which 
immediately precedes the Amen be regarded as an invitation to the Lord to be 
present with His people in the sacrament, or as a petition for His speedy return 
to earth (cf. Forsch. iii. 294 ; Skizzen, 315, 318, 391). The Eucharistie prayers 
of the Didache originated in a country where Greek and Aramaic were employed 
side by side in the Christian communities (above, p. 12 f.), and where the word 
“mountain” had come to be used quite in the sense of “ field ” ; in other words, 
in Palestine (ef. Schulthess, Lex. Syropal. 73 ; Didache, ix. 4, ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων, 
omitted in Const. Ap. vil. 25). If, as seems probable, the Didache itself was 
prepared in Egypt for the use of Gentile Christian Churches, it follows that 
these Palestinian prayers, and with them the words hosanna, maranatha, and 
amen, must have become current far beyond the borders of Jewish Chris- 
tianity in Palestine. It is a question, however, whether from this fact we 
ought to infer that the word maranatha was known in the Greek Churches 
founded by Paul from the very first. Here there was no occasion for the 
introduction of Aramaic prayer words used in the very early Churches, such 
as that afforded by the large Jewish population in Egypt (Philo, ὁ. Flace. vi, 
about one million). Nor is there any evidence that maranatha, like such 
words as amen, had a place in the liturgy of the Churches of Asia Minor and 
Greece. The threat which a reader of the Church lessons on the island of 
Salamis in the fourth or fifth century is said to have made against one who 
used his grave contrary to his directions (C. I. Gr. No. 9303=(. I. Attie. 
iii. 2, No. 3509), λόγον δώῃ τῷ θεῷ. καὶ ἀνάθεμα ἤτω. papavabay (sic), is very 
manifestly borrowed from 1 Cor. xvi. 22, but without a clear understanding 
of its sense. A similar use of the word is to be found in a Latin inscription 
discovered at Poitiers and recorded by Le Blant (Nowveaw reeueil des unser. 
chret. de la Gaule, p. 259, No. 247). In view of all this, there can be little 
doubt that in quoting this fragment from the liturgy of the Palestinian 
Church, Paul meant to make unmistakable his reference to certain Christians 
from Palestine. This purpose would have been obscured had he added a 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 305 


Greek translation (cf. per contra, Gal. iv. 6; Rom. viii. 15). The purport of 
the words is quite in keeping with the Pauline spirit. When he thinks of 
the disturbers of peace in the Church and its destroyers, of its unskilled 
workers and hostile critics, his mind turns to the day of judgment (iii. 13- 
20, iv. 5): “Lord, come and put an end to all strife, and to all the activity 
of hostile forces in Thy Church.” 

13. (P. 291.) In the conditional sentence, 2 Cor. xi. 4, what the writer 
regards as really contrary to fact is put in the present (ef. Matt. xii. 26 ; Rom. 
iv. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 17, xv. 13, 14, 16,17; Gal. v.11; Kiihner-Gerth, 11. 466 f.). 
Although Paul does in one instance (Gal. i. 6) call the preaching of the 
Judaising missionaries a ἕτερον. εὐαγγέλιον, he does not do it without imme- 
diately correcting this perverted use of the name gospel (i. 7). It is certain 
that there was not a second Holy Spirit whom the Corinthians could or must 
receive through the new preachers, after they had received the real Holy 
Spirit through the ministry of Paul. Still less was there another Jesus who 
could be preached at Corinth, after the one Jesus who was the common sub- 
ject of the Christian preaching had been heralded there and made the 
foundation of the Church (1 Cor. iii. 11; 2 Cor. i. 19, iv. 5). Even if it 
were conceivable in the light of Gal. i. 6 that Paul might contrast the Christ 
preached by himself with the Christ preached by his opponents, calling the 
latter a ἕτερος Χριστός, he could not speak of a ἕτερος, or ἄλλος Ἰησοῦς, as the 
subject of actual preaching, since there was no second or third Jesus, in 
addition to Jesus of Nazareth, who could be preached. Furthermore, if the 
three relative clauses here inserted were meant to characterise a false 
gospel differing from the gospel of Paul and actually preached in Corinth, 
then it would be necessary to read map’ ὃν ἐκηρύξαμεν, map’ ὃ ἐλάβετε. ., 
ἐδέξασθε (ef. Gal. i. 8f.), and ἡμεῖς would probably be inserted in order to 
express contrast to 6 ἐρχύμενος. But as the clauses actually read they simply 
mean that the Corinthians have already received all the essential truths that 
a new missionary could bring them. Moreover, the apodosis of the sentence 
shows that Paul is here stating a condition contrary to fact in the present 
tense. If with BD* we read ἀνέχεσθε, then the sentence means that in this 
case—but only in this case—are the Corinthians open to no censure in tolerat- 
ing strange teachers among them (καλῶς ποιεῖτε ἀνεχόμενοι τοῦ ἐρχομένου KTA.), 
as they are in fact doing (xi. 19 f.). On the other hand, if we accept the more 
common reading ἀνείχεσθε, it can hardly be regarded as a simple imperfect, 
merely descriptive of the attitude of the Corinthians heretofore ; because this 
attitude toward the strange teachers continues to the present time (xi. 19 f.). 
Rather is the imperfect to be taken in the sense of ἀνείχεσθε ἄν, there being 
a transition from the first to the fourth form of the hypothetical sentence 
(John viii. 39, without av; Luke xvii. 6, with ἄν after a well accredited εἰ 
with the present indicative; cf. Winer, $ 42; Kühner-Gerth, i. 215). This, 
however, gives practically the same sense as ἀνέχεσθε. But since the attitude 
of the Corinthians toward the strange teachers is in Paul’s judgment highly 
censurable, in this instance, where it is actually represented as commendable, 
the case must be purely hypothetical. The frequently suggested interpreta- 
tion of καλῶς in a purely ironical sense, in reality expressing strong censure 
(Mark vii. 9), is scarcely permissible, even from the point of view of style, 
following as it does a conditional clause in no sense ironical. Nor is it more 

VOL. I. 20 


306. INTRODUCPION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


permissible from the ‚point‘ of view of the thought; for, if someone in 
Corinth were boasting about alleged spiritual benefits which he did not, yet 
possess, and were debating in his own mind whether he should allow them to 
be bestowed upon himself, it would not be occasion either for irony or censure. 
No difficulty to the above interpretation of 2 Cor. xi. 4 is presented by its con- 
nection with what precedes; since it is not ver. 4 alone which is connected 
with what precedes by γάρ, but rather the entire passage, xi, 4-xii. 18, is 
introduced by yap, in order to explain more fully xi. 2-3. And this explana- 
tion begins very properly with the concessive statement that the Corinthians) 
would not be blameworthy anyway, 1.6. Paul would not need to be anxious 
about them even if the case suggested in ver..4 were actually true to fact. 
To assume the possibility of such a case was just as reasonable as to ask the 
questions in 1 Cor. i. 13 or 1 Cor. xiv. 36; for the Corinthians, in listening 
so patiently to the strange teachers, and in permitting them to carrylon their 
work so long without any thought of separating themselves from Paul and his 
gospel, were acting as if these teachers were actually imparting to them new 
spiritual truths. The grammatical construction of the conditional sentence 
forbids the assumption that the reference. in this passage may be to some 
possible future case, in which a certain newcomer, presumably one of the 
original apostles, whose immediate coming the false apostles had announced, 
is assumed to be engaged in preaching in Corinth (cf. Hausrath, Der Vierkapo- 
telbrief des Paulus an die Kor.19). It: is impossible also to understand, how 
so important a matter could be referred to in a manner so incidental and 
enigmatical. ‘O ἐρχύμενος does not here mean the Great, Expected One 
(Matt. xi. 3), still less one who has already come, 7.e. some influential per- 
sonality who can be connected with the strange teachers who have appeared 
in Corinth (cf. Ewald, Sendschreiben des Paulus, 225, 295, 298). On the, con- 
trary, it is used in a quite general sense (cf. Gal, v. 10, ὁ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς ; 
Eph. iv. 28, ὁ κλέπτων ; also Rom. iv. 4; 1 Cor. xiv. 2fl.). In order to 
understand the passage, it is only necessary to assume that teachers from 
without had appeared in Corinth: (cf. Didache, xi. 1, ὃς ἂν οὖν ἐλθὼν διδάξῃ; 
xi. 4, mas δὲ ἀπόστολος ἐρχύμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ; ef. xii. 1,2). With this inter- 
pretation is refuted also the opinion of Baur (i. 318) and Hilgenfeld (Hil. 
298), that of ὑπερλίαν. ἀπόστολοι (2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 11) refers to the original 
apostles. Even if it were possible to suppose that Paul, writing in opposi- 
tion to the exaggeration of the authority of the original apostles on the part 
of the followers of Peter, with the corresponding denial of his own apostolic 
authority, might speak thus ironically of the original apostles,—to which 
Gal. ii. 6, 9 suggest a certain though entirely insuflicient analogy,—from the 
connection of xi. 5 and xi.4 it is certain that he had in mind the false 
apostles and servants of Satan (xi: 13-15) who were active in Corinth at this 
time. The same is true of xii. 11, particularly in view of the fact that here- 
tofore Paul has not been comparing himself and engaging in discussion with 
the original apostles, but only with strange teachers in Corinth (xi. 7-xii. 11), 
Nor is there anything in this context which would indicate that, these 
persons relied on the authority of the apostles, and were exalting it at Paul’s 
expense. 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 307 


§ 19. SURVEY OF THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE 
CORINTHIANS. 


Unless the close connection between 1 Cor. and 2 Cor. 
be broken, either by the assumption that between the twe 
there belongs an Epistle of Paul to the same Church, 
which is lost, or which must be searched for (n. 1), or by 
the assumption of an intervening visit (n. 2), or by the 
eombination of these two hypotheses, 2 Cor. furnishes 
information both regarding the immediate effect of 1 Cor. 
and subsequent developments. 

Timothy is mentioned in 2 Cor. as a joint writer with 
Paul of the letter; but the case’is not parallel to that of 
1 Cor. i. 1 (above, p. 267, n. 6), since Timothy was one of 
Paul’s helpers who had had an active part in the organisa- 
tion of the Churches in Achaia (i. 19; above, p. 264f., n. 2; 
ef. 1 Thess. i: 7; 2 Thess. i. 1). This explains why, con- 
trary to his usage in 1 Cor. 1. 4, Paul employs the first 
person plural from the very beginning of the letter, and 
uses it quite uniformly up to ix. 15, never exchanging it 
for the singular except for some good reason, and in only 
one instance expressly stating who is included in the 
“we,” namely, when he refers to the pioneer preaching 
of the gospel among the Christians of Achaia, in which 
Silvanus as well as Timothy had taken part (1. 19). Con- 
sequently, as is self-evident, throughout the letter, except 
where the general nature of the statements made render 
it clear that all Christians or all like-minded preachers 
of the gospel are meant, the “ we” includes primarily and 
certainly Timothy and Paul. This is true even of the 
concluding section chaps. x.-xill., where, notwithstanding 
the fact that the introductory αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ Παῦλος in- 
dicates that what follows is an expression of Paul’s own 
opinion, in distinction from the joint communication of 
Timothy and Paul that precedes, we have an occasional 
substitution of “we” for “1 (n. 3). 


308 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Furthermore, it is to be observed that, unlike 1 Cor., 
2 Cor. is not intended exclusively for the Church in 
Corinth, but also for all the other Christians throughout 
the province of Achaia (above, p. 264f., n. 2). But if it 
were intended for the Corinthians only in the same way 
that it is meant for the other Christians in Achaia, the 
designation of the readers would certainly be different : 
either we should have the different places where the letter 
was to be read enumerated (cf. Rev. i. 4, 11; 1 Pet. 1. 1), 
or all the Churches would be spoken of together as those 
of Achaia (Gal. 1. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; 2 Cor. viii. 1; Gal. 
1 22; 1 Thess. ii. 14). The language of the greeting 
shows, therefore, that while the letter was intended 
primarily for the Corinthians, it was applicable ‚also, 
either in whole or in part, to the other Christians in 
Achaia, and was intended to be communicated to them. 
In this respect the greeting is different from 1 Cor. i. 2 
(above, 297 ἢ, n. 8). Consequently, also, the address 
Κορίνθιον in vi. 11 is not to be understood after. the 
analogy of Phil. iv. 15, Gal. iii. 1, as if directed to all 
the readers, but its occurrence here is due to the fact that 
in some degree what precedes, and in particular what is 
said from this point on, is applicable only to the Church 
in Corinth. This same circumstance explains also the 
mention of the city in 1. 23, which, following the repeated 
πρὸς ὑμᾶς, δι’ ὑμῶν, ἐν ὑμῖν, 1. 15-19, is somewhat strange, 
and, like Κορίνθιοι, excepting the greeting of 1 Cor., which 
does not need, to be taken into account here, is ‚quite 
without parallel. The expressions in 1, 15-19 mean “to, 
through, and in Achaia”; what follows in 1. 23 applies 
only to the Corinthians. 

There were, on the other hand, other things which 
affected just as vitally the remaining Christians in Achaia, 
particularly the matter of the collection spoken of in 
chaps. viil.-ix., in which they had all had a part (ix. 2; 
Rom. xv. 26). If Titus, who, let us assume, brought the 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 309 


letter from Macedonia to Corinth (see below), journeyed by 
way of Athens, he is likely at once to have made known 
the contents of the communication which he bore to the 
Christians in Athens and in other Christian centres in 
Achaia en route; since he could not well have passed 
through. these places without stopping to greet. them. 
And inasmuch as he was also personally to superintend 
the collection in Achaia, he is not at all likely to have 
left it for the Corinthian Church to see that the letter was 
circulated among) the Churches of Achaia, particularly 
since vill. 16-24 contained recommendations ‘and, proofs 
of the identity of Titus and his companions quite essential 
for carrying on the collection. But it may be questioned 
whether in these transactions Titus informed the other 
Churches of the contents of the entire letter, which dealt 
so largely with special conditions in Corinth, or only of 
such sections as 1. 1-22, vil. 1-ix. 15, xi. 11+13. 

The Epistle may be divided into three clearly defined 
sections, chaps. 1.-vil., viil.-ix., x.-xui ‘The framework 
of the ‚first section consists of three fragmentsiof an 
account of the apostle’s journey.. While he was still:in 
the province of Asia, he:and Timothy, who was with him, 
were threatened with what seemed certain death (i..8=10, 
n. 4). When he reached Troas and was minded to preach 
the gospel there, a favourable opportunity having) offered, 
he found that he was not in a state of mind sufticiently 
composed to do so, because he had not been met there by 
Titus, whom he had sent to Corinth, and whose return he 
awaited with the utmost anxiety. In the hope of sooner 
meeting him, he and Timothy left Troas at-once and went 
to Macedonia (ii. 12 f.)... After their arrival:ini Macedonia, 
where this letter was written, and manifestly not very 
long before its composition, Titus met him» and cheered 
his heart with good news from Corinth (vii 5 f.). 

The chronological as well as geographical arrangement 
of the material is retained in the two following sections. 


310 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


In chaps. viii.—ix. Paul speaks of events that were taking 
place at the time in the Macedonian Churches where he 
was, particularly of a recent decision, a decision made 
since the arrival of Titus. He tells the Corinthians what 
they did not yet know, and what possibly had not been 
decided upon when Titus left Corinth, namely, that of 
their own accord the Macedonian Churches had decided to 
help in the collection for the Christians in Jerusalem, a 
collection which had been going on in Corinth now for a 
year, in fact since before the sending of the communica- 
tion to which Paul replied in 1 Cor. (n. 5). Moved. by 
the commendatory reports of Paul and Timothy about the 
collections in Achaia, and without Paul’s having ventured 
to ask it (ix. 2, vill. 5), the poor Macedonians had at once 
gathered a sum which, in view of their circumstances, was 
considerable (viii. 1-4, ix. 2). They had already selected 
one of their own number to accompany Paul and Timothy 
on their journey with the collection by way of Corinth 
to Jerusalem (n. 6). The zeal of the Macedonians in this 
matter, which had been dragging on in Corinth for such a 
considerable time, and the news brought by Titus regarding 
the condition of the offering there, led Paul to ask Titus to 
return to Corinth, whence he had come only a short time 
before, in company with the representative of the Mace- 
donian Christians and another brother, perhaps the person 
chosen by the Churches in Asia for this very purpose, in 
order to complete the collection (viii. 6, 16-24, ix. 3-5). 
All that we learn from the second part of the letter 
(chaps. viii.-ix.) regarding Paul’s anticipated visit is, that 
he did not mean that it should be delayed much longer. 
He does not intend to wait for the return of Titus and his 
companions. The. two representatives of the Churches 
are to make the first part of the journey, which was 
to be completed in company with Paul, somewhat earlier 
than the apostle, and in company with Titus rather than 
Paul himself. The three are sent ahead to Corinth to 


PAUL AND’ ‘THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 311 


announce his coming (ix. 5), and, to deliver the letter in 
the middle sections of which they had been commended 
to the Christians of Achaia. 

It is not until the therd section (chaps. x.—xill.) that 
Paul speaks particularly of his own coming. | The section 
begins with a contrast between his anticipated presence 
among the Corinthians and his absence from them up to 
this time (x. 1-10), and concludes with the same thought 
(xiii. 10). Once he expresses the hope of being able to 
preach the gospel in the regions beyond Corinth (x. 16). 
But the most important purpose of his coming is to 
establish order in Corinth, which as yet has ποῦ been 
fully restored (x. 6, xii. 14f, xiii. 1 f.). He fears that he 
may find many of the old disorders and be compelled to 
make use of harsh measures (x. 2, xii 20f., ΧΙ]. .71--9). 
As he himself indicates at the close, the purpose of the 
letter, which is sent from a distance in spite of the fact 
that he expects to come himself so soon, is to spare him- 
self the necessity of exercising with severity the authority 
given him by the Lord (xiii, 10), and this is the special 
purpose of chaps: x.-xiii. [Ὁ is with this purpose in view 
that he requests the whole Church to submit itself with 
more entire obedience than it had done heretofore (x. 6), 
and resents ‘so decisively the arrogant criticisms of him- 
self and of his letters which were still being made in 
the Church, particularly. by the Christ party (x. 1f, 
vii.-xi., xiii. 3-6, above, p. 302). For the last time he 
threatens those who live immoral lives, and who, in spite 
of all exhortations, have not repented (xii. 21-xiii. 2). 

The larger portion of this section is directed against 
the teachers from abroad, who, as we have seen, were the 
followers of Peter (above, pp. 289 f., 300 £.), and the Church 
is requested no longer to permit these aliens to carry on 
their pernicious work, which more than anything else had 
caused the trouble and bitterness in the relations between 
Paul and the Corinthians (xi. I-xii. 18). This third part 
of the letter is the last precursor of the apostle on the 
way to Corinth. 


312 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Tradition makes the Epistle a unit; and this’ pre- 
liminary survey shows it to be such, with an order which 
is both natural and logical. In spirit the reader follows 
Paul from Ephesus through Troas to Macedonia (chaps. 
i.-vil.); then he lingers with him for a moment in the 
Churches of Macedonia (chaps. viii.-ix.) ; finally, he is led 
to the consideration of conditions in the Church at Corinth 
from the point of view of Paul’s coming visit there. The 
three ‘sections of the letter treat respectively, the im- 
mediate past with its misunderstandings and explanations, 
the present with its practical problems, and the near 
future with its anxieties. 


1. (P. 307.) The theory that after Timothy’s return from Corinth Paul 
wrote a letter to the Corinthians which he sent to them by Titus,—a letter 
now lost and supposedly referred to in 2 Cor. ii. 3, 9, vii. 8,—was first put 
forth and defended by Bleek (ThStKr. 1830, 8. 625 ff.). This theory was 
adopted, with varying degrees of confidence, by Credner (Einl. i. 371), 
Neander (Ausleg. der Kr. 272, 293 f.), Klöpper (Untersuch. über den 2 Kr. 1869, 
3.24 ff), by the same author in his Kommentar (1874, 8. 42ff.), and by 
many others. According to Lisco (Die Entstehung des 2 Kr. 1896, S. 1), 
there is beginning “to be a consensus criticus” (it were better perhaps 
to say criticorum) on this point. Klöpper admits (38 f.) that in 1’ Cor. 
xvi. 5-7 Paul lays before the Corinthians a new plan for his journey; the 
plan which he was engaged in carrying out when 2 Cor. was written, as 
contrasted to his original plan, which had already been put before them, 
and which is described in 2 Cor. i. 15-16, and he (48) finds in I. xvi. 
5-7 the announcement of “an, early arrival in Corinth”; though in this 
passage, which was written at least some weeks before Pentecost, Paul. says 
that he may possibly remain away until the beginning of winter, and in 
any event will not come immediately (above, p. 268f.). When now, on the 
strength of this, there is posited a lost letter sent in the interval between 
1 Cor, and 2 Cor., in which Paul “put off his visit and in general made 
it dependent upon certain conditions” (43), thus accounting for the accusa- 
tions against which he defends himself in II. i. 12ff., it may be observed 
that there is nothing to suggest that at the time of 2 Cor. there was any 
doubt as to Paul’s actually coming. There is nothing in 2 Cor. like I. iv. 18; 
so that the charge which he meets in II. i. 17 has no reference to what he 
had said in a very recent letter, nor to ‘a recent change in the plan of, his 
journey, but to the original plan. Of course there was no occasion for this 
charge until after Paul had declared that he would not follow this but another 
plan. This he had done, however, with emphasis in I. xvi. 5-7, and when 
2 Cor. was written this other plan had been practically carried out, with no 
recognisable changes. ‚The assumption that in the interval between the 
writing of I, xvi. 5-7 and II. i. 12-ii. 2, Paul had expressed himself again 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 413 


about the plan for his journey in a letter now lost, and in a manner essenti 

ally different. from I. xvi. 5-7, and that the reference in 11. ii. 3-9 is to this 
lost letter, cannot be harmonised withthe usual translation of II. ii. 3—rodre 
avré= “even this.” Nor does it gain support from the translation, “For this 
very reason” (see below, § 20, n. 5). Unless it be assumed that Paul paid a 
visit to Corinth during the same interval, which changed the whole situation, 
and by which also the plans that were in mind when 1 Cor. was written were 
set aside, this hypothesis renders the entire defence in II. 1, 15 ff. meaningless. 
Paul is accordingly represented as returning, after a temporary vacillation to 
which expression had been given in the intervening letter, to the definite 
plan stated in detail in I. xvi. 5-7. In other words, according to II. i. 15 ff, 
this plan must have been given up temporarily, and taken up again. It 
would then be necessary for him to distinguish not merely two, but at least 
three, and if our interpretation of I. xvi. 5-7 (below, § 20, and above, p. 268 f.) 
be correct, four different stages in the development of this affair—(1) the plan 
and the promise to come immediately to Corinth from Ephesus by the direct 
route (ef. I. iv. 18) ; (2) the opposite plan which is set forth in detail in I. xvi. 
5-7, with reasons for the determination not to come immediately, but after an 
interval by the longer route through Macedonia; (3) the later communica- 
tion to the Corinthians, of which there is no record, that plan No. 2 had been 
given up, and that he had. returned to plan No, 1 ; (4) the return to plan 
No. 2, which, at the time when II. i.-ix. was written, had already been prac- 
tically carried out. Sufficient refutation of this whole theory is the setting 
forth of the actual situation (cf. § 20). More than this is unnecessary 
in regard to Hausrath’s theory, that the lost letter sent. between 1 and 2 
Cor. is to be found in 2 Cor. x.-xiii. (Der Vierkapitelbrief des Paulus an 
die Kor. 1870). The αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγὼ ITaüXos, x. 1, it is claimed, shows that 
what follows is an appendix of Paul’s to an entirely unrelated letter, possibly 
a letter to the Corinthians from the Church in Ephesus, or from the Church 
associated with the house of Aquila in Ephesus (28). This theory rests upon 
the claim that, while in chaps. i.-ix. Paul speaks in an “undisturbed, most 
loving, and peaceful state of mind,” addressing the Corinthians only in words 
of appreciation, in chaps. x.-xüi., on the other hand, he defends himself and 
his companions against the darkest suspicions in a violently polemic manner, 
making against the Corinthians the most serious charges (S. 2-5). This 
claim is refuted by the simple restatement of the situation (§ 20). In detail, 
while it is to be admitted that as a matter of fact) the praise in viii. 7 is 
more strongly expressed than the thanksgiving to God in I. i. 4 £.,—since 
here, as in II. i, 24 (“ For as regards faith ye stand”), in addition to: know- 
ledge and speech mention is made also of faith,—yet it is to be observed that 
there is the same appreciation in I. xv. 1 f. as is found in the earlier chaps. 
of 2 Cor. Furthermore, in this same section (chaps. i.-ix.) boast is made 
of the zeal of Paul and Timothy for the Church, and of the love in their 
hearts which the Corinthians had called out, and which had been wakened 
into new life by the attitude of the Corinthians:toward them that, had 
recently come to light (II. vii. 7, 11). No mention is made, however, of the 
love of the Corinthians for ‚Paul... But this boast is made only in contrast 
to their lack of zeal and of an attitude toward the collection which corre- 
sponds to the love and praise of Paul. Although the apostle assures the 


314 INTRODUCTION TO "THE NEW TESTAMENT 


readers of his love, he does it in such a way as to make clear that this love 
is not yet adequately requited by the readers (ef. vi. 11-13, vii. 3, xi. 11, xii. 
15), and, in view of their attitude toward certain matters about which Paul 
was very much concerned, not deserved. | Moreover, it is not to be overlooked 
that this appreciation of the Corinthians occurs in that portion of the letter 
(chaps. viii.-ix.) which is addressed éspecially to the whole Church of Achaia 
(above, p. 308).  Hausrath gets his very dark picture of the condition of 
affairs in chaps. x.-xiii. only by mixing up all of Paul’s statements, com- 
plaints, denials, and defences, irrespective of whether they were directed 
against the Church, individual members of the Church, or teachers from 
without, and then painting the whole with these dark colours. For example, 
from xii. 16-18, Hausrath infers that the Church had accused Paul and his 
messengers of dishonesty, deception, and fraud in the matter of the collection 
(S. 4, 10, 18); but it is difficult to see why the same inference 18. not: drawn 
froin vii. 2 (οὐδένα ἐπλεονεκτήσαμεν), and why this passage, which is so much 
more immediately connected with the frank discussion of the matter of the 
collection in chaps. vüi.-ix. than is xii. 16-18, isnot treated as a gross con- 
tradiction of the situation portrayed in chaps. i.-ix. In the second place, it 
is to be observed that xii. 18 does not deal with the collection at all, but with 
the first sending of Titus (viii. 6), which had nothing to do with the collec- 
tion (see below, ὃ 20, n. 4). Chap, xii. 16 (cf. xi. 7-12, xii. 13-15) deals with 
the apostle’s personal conduct on the occasion of his two former visits, and 
xii. 17 with all the persons who since the founding of the Church had come 
to Corinth as Paul’s messengers. The language of xii. 16 and the context 
from xi. 7 on, prove that the accusations which are met in xi. 16 originated 
with the followers of Peter, and that the latter were compelled to admit that 
he had not been any expense to the Church, but, on the contrary, had com- 
pletely renounced the right to be supported, which as a missionary he might 
have claimed. The accusation (ἀλλὰ ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον), 
which stands in absolute contrast to the concession made in the words οὐ κατε- 
βάρησα ὑμᾶς in xii. 16 (ef. xi. 9; 1'Thess. ii. 6,9 ; 2 Thess. ii. 8), would be 
pointless, if by the very same words the claim were made that Paul had 
imposed upon the Corinthians the burden of collecting a sum of money, but 
in doing so had not acted openly, but with deceit. Grammatically and 
logically, the accusation can only mean that the shrewd apostle, by refusing 
all'compensation for his labours, which seemed generous, but really showed 
his lack of love for the Corinthians (xi. 11), had in another respect outwitted 
them, since. by this cunningly-devised means he had succeeded in making 
them morally more dependent upon himself. Consequently πλεονεκτεῖν is 
manifestly to be taken in the same sense in xii. 17, 18 (vii. 2); for although 
this word may have been chosen here because of Paul’s refusal to accept com- 
pensation, its meaning is by no means confined to fraud in money matters 
(cf, ii. 11; and’any lexicon). The light which this hypothesis throws. upon 
the obscurities of chaps. i.-ix. is’as small as the foundations upon which it 
stands are weak. Nor is there any hint in chaps. x.-xiii. regarding the 
time of Paul’s proposed visit to Corinth, to say nothing of the recalling of his 
original plan. If these chapters 'were written by the apostle in Ephesus 
before ‘he started) for’ Macedonia by way of Troas, this ‘alleged four-chapter 
letter'furnished the Corinthians’ no occasion whatever for the complaints 


PAUL AND ‘THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 31; 


which Paul answers in i.12-ii.2. When the latter passage was written, tha 
plan set forth in I. xvi. 5-7 had been practically carried out, and 11.x.-xiii. 
shows no hesitation as to this plan—certainly no promise to do otherwise, 
such as might have given the Corinthians cause for complaint. The-only 
strange thing is that in II. xii. 14, xii. 1, Paul makes not the slightest 
reference to the plan for his journey to Corinth, which is so emphatically 
set forth in I. xvi. 5-7. The explanation is that at the time when 11. i.-ix. 
was written, which is also the time when IL x.-xiii. was written, this plan 
had become fact, so that only references of a retrospective character, like 
those in II. i. 15-ii. 2, could be made to it. Further, Hausrath’s hypothesis 
furnishes not the slightest help in explaining the treatment.of the individual 
ease in Hi. ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f., and the matter of the collection in chaps, 
viii—ix.; for in chaps. x.-xui. the matter of the collection is not. once 
touched upon; and where sinners are mentioned, against whom: Paul fears 
it will be necessary for him'to take strong measures when he comes (xii. 
21-xiii. 10), there is no special reference to an individual case with which 
IL. ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f. can be connected. The reference in xii. 21—xiii. 10 is 
to numerous offenders, whom Paul had threatened with punishment on the 
occasion of his second visit (xiii. 2), which by Hausrath also is placed before 
1 Cor. But if the evil-doer of I. v. 1-13 was one of these offenders, then 
Paul laid himself open to ridicule for speaking in I. v.1-13 with so much 
passion about a case with which he had long been familiar, and with which 
he had dealt at the time of his last visit. How much the hypothesis is worth 
Hausrath himself shows when: he goes on to assume that the case of incest 
and the matter of the collection were dealt with in a lost letter of the Church 
of Ephesus to the Corinthians, to which Paul attached his private communi- 
cation, chaps. x.-xiii. (28); for that is practically to confess that there is 
not a single independent word in chaps. x.—xiii. on these subjects) which 
could have occasioned what is said in 11. 5-11, vii. 11 ff., viii.-ix. Lisco 
(Entstehung des 2 Kr. 1896, according to the preface written in 1886) under- 
took to improve Hausrath’s hypothesis by cutting out of this four-chapter 
letter xii. 11-19, and inserting in its place vi. 14-vii. 1,-—a passage which 
has often been felt to break the connection (see below, § 20, n. 7),—putting 
xii. 11-19 in between vi.'13 and vii. 2, and by then assuming that i. 1-vi. 13, 
xii. 11-19, vii. 2 f., ix. 1-15, xiii. 11-13 constitute a second letter, chaps. 
vii. 4-viii. 24 a third. Several other attempts at division "similar in 
character have been made, which it seems superfluous to describe at length. 
Cf. the comprehensive diseussion by Hilgenfeld Z/WTh. xli. (1899), 5. 1-19. 
Tt only needs to be mentioned that Semler, who (Paraphr. ὧν Epist. ad 
Rom. 1769, p. 305 ff.) explained the greater part of Rom. xvi.as an appendix 
to’ Rom., holding that it was meant originally for the Corinthians, in his 
Paraphr.:Epist.. II. ad Corinth. (1776, pref. and pp. 238, 811-314, 321), 
suggested that 2 Cor. be divided into the following three Epistles—(1) the 
Epistle which Paul sent by Titus on the occasion of the latter’s second trip to 
Corinth, chaps. i.-viii., xiii. 11-13 ; (2) an Epistle to the Christians in 
Achaia, chap. ix. ; (3) an Epistle to the Corinthians which Paul wrote after 
he had sent Titus the second time, 1,6. after he had despatched (1), in conse- 
quence of new reports from Corinth of'an' unfavourable: kind, chaps. x. 1- 
xiii. 10, It was this evidently that led Krenkel to maintain that Paul wrote 


316 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


this letter, x. 1-xiii. 10 (Semler’s third letter), in Macedonia, after Titus 
and his companions, who had delivered in Corinth the letter composed. of 
i, 1-ix. 15, xii. 11-13 (practically Semler’s first and second letters), "had 
returned to Paul in Macedonia with fresh and painful reports. 

2. (P. 307.) Following the example of Ewald (Sendschr. des Paulus, 216) 
and of many others, Krenkel, with especially detailed proof (154-211, 377), 
has recently advocated the pldding of Paul’s second visit in Corinth in the 
interval between 1 and 2 Cor., making it immediately precede the alleged 
intervening Epistle. The main proof of this position, namely, that this 
visit could not have taken place before 1 Cor. was written, has already been 
examined (above, p. 272, n. 14); likewise (above, p. 268, n. 7) the attempt 
to push 1 Cor. back from the last months of Paul’s stay in Ephesus to an 
earlier time. Moreover, it will be shown in n. 5 that the Pentecost at which 
Paul was about to leave Ephesus (I. xvi. 8) belongs in the same Julian year 
(57) prior to the end of which 2 Cor. was written. It is possible that the 
departure from Ephesus was delayed, because of the delay in the return 
of Timothy (above, p. 269, n. 7); but it is just as likely to have been hastened 
because of the uprising led by Demetrius. 'Fhese possibilities do notineed 
to be taken into account here, so long as it is admitted that 1 Cor. was 
written several weeks before Pentecost.of the year (57), before the close οὗ 
which 2 Cor. was written (n. 5). Then in the interval between Peritecost 
and the end of December it would be necessary to place the following events 
(Krenkel, 377) :—(1) a journey by Paul through Macedonia to Corinth, and 
a troubled stay in the latter place; (2) a return to Ephesus instead of the 
projected visit to Jerusalem ; (3) the sending of Titus to Corinth with a 
letter of Paul’s now lost, wherein announcement was made of his immediate 
coming for a third visit; (4) Paul’s journey from Ephesus by way of Troas 
to Macedonia, where he meets Titus, and shortly afterwards writes 2 Cor. i.- 
ix., xiii. 11-13. Without taking into account at all the very clear connection 
between 1 Cor. xvi. and 2 Cor. i., which does not permit the intervention of 
a letter nor of a visit (§20), it must be confessed that (1) and (4) in this 
series give rise to the suspicion of being duplicates, due to the critic’s 
double vision ; that (2) is extremely improbable; finally, that. in the, ease 
of (3) ae alleged contents of the supposed letter do not harmonise |with 
2 Cor. ii. 

8. (Ρ. me ) From the fact that the “we” is retained in i.3-12 it is to’ be 
inferred, first of all, that Timothy shared the extreme danger which Paul 
encountered while fia was still in Asia. Assuming that the criticism which 
is answered in i. 13 was occasioned by something that was said in a previous 
letter, from the use of “we” it is not necessary to infer that Timothy was one 
of the authors of the letter; for the criticism is general, and has reference 
to the ambiguity of Paul’s utterances in his correspondence, while in.replying 
to this criticism Paul uses a present tense which indicates nothing as to. time. 
Since Paul was engaged in writing a letter at this very time in conjunction 
with Timothy, as he had frequently done before, there was no reason why at 
this particular point he should change to the singular. When he does so tem- 
porarily in this immediate context (ἐλπίζω δέ), it is apparent that in expressing 
this hope that there may never be any further misunderstanding between him 
and the Church in the future, he has in mind the misunderstanding and un- 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH _ 317 


favourable criticism of the changing plans for his journey, which he proposer 
to discuss at greater length in i. 15ff. Inasmuch as i. 15-ii. 11 deals with the 
announcement and carrying out of plans of journeys and with communications 
by letter in which Timothy had no part, Paul retains the singular in speaking 
of himself, except in i. 19-22 (cf. iii. 2), which treats of the missionary preach- 
ing in Achaia. In i, 23 with ἐγὼ öe—which stands in contrast to the preced- 
ing jpeis—Paul returns to the discussion of personal matters already begun. 
This singular is retained even in ii. 12 f., although, according to i. 8, Timothy 
was with Paul either before or at the time of his departure from Ephesus, and 
so certainly at the time of his sojourn in Troas ; changing again to the plural 
in ii, 14f., which, in spite of the general character of the statements, is to be 
connected with the sojourn in Troas. However, in a very skilful way, the 
apostle indicates that the responsibility for the sudden departure from Troas 
rests not upon Timothy, whose movements are dependent upon his own, but 
upon himself and his disturbed state of mind. With the exception of a single 
ἐλπίζω dein v.11 (cf. i. 13, xiii. 6), the plural is retained up to vii. 2, de. up 
to the point where Paul returns again to the matters already touched upon in 
ii. 5-11, in which Timothy had no direct part (vii. 3-16). Since Timothy 
accompanied Paul to Macedonia, and was with him when Titus met him 
there, and naturally took a lively interest in the news which Titus brought, 
so occasionally here also we find the “ we” (vii. 5-7, 13). Once there is a 
sudden change to “we” in a context where “I” predominates (vii. 14). 
First of all, it was a comfort to Paul that the boasts which he had made to 
Titus about the Corinthian Church had not proved false. Since, however, he 
saw fit to compare the truthfulness of this praise with the truthfulness of all 
that he had said to the Corinthians, 1.6. of his first preaching, in which 
Timothy had taken part (ef. i. 19), it was natural after this reference to the 
first preaching of the gospel in Corinth (ἐλαλήσαμεν) to represent Timothy as 
sharing with him the boasting before Titus (ἡ καύχησις ἡμῶν), vil. 14 (cf. 
ix. 3). This, of course, was possible only if Timothy was with Paul and 
agreed with what he said when he talked with Titus about going to Corinth 
(ef. Hofmann, ii. 3.196). In chaps. viii.-ix. the “ we” predominates, although 
occasionally the “I” occurs (viii. 8, 10). The frequent interchange of the 
pronouns in ix. 3-5 affords no reason for excluding Timothy from a single 
“we.” In chaps. x.-xiii. also the substitution of an occasional “ we” for the 
predominating “1” is not without significance. By x. 11a, xi. 21a, we are 
reminded that this discussion of the personal relation of Paul to the Church 
and his opponents is nevertheless part of a letter of which Timothy is one of 
the authors; by x. 12-16 it is suggested that Timothy is one of Paul’s mis- 
sionary helpers, well known to the Corinthians, and will continue to be such. 
From x. 2b-v. 7b, xi. 12, we learn that the criticisms against which he found 
it necessary to defend himself were also to some extent urged against his 
helpers; x. 6, 115, xiii. 4-9, show that Timothy was to accompany Paul to 
Corinth in the near future. This is indicated also by viii. 19, where the 
individual whom the Macedonian Churches had chosen to accompany Paul on 
his journey to Corinth and thence to Jerusalem is called συνέκδημος ἡμῶν not 
pod. Moreover, in some cases it is not impossible that what Paul says of him- 
self and Timothy by the use of this plural may be applicable also to one or 
more of his other helpers. It is possible, e.y., that Aristarchus accompanied 


318 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Paul and Timothy on the journey from Ephesus to Troas and Macedonia (see 
n. 6). 

4. (P. 309.) Since Troas is in the province of Asia, and since, moreover, 
Paul never uses ᾿Ασία except to designate the entire province (above, p. 186 f.), 
there is no contradiction as to locality between ii. 12 and 1. 8. But it neces- 
sarily follows from ἐλθὼν δὲ eis τὴν Τρῳάδα that in i. 8 it is not Troas that is 
meant, but either Ephesus or some point between Ephesus and Troas. \The 
reference in i. 8 is certainly not to the event hinted at in 1 Cor. xv. 32; for 
at the time when 1 Cor. was written this was so well known to the readers, 
that Paul was able to call ib to mind by a single word which to us is obscure. 
It must have been something that happened earlier. In the present case, 
however, when 2 Cor. was written—and this was certainly some months 
after the event to which he refers, as is evident from the’ connection 
between i. 8-11 and i. 3-7—Paul was still actuated by feelings of grateful joy 
that he had been delivered out of extreme danger. Even though the Corin: 
thians may in some way have become acquainted with the facts in the case, or 
might learn the same from the person who brought 2 Cor., Paul never- 
theless felt constrained himself to explain to them at the very outset the 
terribleness of the danger to which he had been exposed. Clearly the event 
must have taken place sometime between 1 and 2 Cor. It is not un- 
natural to assume that the event in question is that described in Acts xix. 
93-41. _Hofmann’s objection (ii. 3. 11), namely, that, according to Acts xix. 
22, Timothy had left Ephesus several months before Paul, and so could not 
have been with Paul at the time of Acts xix. 23 ff., as is presupposed in 2 Cor. 
i. 8, is not decisive against this position. The account in Acts is not complete 
at this point ; there is no record of the return of Timothy to Paul while he 
was still in Asia, which we infer from 2 Cor. i. 8, and we are by no means 
sure whether this return took place at the time indicated by Acts xx. 1, or in 
the interval suggested by Acts xix. 22b. It is, however, impossible to connect 
2 Cor. i. 8 with Acts xix. 23 ff., for the reason that in the latter account there 
is nothing to indicate that Paul’s life was in serious danger. From the 
danger immediately threatening he escaped (xix. 30). The favour of the 
Asiarchs (xix. 31) would have protected him in a suit at law, such as the 
town-clerk (γραμματεύς, ver. 35) had in mind (xix. 38). But it did not come 
to this. Paul was able to depart unmolested (xx. 1). . Nor would the 
apostle have regarded as especially terrible a death brought upon him because 
of his effective preaching of the gospel in Ephesus ; although, as a matter of 
fact, this could hardly have been the outcome of such a trial as that hinted at 
(cf. Phil. i, 20-23, ii. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 6-8; Acts xx. 22-24). As Hofmann 
suggests, it is more likely to have been the danger of drowning, possibly 
during a stormy voyage from Ephesus to Troas (2 Cor. xi. 25). But if Paul 
had left land behind, he could hardly have used the expression ev τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ. 
Or he may have fallen into the hands of robbers, and have been saved from ἃ 
horrible death only through unexpected aid (2 Cor. xi. 26). 

5. (P. 310.) In 2 Cor. viii. 10, Paul writes that the Corinthians had begun 
their collection in the previous year (ἀπὸ πέρυσι), and in ix. 2 he says that 
recently he had boasted to the Macedonians that Achaia had been prepared 
in regard to this matter ever since the preceding year. Now manifestly the 
reference here cannot be to two entirely different facts, because the same ex- 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 319 


pression is used in both instances to indicate the time (ἀπὸ epve.),and there is 
nothing in ix. 2 which suggests that Paul had made a mistake in thus boasting 
about the Corinthians. Since it was this boasting which, according to ix. 2, 
incited the Macedonians themselves to take part in the collection (cf. viii. 1-5), 
the apostle may have made it before Titus’ arrival, _ But this was the very time 
when Paul was least likely to be optimistic about conditions in Corinth (ii. 
13, vii. 5). He had not boasted that the collection in Corinth was)all ready, 
but simply that the Churches in Greece, unlike those in Macedonia, where no 
preparations for a collection whatever had been made, were in a position to 
senda collection to Jerusalem, and that these preparations to take the collec- 
tion had been begun by them in the preceding year. This does not imply 
that they had not progressed in the collection since that time, nor that they 
had now completed it. The question naturally arises as to the method by 
which the year is here reckoned. Was it after the ecclesiastical calendar of 
the Jews, according to which the year begins with the first.of Nisan, or the 
spring equinox (Hofmann, ii. 3. 211), or the Macedonian calendar (Wieseler, 
Chronol. 364), in which the year begins with the autumn equinox, and corre-| 
sponds to the Jewish civil calendar, or the Athenian, which corresponds to the 
Olympian reckoning, and in which the year begins with the summer solstice 
(Oredner, Hinl. i. 371f.)% Τῦ is difficult to understand why use has never 
been made of other calendars, eg. the political year of the Romans, which 
began with the first of January, This would have been especially appropriate 
in this letter, since Corinth, the city to which it was to be sent, was a Roman 
colony, founded by Julius Cesar; and very possibly the, letter itself was 
written in Philippi, another Roman colony. but just because the Churches 
here in question were scattered and made up of different nationalities, and 
therefore were without any uniform calendar, it is not likely that Paul in 
writing ἀπὸ πέρυσι silently took for granted one of several possible ways of 
reckoning the year. Quite apart from this, however, it would have been very 
unnatural for Paul to say in this connection simply that the event in question 
took place before the beginning of the lastnew year. InJanuary or February 
we never speak of the last Christmas as that of the preceding year, nor of the 
vintage gathered in October preceding as that of last year. We use the 
expressions, “in the preceding year,” “ last year,” ete., only when the larger 
part of twelve months has elapsed since the event to which reference 15 
made, Neither, on the other hand, do we employ these expressions when 
considerably more than a year has elapsed. So the only conclusion to be 
drawn from 2 Cor. viii. 10, ix. 2, is that about a year had elapsed between 
the beginning of the collection in Achaia and the composition of 2, Cor. 
A period of from three to six months is just as much excluded by the expres- 
sion as a period of eighteen or more months. Now, from 1 Cor, xvi. 1 (above, 
Ῥ. 260) we know that this matter had been touched upon. in a letter from 
the Corinthians to which 1, Cor. is the answer. It is probable that) prior 
to his departure from Ephesus, Stephanas (i. 16. 15f., cf. Hofmann, ad, loc.) 
had been earnestly engaged in this work. Since, however, the Churches in 
Greece, unlike those in Macedonia, had been stirred up to this service by Paul 
himself (II, viii. 3-5), at the very latest this earnest request of the apostle’s 
must have been made in the letter of Paul’s, now lost (I. v. 9), which preceded 
the letter from the Church. Now, if 1 Cor. was written near the Baster 


320 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


festival (above, p. 258), then the collection in Corinth must have beex 
begun at the very latest in February of that same year, possibly several 
months earlier. On the other hand, from Acts xx. 3-6 (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 
παραχεὶμάσω) we ascertain that Paul spent the three months that preceded 
the opening of navigation in the year 58, roughly from the 10th of December 
57 to the 10th of March 58, in Greece, and naturally part of it in Corinth, 
Hence 2 Cor. must have been written before the end of the year 57. 
Not very much of this year could have remained. For, while Paul sends 
Titus and two other Christians on ahead, he does not expect them to return, 
but treats them simply as his messengers, whom he will follow shortly 
(II. ix. 5, x. 6, xii. 14, xii. 1). If, then, 2 Cor. was written somewhere 
about November 57, the Passover near which 1 Cor. was written must 
have been that of 57; for if we assume that it was the Passover of 56, 
then between 1 and 2 Cor. there would be an interval of nineteen months 
(April 56 to November 57), and between the beginning of the collection 
(which in this case would be at the latest February 56) and 2 Cor. an 
interval of at least twenty-one months, which disagrees entirely with II. viii. 
10, ix. 2. 

6. (P. 310.) That the facts spoken of in viii.! 1-5, the παρακαλέσαι Τίτον 
(viii. 6, ef. ix. 5), which grew out of the same, and the τὴν παράκλησιν ἐδέξατο 
(viii. 17) belong in the very recent past, is proved: (1) by the fact that Titus 
could not possibly have returned to Paul until after the events described in 
vii. 6-16 ; (2) just as certainly by the entire context, viii. 6-ix. 5, where, as is 
usual in epistolary style, the aorists ἐξῆλθεν (vill. 17), συνεπέμψαμεν (vill. 
18, 22), ἔπεμψα (ix. 3) indicate action contemporaneous with the sending of the 
letter. Of Titus’ companions on his second journey to Corinth, only the 
person first described (viii. 18-21) is expressly said to have been chosen by 
the Macedonian Churches to accompany Paul and Timothy on their journey 
to Jerusalem with the collection. The tradition which identifies this person 
with Luke is due to some scholar’s interpretation of viii. 18. Luke was nota 
Macedonian. It is more likely to have been Aristarchus (Hofmann, ad loc.), 
who was a Thessalonian (Acts xx. 4, see above, pp. 209f., n. 2, 212 f., n. 6), who 
had been with Paul for some time (Acts xix. 29, συνεκδήμους =2 Vor. viii. 19), 
and who therefore had had opportunity to win commendation in a number of 
Churches through the part which he took in the missionary work (2 Cor. viii. 
18). As a matter of fact, Aristarchus did go with Paul to Jerusalem, and 
accompanied him also to Rome (Acts xx. 4, xxvii. 2). Or it might have been 
Sopatros or Sosipatros of Bercea, who a little later was with Paul in Corinth, 
and accompanied him also to Jerusalem (above, p. 209). "The second anony- 
mous companion of Titus (viii. 22) is included with the first among the 
ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν in viii. 23, and therefore, like him, must have been the 
representative of a Church or of a group of Churches. Only he was not from 
Macedonia, and he had no connection with the matter of the collection ; for 
in that case there is no reason why he should not be mentioned at once in viii. 
18 along with Titus’ other companion, since all that is said in viii. 18-22 
would then apply equally to him. When we remember that it was Paul’s 
plan on this journey, which as originally projeeted was to lead him through 
Macedonia to Corinth, and from Corinth to Palestine (Acts xix. 21, xx. 3), to 
take with him representatives also of other Churches which have no share in 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 22: 


this collection (above, p. 209), we find ourselves shut up to a choice between 
Gaius of Derbe and one of the two men from Asia, Tychieus or Trophimus 
(Acts xx. 4, xxi. 29, above, p. 209, n. 2). These, then, are the “ brethren ” with 
whom, together with Timothy, after the return of the latter from Corinth, 
Paul planned at the time when he wrote 1 Cor. xvi. 11 to start on his journey 
to Macedonia, Greece, and thence to Jerusalem (above, p. 269 f., n. 8). 


§ 20. OCCASION, PURPOSE, AND EFFECT OF THE 
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Answer to the much mooted question as to what took 
place between the two extant letters to the Corinthians and 
as to what in general are the historical presuppositions of 
2 Cor., must be sought mainly from the first section of the 
letter (chaps. i.—vu.), which is retrospective, particularly 
from what is said between the first and second of the 
three historical notices (1. 12—11. 11) that form the frame- 
work of the first division of the Epistle, together with 
what follows the third of these notices (vii. 5-16); since 
what is said between the second and third of these re- 
marks (ii. 14-vii. 1 or vil. 4) is of a more general 
character, and much less closely connected with the his- 
torical notices that precede and follow (n. 1). On the 
other hand, what is said between the notice of the dangers 
that threatened Paul’s life at or shortly after his departure 
from Ephesus (1. 8-11, above, p. 318, n. 4) and the notice 
of his journey through Troas (ii. 12 f.), is evidently in- 
serted at this point because it relates mainly to this 
particular journey from Ephesus to Macedonia by way 
of Troas, and to events closely associated with the same. 

Mention of the prayers of the Corinthians, of which he 
feels sure he shall have the benefit in all future dangers, 
such as those he had encountered in Asia (i. 11), gives 
him opportunity to call his conscience to witness that he 
had acted always, particularly in his relation to the 
Corinthians, simply and sincerely, not being governed by 
a spirit of worldly cunning, but acting under the guidance 
of the grace of God (ver. 12, n. 2). That the criticisms 

VOL. I. 21 


322 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which Paul here answers, both that of insincerity and 
that of acting_in an_unsanctified and wilful manner, were 
actually current in Corinth, and had been made to the 
apostle himself by the Church, either through Titus or in 
a communication which Titus brought, is clear from the 
apologetic explanation beginning at this point. From 
the sentence, “We write nothing but what ye read or 
indeed understand ” (ver. 13), we infer that Paul had been 
criticised for having written something in his letters or in 
one of them which afterwards he wanted them to under- 
stand in a sense opposed to the language, and impossible 
for any ordinary reader to infer. We are reminded at 
once of the misinterpretation of a passage in his first letter 
(now lost) which Paul corrects in 1 Cor. v. 9-11 (above, 
p. 261). That this is the case he had in mind is rendered 
all the more certain, by the fact that the language in 
which Paul corrects the misinterpretation in 1 Cor. 
agrees exactly with the language of the criticism here 
presupposed. In making this correction, he does not say, 
“When I wrote the passage I meant it to be taken as 
now explained, not as you understood it,” but very 
pointedly, “This and nothing else is what I wrote to 
you”; so that it was very natural for the Corinthians, 
when they looked at the earlier communication again, and 
found language which really admitted the construction 
which Paul declared to be foolish and unfair, to retort, 
“Tn his letters Paul writes what his readers cannot find 
in them nor read out of them.” So Paul gets back his 
own criticism of their lack of εἰλικρίνεια (1 Cor. v. 8, above, 
p. 276), though, as the tone of his reply indicates, in a 
manner entirely polite, perhaps even deferential, designed 
less to criticise Paul than to justify themselves for having 
formerly misunderstood him. 

One misunderstanding was now cleared up. And 
with the expression of the hope that hereafter so long as 
he lives the Church will understand him, and understand 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 323 


him fully, he passes to the discussion of a second point 
with regard to which there was disagreement between 
himself and the Church. This disagreement concerned 
the journey to Corinth, which had been announced long 
before, and which was now being carried out in a way 
different from that which he had originally intended and 
announced. When, some time previously,—just how long 
is not indicated,—Paul had intended, and, as the context 
shows, promised the readers to come to Corinth sooner 
than he was now actually doing, or to come to Corinth 
before he went to Macedonia (n. 2), whither he had now 
gone without having come to Corinth at all (cf. 1. 23), he 
made the promise in the confidence that the Corinthians 
would understand and appreciate his reasons. He meant 
then to arrange his plans so as to go directly from 
Ephesus to Corinth and from Corinth to Macedonia, 
whence he planned to return to Corinth and thence to 
journey to Jerusalem. His thoughtful intention was by 
paying them two visits to give the Corinthians not only 
a single, but a twofold proof of his love; for such, in any 
case, his visit was to be regarded. Now, in view of the 
criticism that in making his original plan, which was 
never carried out, and informing his readers of it, Paul 
had acted with fickleness (i. 17a), it must be assumed 
that it had become quite clear to the Corinthians, either 
from Paul’s evident intentions inferred from something he 
had said or done, that this plan had been given up, and, 
over and above this, the solemn assurance of 1. 23-11. 2 
makes it clear beyond all question that in its last analysis 
the dissatisfaction of the Church was caused by Paul’s 
continued absence from Corinth—in other words, by the 
fact that he had not carried out his original plan, but had 
gone first to Macedonia, and kept putting off his arrival 
in Corinth by the slowness of his movements. In reply, 
Paul assures them that this failure to come to them, 
which they thought showed a lack of love on his. part, 


324 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


was due only to his desire to spare them. With reference 
to the original plan, the carrying out of which would 
have met their wishes, the only criticism they make is 
that it was not well considered. If Paul were con- 
scientious, they thought, he ought not to have made 
such a plan unless he were sure he could carry it out; 
and he ought not to have aroused their expectations by 
announcing it unless he were resolved to come at any 
cost. Possibly, in connection with this charge of fickle- 
ness in the matter of his earlier plan, the criticism was 
also made, that in changing his plans he was influenced by 
purely worldly designs and by motives of self-interest. 
If, as seems probable from i. 12, this was actually the 
case, the apostle gives the criticism an unexpected turn, 
when he asks whether generally, in making plans, he is 
accustomed to act in so worldly a manner as to make his 
yes and no in such matters absolute (n. 2). It is not the 
making and subsequent alteration of his plans which, in 
his judgment, would be a βουλεύεσθαι κατὰ σάρκα, but the 
subsequent demand of the Corinthians that a promise 
impossible of fulfilment be considered irrevocable, and 
that a course decided upon be persisted in at all hazards. 
In answer to the criticism that his promises were untrust- 
worthy and ambiguous, he avers that what he and his 
helpers had said to the Corinthians was by no means both 
yes and no, but just as simple and straightforward as 
their preaching of Christ in Corinth had been; and as far 
as any appearance of hesitancy on his part, dictated by 
worldly or selfish motives, or any criticisms to that effect 
are concerned, he calls God to witness, who makes him 
steadfast and endows him with the Spirit as a pledge of 
his future perfecting and as a seal of the genuineness of 
his present motives. He calls upon God to witness to the 
truth of his assurance that it was his considerate desire to 
spare the Corinthians, which, up to this time, had kept 
him away from Corinth. Even though remembering the 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 325 


pain he had suffered in connection with an earlier visit 
(above, p. 263f.), he felt inclined to spare himself the 
renewal of such sorrow ; it was, after all, the Church most 
of all which he would spare sorrow, because he felt it his 
duty to minister rather to their joy (i. 18-11. 2). 

It may be assumed that Paul is here answering com- 
plaints of the Church which had been reported to him 
orally by Titus, or which had been expressed in a letter 
from the Church to Paul brousht to him by Titus. The 
latter is more probable, in view of the definite form these 
complaints must have had, if we may judge by Paul’s 
reply. Their primary occasion, however, could not have 
been the journey of Paul through Troas to Macedonia. 
For Paul must have sent Titus to Corinth before this 
journey was begun, since at the time when he set out he 
was expecting to meet Titus in Troas, whither he was to 
come from Corinth through Macedonia. 

If, now, we ask how the Corinthians learned about the 
plan for the journey which Paul was now carrying out, 
and which, judging from the fact that he defends it, must 
have been well under way, nothing is more natural than 
to assume that Titus, who left Paul before he began the 
execution of this plan, informed the Corinthians of Paul’s 
purpose not to come to them directly by sea, but by the 
longer route through Macedonia. But if, as was cer- 
tainly the case, Titus was sent, and arrived later than 
Fortunatus, Achaicus, and Stephanas, who were the 
bearers of 1 Cor. (above, p. 260), he had nothing new to 
say to the Corinthians about Paul’s plans. For example, 
this same plan which he was engaged in carrying out at 
the time when 2 Cor. was written, Paul himself had set 
forth in detail in 1 Cor. xvi. 5-7. Between this com- 
munication by letter and the apologetic discussion of 
2 Cor. 1. 15-11. 2 nothing intervened save the partial 
carrying out of this plan, hence nothing had occurred in 
this interim that could occasion the complaints about the 


326 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


carelessness with which Paul made his plans, and the 
arbitrariness with which he changed the plans that had 
been already made and announced. The occasion for the 
complaints answered in 2 Cor. i. 15-ii. 2 must be, there- 
fore, in part things said in 1 Cor., in part things said 
before 1 Cor. was written. That this is the case is proved 
by a careful consideration of the manner in which Paul 
speaks of his journey in 1 Cor. xvi. 5-9... He does it with 
a detail and emphasis which is intelligible only if the 
readers had other expectations at the time. He does not 
stop with saying that he will come to Corinth after he 
has passed through Macedonia, but adds, “For I do pass 
through Macedonia.” This last phrase does not add any 
new thought, so that its purpose must be to strengthen the 
preceding statement (present διέρχομαι of a future journey, 
used with ἐλεύσομαι), and, by the position of the second 
Μακεδονίαν, to emphasise strongly that this was the route 
that he intended to take. Change of route involved also 
a change in the time of his arrival and the length of his 
stay in Corinth, and this contrast is expressed even more 
strongly, both in positive and negative form, than is that 
between the two possible routes. He has made up his 
mind not to visit them immediately (above, p. 271, n. 12), 
which would necessitate his coming directly by sea in- 
stead of through Macedonia, and that would mean only a 
flying visit ; whereas, according to the plan he now lays 
before them, while arriving considerably later, he hopes 
to be able to pay them a much longer visit. From the 
detail with which he speaks in ver. 6 and again in ver. 7 of 
the greater length of his visit in Corinth if the new plan 
is carried out, we see that he is making an effort to justify 
his present plan. It shall be only for their advantage 
that he does not now come directly by sea, but arrives 
considerably later, coming by the longer route through 
Macedonia. Therefore, at the time when 1 Cor. xvi. 5-7 
was written, Paul must have been expected to arrive in 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 327 


Corinth very shortly from Ephesus, directly by sea. For 
such an expectation only the apostle himself could have 
been responsible. Some time before 1 Cor. was written 
he must have expressed this intention, the inference being 
that he had done so in his earlier Epistle (1 Cor, v. 9). 
Paul had all the more reason for fearing that the Church, 
or those members of it who held an immediate visit to be 
desirable, would be dissatisfied with the new plan which 
he now laid before them, involving as it did further post- 
ponement of his visit ; since there were some in Corinth 
who interpreted his delay heretofore as due to cowardice, 
and who expressed the opinion that he would never appear 
in Corinth again (1 Cor. iv. 18); therefore the detail 
with which he lays his newly-made plan before his readers, 
in 1 Cor. xvi. 5-9, aiming to forestall such complaints. 
It is now clear that the original plan, knowledge of which 
is presupposed in 1. xvi. 5-7, is the same as that which 
he defends in II. i. 15-17 against the charge of having 
been made without due care; and also that the new plan 
laid before the readers in I. xvi. 5-7 is identical with the 
plan that had been practically carried out at the time when 
2 Cor. was written, and which is defended in II. 1. 15-11. 2 
against the charge of changeableness, of selfish arbitrari- 
ness, and of inconsiderateness. 

In spite of his careful precautions, the fears which he 
had when writing I. xvi. 5-7 were realised. This com- 
munication, and his subsequent journey by way of Troas to 
Macedonia, had caused the dissatisfaction in Corinth which 
in IL. i, 12-11. 2 Paul seeks to allay. This, taken along 
with the fact that in spite of its general character II. i. 13 
manifestly has special reference to the misunderstanding 
discussed earlier in I. v. 9-11, and to the conclusion which 
had there been reached concerning the matter (above, p. 
322), proves those to be in error who assume a lost Epistle 
between 1 and 2 Cor., especially those who suppose that a 
visit took place between the writing of these two letters 


323 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(above, § 19,n. 1, 2, p. 312f.). The principal cause for the 
origin of the first of these hypotheses is the observation that 
the news from Corinth, which is presupposed in II. i.-vii., 
was not brought by Timothy,—although from what is said 
in 1. iv. 17, xvi. 10 ἢ, we should expect Timothy to report 
to Paul the effect of 1 Cor.,—but by Titus, of whom no 
mention is made in 1 Cor. If, now, as from II. 1. 8 
appears to be the case, Timothy was with Paul when he 
started on his journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, and if, 
as indicated by IL vu. 14, he was also with Paul at the 
time when Titus was sent to Corinth (see above, p. 316f., 
n. 3), it seems as if a situation had been created by the 
sending and the return of Titus entirely different from 
that produced by 1 Cor., which ended with the return of 
Timothy to Paul. Inasmuch, now, as mention is made in 
II. 1. 3, 9, vii. 8+12 of a letter of Paul’s which had been 
received in Corinth shortly before, the effect of which is 
reported to Paul by Titus, it was very natural to assume 
that this letter was not our 1 Cor., but a later Epistle of 
Paul’s which Titus had taken with him the first time he 
went to Corinth. This assumption seems all the more 
necessary, according as it is felt that what is said in II. ii. 
3, 9, vil. 8-12, cannot be made to apply to 1 Cor. without 
doing considerable violence to the language. In addition 
to what has been said above in proof of the inseparable 
connection between 1 and 2 Cor., the following is to be 
remarked: From the fact that Timothy returned to Paul 
before the latter’s departure from Ephesus, it does ποῦ 
follow that the expectations expressed in I. xvi. 10 ἢ were 
all realised. Indeed, the expectation that Timothy will 
arrive in Corinth after the arrival of 1 Cor. is not uncon- 
ditionally expressed (n. 8); so that it is not unlikely, 
either that Timothy did not reach Corinth:at all, but for 
some reason unknown to us had occasion to return to 
Paul in Ephesus directly from Macedonia ; or that, while 
he did go to Corinth, he arrived and departed again before 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 4329 


1 Cor. reached its destination. In either case, Timothy 
could not have brought Paul the news about the effeet of 
1 Cor., which Paul hoped he would bring. It was for this 
reason, then, that immediately after Timothy’s return he 
despatched Titus, in company with another Christian, to 
Corinth, in order that they might bring the news concern- 
ing the effect of 1 Cor. which he awaited with so much 
anxiety. That this was the purpose for which Titus was 
sent we are justified in assuming, since nothing is said of 
any other object, and since this assumption is in entire 
harmony with all the hints concerning the result of the 
journey (n. 4). 

The whole question turns upon a letter of Paul’s con- 
cerning the effect of which upon the Church he was so 
anxious before Titus’ arrival, that for the time being 
he regretted having written it (vii. 8). In these cir- 
cumstances, it is not surprising that in Troas he was so 
disturbed, when Titus failed to meet him there according 
to expectations (ii. 13), as to be practically unable to 
preach. That the letter in question is our 1 Cor. may 
seem doubtful if ii. 3 be interpreted to mean that Paul 
had actually written in that letter what is expressed in 
the verses just preceding, namely, his determination not to 
come at once to Corinth as he was expected to do, but to 
remain away temporarily in order not to be in Corinth 
a second time in sorrow (i. 23-11. 2). For although the 
plan he was now engaged in carrying out had been set 
forth in I. xvi. 5-7, in contrast to the earlier plan which 
would have brought him to Corinth by the direct route 
and at once, in that presentation the essential point of the 
statement in 2 Cor. expressly referred to by τοῦτο αὐτό is 
lacking, namely, the motive here indicated for the change 
in the plan of the journey (i. 23-11: 2). There is, however, 
nothing to prevent us from translating: “And I wrote 
for this very purpose, that when I come, | may not have 
sorrow from those who ought to give me joy; (and I 


330 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


wrote) with confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy ot 
youall” (n. 5). What has just been declared to have been 
his reason and purpose in remaining away from Corinth, 
or for changing the plan of his journey, is here assigned 
as the reason and purpose for his writing. Instead of 
making his visit at once according to the announcement, 
he had sent the long letter, at the close of which he had 
carefully explained that he was not coming to Corinth at 
once, and why he had made the change. 

The opinion that what Paul says in ii. 4 about his state 
of mind when the letter in question was written, does not 
harmonise with the quiet tone of 1 Cor., is not made more 
intelligible by being repeated. With what tremendous 
wrath against the alien destroyers of the Church (I. i. 
16 ff., ix. 1, xvi. 22), against the scandalous members of 
the same (v. 1-5), against the Church itself which was so 
unruly and at the same time so self-conscious, and against 
the noisy brawlers (iv. 7, 18-21, v. 2, vil. 1 ἢ, xi. 16, 
xiv. 37f.), does every line of the Epistle quiver! The 
tone of the eloquent description in iv. 8-13 and of the 
apostle’s half ironical self-judgment in vi. 25, 40 is that of 
bitterest agony. It required effort on the apostle’s part to 
reply as calmly as he did to the arrogant communication 
which the Church had sent to him (above, pp. 277, 282). 
But that is the very situation which brings tears to the 
eyes of a man of deep feeling. Moreover, in entire 
keeping with 1 Cor. is the necessity which he now 
feels of protesting that in the communication in question 
he had no deliberate intention of causing the Church pain 
(IL. ii. 4, ef. vii. 8-11). So far as we are able to judge 
from letters which are extant, there is no other Church 
whose open sores are so ruthlessly exposed as those of the 
Corinthians (I. ii. 3, iv. 6-10, v. Lf, vi. 1-10, 18-20, 
viii. 10-12, x. 20-22, xi. 17-30). When, after a deeply 
humiliating discussion, he says that he did not write thus 
in order to shame the Corinthians (iv. 14), manifestly the 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH _ 331 


effect is not less painful than in another passage, where he 
says in so many words that his intention was to shame 
them (vi. 5). The same is true also of the passage where 
he introduces the discussion of all sorts of disorders and of 
wilful violations of the custom of the Church, by the 
commendatory remark that they follow his instructions 
(xi. 2). There is not to be found throughout this entire 
long letter a single real commendation of any feature of 
the moral or religious life of the Church, and Paul was not 
usually sparing of such commendations. The only thing 
that he praises is what God has done for them (1. 2, 9, 
26, 11. 6-10, 16, iv. 15, vi. 11, 20, xv. 1f.) and bestowed 
upon them in the way of spiritual gifts (1. 4-7) (above, 
pp. 279, 297f.,n. 5). In referring to a letter of this kind, 
he had just as much occasion to protest that he had 
not written it with any intention of causing the Corin- 
thians pain, though it actually had this effect, as he had 
the right to en that they ought rather to regard 
it as a special token of his love (II. ii. 4, ef. vii, 8-11). 
Incidentally we learn that disparaging remarks had been 
made in Corinth to the effect that Paul praised himself 
(Il. ui. 1, v. 12, x. 12, ef. iv. 5) and defended himself 
when there was no sufficient occasion for it (xi. 19). 
For such strictures as these ample occasion was fur- 
nished by 1 Cor. Quite in the manner of an accused 
person he had questioned the competency of the tribunal 
before which it seemed he was charged (I. iv. 1-5). In 
another passage, of which there are reflections in II. ii. 
1-3 (I. ix. 1-3), he had made a very concise defence 
before his accusers and judges. He had justified at length 
the way in which he had preached at Corinth, I. i. 18- 
111. 2, and defended single points in his judgments which 
had been questioned, e.g. what he had said about the 
happiness of the unmarried state, I. vii. (see above, 
Ρ. 276f.). He had pictured eloquently the self-sacrifice 
which his calling involved, I. iv. 9-13, xv. 32. Again 


332 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


and again he had commended his example to the Church, 
I. iv. 16£., viii. 13, ix. 26f, x. 33, xi 1. Not ‘only had 
he spoken emphatically of the validity of his apostleship 
(I. i. 1,ix. 1), and of his relation to the Church as its sole 
founder (iii. 6, 10, iv. 15), but he also claimed to have 
fulfilled his office in Corinth in a manner both skilful and 
faithful (1. 10, iv. 4). What sort of reward and praise 
he hoped one day to receive from the just Judge (iii. 8, 
13, iv. 5, ix. 18) he left them to infer from his proud 
assertion, that he laboured more abundantly than all the 
other apostles (xv. 10). 

But the serious demands which he made had also 
tested severely the obedience of the Church (Il. ii. 9), 
especially what he had said in connection with the case. of 
incest (I. v. 1-13). Assuming that practically all that 
happened between the two letters was the sending of 
Titus, and his return with news from Corinth, this must be 
the case referred to in II. ii. 5-11, viiell Ὁ There is no 
reason why we should be surprised at the position which 
Paul now takes, nor is there any justification for replacing 
the data supplied by existing sources for the explanation 
of these passages by conjectures which cannot be proved. 
If the view of Paul’s original demand set forth ahove 
(p. 278) be correct, it is quite in keeping with the prin- 
ciple of Church discipline clearly stated in IL x. 6. In 
the first place, Paul must have waited for the Church to 
concur in his previous judgment; for only after this 
agreement had been declared could the judgment be 
executed by the joint action of Paul and the Church in 
the manner that Paul had proposed in 1 Cor. But, 
as a matter of fact, as appears from II. ἢ. 6-11, the 
Church had referred the question back to Paul for his 
further decision. And, indeed, the judgments of Paul 
in’ 2 Cor. sound so much like answers to’ definite 
communications and questions, that the conjecture forced 
upon us earlier by 1. 8-ii. 4 is fully confirmed, namely, 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 333 


that the Corinthians had recently communicated with 
Paul, not only orally through Titus, but also in a letter 
which Titus brought to Paul. Paul’s verdict, whieh 
begins with the words, “Sufficient for this man is the 
punishment decreed by the majority” (ii. 6, n. 6), pre- 
supposes (1) that the offender had been definitely punished 
either by word or by deed, and that Paul had been 
informed of the fact; (2) that this punishment had been 
decreed not unanimously, but only by the decision of the 
majority ; (3) that the Church had submitted to Paul for 
his decision the question whether this punishment was 
sufficient. This in turn presupposes (4) that the opinion 
had been expressed in Corinth that the punishment was 
by no means sufficient, or that Paul would not be satisfied 
with it, or both. Paul at once declares the punishment 
to be sufficient, not, however, in the sense that the 
matter is thereby settled, but with the added remark 
that the punishment is enough to enable the Church 
now to show mercy to the evil-doer and uphold him 
by their encouragement, lest he be entirely overcome by 
his great sorrow. For the Church to forgive him, Paul 
says, 1s not only permissible, but, in view of the harm 
which may thereby be avoided, it becomes their duty. 
There seems, therefore, to be sufficient reason for the 
apostle’s request that it be formally decided to show love 
to the offender (ver. 8). But by the τουναντίον μᾶλλον 
this verdict of Paul is set in strong contrast to another 
judgment, which went to the opposite extreme. Instead 
of increasing the sentence already passed, they are to 
lighten the same by formal decree, or otherwise to render 
it less severe. Inasmuch as the judgment expressed at 
the outset is opposed to the opinion that the punishment 
already decreed is by no means suflieient, the τουναντίον 
μᾶλλον renders it quite certain that this other view had 
been submitted to the apostle by the Church for his 
decision. This must have been the opinion of the minority, 


334 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


since the punishment actually decreed represented the 
mind of the majority. We learn at the same time that 
the Church was uncertain whether Paul in turn would be 
satisfied with what had been done; for he finds it neces- 
sary expressly to assure the Church that he concurs in the 
act of forgiveness decided upon (ver. 10). 

What this punishment was which had been decided 
upon by the majority, naturally we are not able to 
determine with entire certainty. Manifestly it was not 
the punishment suggested by Paul in I. v. 3-5; since (1) 
the infliction of this punishment required Paul’s co-opera- 
tion in a manner which necessitated prearrangement, and 
since (2) this punishment involved the death of the 
offender ; so that there could have been no question about 
a subsequent increase of penalty, or about Paul’s satisfac- 
tion with what had been done. More likely it was an 
ordinary case of discipline according to the rules laid 
down in I. v. 11; 2 Thess. i. 14 The severer penalty 
demanded by the minority, and which the Church thought 
that Paul also might insist upon, can hardly have been 
any other than that which Paul proposed in I. v. 3-5. 
Consequently in the communication, to which Paul replies 
in II. ii. 6-11, the Church must have asked him whether, 
under the altered conditions, he still held to his original 
judgment. Paul reverses his decision, and earnestly 
requests that the punishment under which the offender 
is at present suffering be lessened by formal decree, lest 
he completely yield to despair. He was able to do 
this without prejudice to the seriousness of the affair, 
or to his own personal dignity. How strongly he felt 
himself under obligation to take this position, is indicated 
by ii 11. He knows that nothing would please Satan 
more than to see him, influenced by the motive of worldly 
consistency which he had condemned in i. 17, stand by 
his original judgment and proposal. All such suggestions 
he rejects as cunning temptations of Satan to keep him 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 335 


from permitting clemency. The primary purpose of his 
original judgment had been to save the soul of the 
offender (I. v. 5). That purpose was now being accom- 
plished without resort to the extreme measures he had at 
first proposed; the offender was deeply penitent. It 
seems also that this person had done all in his power 
to prove to the Church that he regretted his action, and, 
in so far as this was possible, to atone for the wrong 
which he had done to his father against whom primarily 
the sin had been committed (n. 6). But if the severe 
disciplinary measures adopted by the Church were en- 
forced longer, or if they were increased, there was, Paul 
now thought in the light of the news that had come to 
him, extreme danger that the purpose of reforming the 
offender and of saving his soul would be defeated alto- 
gether. For if this person were wholly overcome by his 
sorrow, he would fall into the hands of Satan, who, by 
the suggestion that Paul ought persistently to stand by 
his first decision, was endeavouring to lead even the apostle 
astray. Paul gives up the means which he had previously 
suggested, in order to secure the end which it was alto- | 
gether desirable to accomplish. 

But more than this, what he had designed by his 
earlier proposition to accomplish in the Church was in 
large part accomplished, and promised soon to be entirely 
realised. The only intention which can be directly in- 
ferred from I. v. 1-13 is the intention to move the Church 
to a more modest judgment of itself and a more rigorous 
disciplining of its sinful members. When, now, in II. 
li. 9, vil. 12, Paul says that he wrote as he did in order to 
prove whether the Church was ready to render entire 
obedience, and to give it an opportunity to show an 
earnest desire to please its founder, the statement can 
only be regarded as an expression of his original intention 
in the light of the accomplished result. From the stirring 
description of the effect of the earlier letter, vii. 7-12, 


336 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which clearly has its climax in the reference to the case 
discussed earlier in i1. 5-11, we learn that now the Church 
was deeply impressed with the magnitude of the offence 
committed against Paul and in the sight of God, and that it 
was not only exceedingly anxious to conciliate the apostle, 
but had also visited its displeasure and punishment upon 
the offender (vii. 11, n. 6). While as yet the majority 
had not agreed to Paul’s earlier proposal, they had never- 
theless, in reporting the disciplinary measures proposed, 
and in stating the manner in which the entire action had 
been taken, practically resubmitted the whole case to him 
for his opinion and decision (11. 6-8). Finally, they had 
endeavoured, not unsuccessfully, to justify themselves in 
this matter. Perhaps in his joy at what had been accom- 
plished, Paul expresses himself a little extravagantly when 
he writes, “ In every way ye have shown yourselves to be 
pure in this matter” (vii. 11, where the eivaı is not to be 
overlooked). Although this is not equivalent to the 
statement that the Church had proved itself to be quite 
without fault, it does show that Paul had been convinced 
by the Church’s explanation (droAoyia)—for mere oral com- 
munication through Titus could hardly be so designated— 
that the situation was not just what he supposed it was 
when he wrote I. v. 1. Essentially the case seems to 
have been as Paul had heard it, and possibly there were 
other members of the Church who knew of it besides those 
who had given the information to Paul. But the matter 
was not so generally known in the Church as Paul had 
supposed, and the charge that the Church as a body had 
shown more than heathen indifference with regard to a 
case of flagrant immorality proved to be ungrounded. 
No one could rejoice that it was so more than Paul, and 
he would not have been the large-hearted man and the 
sincere Christian that he was, had he stood stubbornly by 
his first judgment and proposal. It would be inconsistent 
with his dignity and our own to defend him, otherwise 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 437 


than by a statement of the facts, against the unworthy 
charge of endeavouring to cover up by false diplomacy 
an alleged defeat which he is supposed to have suffered, 
either by the failure of the miraculous punishment which 
he had predicted, or by the defiant opposition of the 
Church. 

The greater his anxiety before the arrival of Titus 
lest the effect of 1 Cor. should be the entire aliena- 
tion of the Church, the more easily we are able to 
understand the exuberant joy caused by Titus’ tidings. 
This does not, however, prevent him, in the first division 
of the letter, which concludes with an extravagant ex- 
pression of this joy, from taking very seriously and 
answering very decidedly the complaints of the Church 
that had reached him about the ambiguity of his letters 
(i. 13), the untrustworthiness of his decisions, and the 
lack of love which they thought was evidenced, both by 
the change in the plan of his journey, and by the tone of 
his earlier letter (i. 15-11. 5, ef. vi. 12, vii. 3). Rejoicing 
that his greatest anxiety is now finally relieved, Paul 
looks forward to the future with confidence in the Church 
(vii. 16). He hopes for a complete restoration of under- 
standing and confidence (i. 18). This involves. the ad- 
mission that this hope was yet far from being realised. 
He must still ask the Corinthians not to close their hearts 
to him (vi. 13), and to restore to him the place in their 
midst which belonged to him (vii. 2). Between these 
two requests stands the exhortation suggested in vi. 1 
and introduced directly in vi. 11, that they avoid alto- 
gether dangerous associations with the immoral practices 
of their heathen neighbours, especially with idolatry, con- 
fident that their Father will compensate them richly for 
all the sacrifices which they make for His sake, and that 
they endeavour also to live in holiness (vi. 14-vii. 1, n. 7). 
Just as these exhortations are made in view of the special 


case of heathen immorality, with regard to which Paul's 
VOL. J 22 


338 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


mind had been set at rest by the news brought by Titus 
and by the communication which the Church sent by him, 
so it is certain that the happy turn which this matter had 
taken was the prineipal reason why Paul was so joyful. 
He is able now again with joyful confidence, with perfect 
frankness, and with a heart full of love and with sympathy 
for the entire Church, to exhort them and to make re- 
quests of them. And there are still many things with 
reference to which there is need for request and ex- 
hortation. 

This was the case with regard to the matter of the 
collection, to which the second division of the letter is 
devoted (chaps. vui.—ix.). The fact that we do not find 
here the same mingling of strong expressions of joy and 
of endeavours to secure beforehand entire understanding 
between himself and his readers that characterises chaps. 
i.—vil., is explained, partly by the different subject-matter 
in the two sections, partly by the circumstance that in 
the matter of the collection he is dealing not with the 
Church in Corinth alone, but also with all the Christians 
in Achaia (above, p. 308), who had no share in the con- 
flicts between the Corinthians and Paul. Still the under- 
lying tone is the same in this as in other parts of the 
letter. His generous recognition of the willingness of the 
Macedonians to make sacrifice, of the zeal of Titus, of the 
merits of those who accompanied him, as well as of the 
Christian virtues of the readers (vii. 7), and his mention 
of the praiseworthy zeal with which the Corinthians had 
begun the collection more than a year before (viii. 10, 
ix. 2), all express indirectly his displeasure at the delay 
and parsimony which the Corinthians had recently shown 
in the matter. His various exhortations, that now this 
matter be brought finally to a close, are pressed upon 
them not so much by fault-finding, as by a statement of 
urgent reasons. 

(Juite a different tone, however, pervades the third 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 339 


division of the letter (chaps. x.—xiii.). Being an expression 
of Paul’s own personal feelings, it is distinguished from 
the preceding sections, which were written also in 
Timothy’s name, by the introductory phrase, αὐτὸς δὲ ἐγώ, 
x. 1 (ef. xii. 13: also ἐγώ, xii. 16, in like contrast to his 
companions ; ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος, 1 Thess. ii. 18). He has still 
upon his heart a request affecting his personal relation to 
the Church, which, he intimates, must be expressed in a 
spirit of gentleness and mildness, because he is compelled 
continually to restrain the anger which he feels when he 
thinks of the followers of Peter, who are chiefly responsible 
for the disturbed relation between the Church and. its 
founder, and who continue to keep this relation disturbed 
(xi. 1-12, 18, above, p. 289 ff.), and of the members of the 
Christ party, who, assuming a superior air of neutrality, 
are continually criticising him, his letters, his personal 
appearance in Corinth, and his conflict with the foreign 
teachers who were his rivals (x. 7-18, above, p. 292 f.). 
While he everywhere distinguishes sharply between these 
false apostles and members of the Church, calling the 
former tempters and aliens (above, p. 287 f.), in the case 
of those who boasted that they were followers of Christ 
this was not possible. Therefore he blames the Church as 
a body for the currency in their midst of the disrespectful 
remarks of these people (x. 1b, 2b, 9-10, 13a, 14a, xii. 
19a, xiii. 3). Particularly does he find fault with the 
Church for not having silenced and ejected the followers 
of Peter, thereby compelling him to defend his own case 
against these servants of Satan (xi. 11, v. 12). The 
request which Paul has to make of the Church is sug- 
gested in x. 1, but its full statement is postponed. by the 
interjection of his prayerful wish that he may be spared 
the necessity of acting with severity when he comes to 
them (x. 2, ef. xin. 7-9; 1 Thess. iii. 10), and of the ex- 
planations which follow (x. 3-6). Nor is this request 
stated, except in incomplete form in x. 7 (especially if 


340 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


βλέπετε is an imperative), xi. 1, 16, xii. 5. But summing 
up the impression as to its purpose which we get from 
this entire section of the letter, this request may be stated 
somewhat as follows: ‘See to it before I come that my 
visit be mutually peaceful, pleasant, and profitable, by 
repudiating the foreign teachers, by informing the haughty 
members of the Christ party what is their proper place, and, 
under threats of the severest discipline, by setting those right 
who are living unchaste lives.” The tone of this part of the 
Epistle differs from that of chaps. i.-vii., in that Paul here 
openly attacks the opponents, with whom it was impossible 
to come to terms, reminding the Church in a connected 
statement of their duty with reference to such persons. 
This explains why his self-defence, which is continued 
through this section, takes on uniformly a tone of irony, 
which we do not discover in chaps. 1—vi. Naturally, 
also, in chaps. i.-vii., where, after days of anxious care, 
his unburdened heart first gives itself vent, there is 
an overflowing expression of joy, acknowledgment, and 
hope. On the contrary, in chaps. x.-xil., where he 
discusses grievances not yet adjusted, naturally a pro- 
minent place is given to the expression of his displeasure 
and anxiety, lest things should not turn out as he 
wished. Taken as a whole, however, the picture of the 
condition of the Church and of its relation to its founder 
which we get from the third section of the letter, is 
the same as that which we get from the first section. 
Where there was occasion for demands such as are made 
in vi. 14-vii. 1, there is place also for concern such as is 
expressed in xii. 21, and for threats such as those in 
xiii. 2. The complaints which Paul found it necessary 
to reply to in i. 12-ti. 2 (above, p. 323 ff.) were not less 
serious than those in x. 1f. The incidental denial in 
vii. 2b has the same value as the plain discussion of xii. 
13-18. The demand at the same time that the Church 
sound the praises of their own apostle in opposition te 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 441 


the followers of Peter, thereby putting a stop to their 
mischievous work and sparing the apostle the necessity 
of commending, praising, and defending himself, which 
recurs so frequently in xi. 4-xii. 19, is made also in v. 12 
(cf. iii. 1). Only in this latter instance it is incidental, 
which was appropriate in view of, Paul’s purpose to discuss 
the matter by itself later. The hope which he expresses 
in 1. 180 is expressed in more general form in xiii. 6 (cf. 
also v. 11). His assurance to them of his love, which 
they had failed to appreciate, and his complaint because 
of their failure to reciprocate it (xi. 11, xii. 14), not only 
have a general resemblance in content to 1. 15, 23, i. 4, 
vi. 11-13, but are expressed in similar language (xii. 15, 
περισσοτέρως ὑμᾶς ἀγαπῶ, cf. 11. 4; ἀγαπητοί, vil. 1, xil. 19). 
The request of vil. 2a could stand equally well at the 
beginning of chap. xi. When in x. 6 expression is given 
to the expectation that in the near future the Church will 
return to a condition of entire obedience, it is practically 
admitted that there are yet some things lacking, of 
which he purposes now finally to speak. This involves 
no contradiction to his joyful acknowledgment that, as a 
result of 1 Cor., the Church had shown itself ready to 
submit entirely to the apostle’s judgment — particularly Ὁ 
with regard to the case of incest (ii. 9, vii. 12, above, 
p. 332 ἢ). Nor is it inconsistent in any way with Titus’ 
praise that the entire Church had received him, the 
messenger of the apostle, in a spirit of obedience, and 
even of fear and trembling, 1.6. as a lord and master 
(vii. 15, cf. Eph. vi. 5). It is only an illustration of a 
habit of the apostle’s, which may be observed variously 
both m his relation to men and to God, to begin by 
giving utterance to praise, thanksgiving, and acknowledg- 
ment for good received, and then to express the anxiety 
and urgency which he still felt, in request, demand, and 
complaint. And this was the wise way to proceed, if he 
wanted to put, right the affairs of a Church which a 


342 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


few months before had apparently been inclined ‘te 
sever its relations with him and the Gentile Church 
which he had been instrumental in organising, but 
which now, confessing its manifold faults, showed itself 
eager to make its peace with its founder and to win 
back his love, which it seemed to them they had all but 
forfeited. 

We have no definite information as to the reception 
accorded by the Corinthians to this last message of Paul 
on his way from Ephesus to Corinth. This deficiency is, 
however, supplied by the facts. If in all essential respects 
this letter did not accomplish its purpose (xiii. 10), parti- 
cularly if the Church allowed the followers of Peter to 
keep on with their work, it was impossible, after what had 
taken place, for the life and death struggle between Paul 
and the Corinthian Church to be kept up longer. And if 
Paul had suffered defeat in this struggle, it would have led 
necessarily to the separation of the Corinthian Church 
from the Gentile Church. But no such separation took 
place. Some forty years later the Roman Church felt 
called upon, in consequence of a rebellion which, under 
the leadership of a few gifted younger members, had 
broken out in Corinth against the venerable head of the 
Church, to interfere in the confused affairs of its sister 
Church by sending it a weighty letter of exhortation. 
Just as there were things in the situation which reminded 
Clement, the author of this letter, of the existence of 
cliques in the apostolic age, spoken of in 1 Cor. i-iv. 
(Clem. 1 Cor. xlvii.), so we in turn are able to discover in the 
picture of the Corinthian Church, found in Clement's letter, 
certain characteristics of that Church to be observed from 
the Epistles of Paul. But between the troubles of the 
year 57 and those of 95-97 there is no direct connection. 
On the contrary, we learn that for a long time, to the joy 
of the entire Church, the Corinthians had been living a 
peaceful life, adorned with every Christian virtue (Clem. 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 343 


i, 2-iii. 1), so that the revolution that had now broken 
out seemed a breach with the entire past history of the 
Church back to the days of Paul. Clement directs them 
to take up again Paul’s 1 Cor. (xlvii. 1), the Romans 
feeling sure that they are at one with the Corinthians in 
paying honour to Paul. 

This condition was the fruit of the “weighty and 
powerful letters” of the apostle (2 Cor, x.10). Had Paul 
been under necessity of securing his victory, which, accord- 
ing to the witness of subsequent conditions, he certainly 
did win, by personal encounter with his opponents and 
with the Church which remained rebellious in spite of his 
letters, it is not likely that all traces of such conflict 
would have so completely disappeared. We learn of a 
three months’ sojourn of Paul in Greece, ending in the 
spring of 58 (Acts xx. 2f.), but nothing is said of any 
battles which he had to fight during that visit (n. 8). If 
Romans was written during this period in Corinth, its 
quiet tone and the careful working out of its elaborate 
plan prove that for Paul this period was not one of 
harassing struggle, but of recuperation and of preparation 
for new work in the far West. 


1. (P. 321.) When in ii. 14-16, in contrast to the confession of the 
weakness which prevented him from making use of the opportunities to 
preach in Troas, Paul expresses his gratitude to God that in spite of such 
weakness his presence and preaching has proved effective in every place,— 
naturally therefore in Troas also,—this statement, like i. 18-22, is intended 
to prevent a false generalisation and interpretation of his weakness. It also 
furnishes a natural transition to the detailed contrast between the genuine 
preachers of the gospel, of whom he is one, and the wandering Jewish 
Christian teachers, who peddle the word of God (ii. 17-v. 21, see above, 
p- 290, line 15 f.). Then from vi. 1 on the discussion returns again to affairs 
in Corinth (see below, n. 7). 

2. (Pp. 321, 323, 324.) In i. 12 the reading ἁπλότητι is to be preferred to 
ἁγιότητι. πρότερον, without the article in i. 15, which was not understood by 
numerous copyists (for this reason omitted in N*; other MSS. read τὸ πρότερον ; 
K has τὸ δεύτερον), is not to be taken with ἐβουλόμην, before which it would have 
to stand, but with ἐλθεῖν. It thus emphasises the πρὸς ὑμᾶς, if, indeed, originally 
the πρότερον did not precede iva instead of standing in its present position 
Of the numerous interpretations of i. 17, that deserves the preference which 


344 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


makes τὸ ναί and τὸ οὔ the subjects, and vai, ov the predicates, because of 
what follows in i. 18 (ef. Jas. v. 12). Even if there were an actual con- 
tradietion to the latter passage, which in a general way is comparable with it, 
it would be no objection to this interpretation of the present passage. Asa 
matter of fact, however, Paul is not disputing at all the truth of the general 
rule that a Christian’s Yes and No ought to be as reliable as his oath (cf. Matt. 
v.37). Indeed, in i. 18 f. he claims that he and his helpers follow this rule in 
the exercise of their calling. Only he goes on to explain that the application 
of this rule to plans for the future, the carrying out of which is dependent 
upon the providence of God, would be a carnal misuse of the same. In 
similar passages in his letters, indeed in passages more or less directly bear- 
ing upon this very question, he makes abundant use of that pious ἐάν quite 
in the sense of Jas. iv. 15, which excludes an unconditioned vai and οὔ 
from reference to actions that are to take place in the future (ef. 1 Cor. 
iv. 19, xvi. 4, 7; 2 Cor. ix. 4, xili. 2; 1 Tim. 111. 15; Rom. i. 10, xv. 32 
[Acts xviii. 21]). 

3. (P. 328.) The distinction between ἐάν I. xvi. 10 (ef. Col. iv. 10), and 
ὅταν I. xvi. 2, 3, 5 (ef. 11. x. 6), and ὡς ἄν I. xi. 34, is not to be overlooked. 
Something is to be said in favour of the view of Lightfoot (bibl. Essays, 
p- 277, 1893), who remarks that possibly the reason why Acts xix. 22 speaks 
of the sending of Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia only is the fact that 
Luke knew that Timothy went no farther than Macedonia. On the other 
hand, the contention that if he did actually go to Corinth, Timothy would 
have to be mentioned in II. xii. 17f. is purely arbitrary ; because Timothy 
is one of thc writers of this letter, so that if he went to Corinth, he is 
included in the plural of xii. 17. To mention especially the sending of 
Titus and the person who accompanied him from among a number of cases 
of this kind was natural, because it was the latest instance (see the following 
note). 

4. (P. 329.) ‘The reference in II. xii. 18 is not to the second sending of 
Titus to Corinth, on which occasion he took with him 2 Cor., although this is 
not precluded by the use of the aorist παρεκάλεσα (cf. viil. 6, 17, ix. 5, above, 
p. 320, n. 6), but to Titus’ earlier trip thither. (1) Mention is made here of 
only one person who accompanied Titus, whereas on the second journey he 
was accompanied by two other Christians (above, p. 320f.), concerning both of 
whom it is said, quite as much as it is said of Titus and in the same breath, 
that they were sent by Paul and Timothy (viii. 18 and 22, συνεπέμψαμεν ; 
ix. 3, ἔπεμψα τοὺς ἀδελφούς), both of whom, moreover, are called ἀπόστολοι 
ἐκκλησιῶν (vill. 23). To regard the person whom Paul mentions second as 
the principal person, in comparison with whom the first. individual who is 
incidentally mentioned (xii. 18) can be quite ignored, is just as arbitrary as to 
identify τὸν ἀδελφόν, xii. 18, with τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν, viii. 22, rather than with 
τὸν ἀδελφόν, viii. 18, or any other Christian (cf. 1 Cor. i. 1, xvi. 12; Rom, 
xvi. 23). Still this is done by Krenkel (351 ff.). (2) The questions in ver. 17 
and ver. 18) prove that the reference is to a sending of Timothy which had 
taken place in the past. Krenkel, who rightly accepts this as beyond 
question (353 f.), tries to use it in support of his hypothesis that II. x.—xiii. is 
a separate letter which was sent to Corinth later than II. i.-ix. But this is 
possible only if it be maintained that the brother referred to in xii, 18 is 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 345 


identical with the brother mentioned in viii. 22, which has been shown to be 
quite impossible. In no other passage does Paul have occasion to mention the 
fact that Titus was accompanied by another person on his first journey to 
Corinth, since he does not elsewhere speak of the first sending of Timothy. 
The utmost that can be concluded from the fact that no mention is made of 
Titus’ companion in the passage where the return of the latter is spoken of 
(ii. 18, vii. 6-15), is that Titus started on the return journey from Corinth 
without his companion, The purpose of the first sending cannot be inferred 
from viii. 6, where the first and second sending are contrasted with each 
other. If by that which Titus had begun on his first visit, and was to finish 
on his seeond, Paul had understood the charity work of the collection (I. 
xvi. 3), then he must have let rn» yapiv—either with or without ταὐτὴν 
preceding or following—come immediately after mpoevnpéaro without καί, 
unless he had chosen to bring out more clearly the identity of the object in 
both cases by using ὃ mpoevnp£aro κτλ. Since, however, he describes the work 
begun and to be completed by Titus first in a very general way as a work 
directed to the Corinthians (eis ὑμᾶς), and then by the use of καί contrasts 
the work of charity in question with other things, it is clear that this is the 
special undertaking which at this visit Titus is to carry on and bring toa 
conclusion. What Titus had accomplished on his former visit, and what he 
is to do on this occasion, are conceived of as the beginning and the end of a 
comprehensive work, the general purpose of which is the restoration of 
normal conditions in Corinth and of normal relations between the Church 
and its founder. He had made a successful beginning of this on the occasion 
of his first visit ; now he is to fill up the measure of his service by bringing to 
a conclusion the troublesome matter of the collection (cf. Hofmann, ii. 3. 
204f.). Both the καί which precedes τὴν x. τ. and the καί which precedes 
ἐπιτελέσῃ serve to contrast the purpose of the present coming with the 
results of the first. Against the interpretation of the second kai in the sense, 
“Among other things this also,” there are the following objections: (1) It 
does not account for the peculiar structure of the sentence. (2) Throughout 
the entire context as far as ix. 5 the matter of the collection is the only 
reason and purpose given for sending Titus at this time. On the other 
hand, when Paul comes to speak of the other things which he desired to see 
accomplished (chaps. x.-xiii.), Titus drops out altogether; since, as has 
been shown, xii. 18 is only a reference to the earlier sending. When so 
understood, καὶ τὴν x: τ. does not harmonise with ἐπιτελέσῃ. (3) Neither 
does it harmonise with poevnp&aro, with which also it would have to be 
taken according to this construction ; for in the passage where Paul speaks of 
the results of the first sending of Titus (vii. 6-15) there is no reference to the 
collection, Neither does the reference in xii, 18 touch this matter (above, 
p- 814f., n. 1). Paul gives no hint that Titus brought him news regarding 
the condition of the collection, to say nothing of a commission given to 
Titus regarding this matter, 

5. (P. 330.) Although Heinrici still argues with great detail for the possi- 
bility of the view (ii. 23 f., 127 ff.) that ἔγραψα, ii. 3, 4, also ii. 9, refer to the 
words just written, or to all that precedes of the letter which Paul is now in 
process of writing, it may be considered certain that an earlier letter is meant. 
For the following reasons: (1) When referring to that which immediately 


346 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


precedes, Paul is in the habit of using the present, γράφω, Gal. i. 20 ; 1 Cor. iv. 
14, xiv. 37; 1 Tim. iii. 14 (once, 2 Cor. xiii. 10, even with reference to the 
entire letter here concluding); so also λέγω, Rom. vi. 19; 1 Cor. vi. 5 (with 
reference to vi. 4), vii. 6, 35 ; 2 Cor. vii. 3, vill. 8; Phil. iv. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 7; 
Philem. 21; λαλῶ, 1 Cor. ix. 8, xv. 34. Only in two instances, Philem. 19 
and 1 Cor. ix. 15, does he use ἔγραψα, and there because he pictures to himself 
vividly the impression which the words he has just written will make upon 
his readers when they come to read what had been written some time before. 
With these exceptions ἔγραψα when used by Paul always refers either to a 
letter which is just being concluded, Rom. xv. 15 (ef. xvi. 22 of the 
amanuensis) ; Gal. vi. 11; Philem. 21, or to an earlier letter, 1 Cor. v. 9, 11 
(ef. vii. 1; 2 Cor. vii. 12). (2) There would be no occasion whatever for the 
assurance of ii. 4 with reference to the preceding portion of the letter. It 
would not occur to anyone that what precedes was written to grieve the 
Corinthians, for neither in what precedes ii. 4 nor in the chapters im- 
mediately following is there a single severe or cold word, but only a warm- 
hearted and carefully considered self-defence, in which among other criticisms 
he answers that of want of love. (3) Without any question the same matter 
is discussed in vil. 11 ff. as in ii. 5-11 ; hence the letter referred to in ii. 9 
must be the same as that which in vii. 8 is spoken of as belonging to the past. 
That, however, the ἔγραψα in ii. 3, 4, 9 refers in all three cases to the same 
letter, is proved by the very close sequence of thought in ii. 3-11. (4) It is 
not Paul’s manner to interrupt a discussion not yet finished in order to say 
that in writing the letter he has shed many tears or sheds them now. It would 
be more in keeping with his manner for him to write that the readers can 
see how deeply he is moved, or in connection with some severe word to say 
that he could not write this. without tears (cf. Phil. iii. 18). If, however, 
the reference in ii. 3, 4, 9 is to an earlier Epistle of Paul’s, and, in particular, 
the same Epistle which is spoken of in vii. 8, 12, then it is natural to infer 
from the similarity of sentence structure in ii. 3 and ii. 9 that τοῦτο αὐτό, ii. 3, 
means the same as διὰ τοῦτο αὐτό (1. iv. 17 N*AP), and is related in sense to 
eis αὐτὸ τοῦτο, 2 Cor. v. 5; Col. iv. 8; Eph. vi. 22 (Rom. ix. 17); ef. Erasmus 
(Paraphr. in ep. Pauli, 1523, p. 150); Riickert and Hofmann, ad loc. This 
construction is good Greek (Kiihner-Gerth, i. 310, A.6; Winer, § 21.3, A. 2), 
occurs without question in 2 Pet. i. 5, and would certainly have to be 
admitted in the present passage even if it did not occur elsewhere in Paul’s 
writings. But this construction does occur in Phil. i. 6, where otherwise the 
αὐτό would be meaningless. In order to any other interpretation, an instance 
must be shown in which a Greek writer has expressed the object of his con- 
viction or confident expectation in the accusative after πέποιθα. Phil. 1. 25 
cannot be cited as a case in point; since in this passage the τοῦτο simply 
prepares the way for the following ὅτι, and belongs to οἶδα by which the clause 
is governed. It is correctly translated by Peshito, “And this I know con- 
fidently.” The same version translates 2 Cor. ii. 3 somewhat freely, but quite 
correctly, “And (as to) my writing you, (so) is (it) this, in order that if I 
come those may not cause me grief from whom I ought to have joy” ; in other 
words, the reason and purpose of my coming was this. Even if τοῦτο αὐτό, 
which probably belongs before ἔγραψα (DG), with a ὑμῖν inserted between it 
and the verb, were the strongly emphasised object of ἔγραψα, it certainly 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 5447 


would not imply a mysterious reference to something which’ was more 
familiar to the readers than to ourselves (Meyer, Ewald, “ The thing which is 
known to you”; Klöpper, “Something which causes grief”). At most it 
could be only a resumption of the τοῦτο of ii. 1. Then the subject of Paul’s 
earlier communication in his letter would be the determination not to come 
to Corinth a second time in sorrow. But the context, i. 15-ii. 2, shows that 
this determination was practically identical with the determination to come 
to Corinth not at once by the direct route, but by the longer way through 
Macedonia. On this construction of the passage, then, in the letter in 
question Paul had expressed the same intention with regard to his coming to 
Corinth that he had since carried out, which, moreover, leaving quite out of 
account the reason for writing given in II. i. 23-11. 2, he had set forth in 
detail in I. xvi. 5-7. Since, now, in the same letter the very opposite deter- 
mination could not have been expressed, namely, Paul’s purpose to come to 
Corinth at once and by the direct route, to assume, as, for example, Krenkel 
does (377) that this statement did actually stand in the letter written in 
the interval between 1 and 2 Cor. and at the same time to affirm that IT. 
ii. 3-9 has reference to this same letter, is to involve one’s self in the most 
glaring contradiction. But if what was said in this letter was simply a 
repetition of the determination expressed in I. xvi. 5-7, only in different 
words and with more detailed statement of the apostle’s reasons, then 
there was no point in his appeal to the letter supposed to have been 
written in the interval. But now since “that very thing,” which he 
writes in IT. ii. 1 is not to be found in 1 Cor., the τοῦτο αὐτό must be taken 
adverbially. 

6. (Pp. 333, 335, 336.) It is assumed by the present writer that οὐκ ἐμὲ 
λελύπηκεν, ii. 5, is a question calling naturally for an affirmative answer ; con- 
sequently that ἀλλά does not mean “but” (sondern), but is equivalent to a 
“nevertheless” (aber), which serves to introduce the following clauses, 5b-6. 
Further, it is assumed that ἀπὸ μέρους does not, as Hofmann contends, belong to 
the main clause of the sentence beginning with ἀλλά, but is a part of the sub- 
ordinate sentence attracted out of its place on account of the strong emphasis, 
as is so often the case before iva. ‘ Nevertheless, in order not in a measure 
to burden you all, I declare the penalty imposed by the majority to be suffi- 
cient.” The ἀπὸ μέρους is added, because a different judgment on Paul’s part, 
namely, the demand for the offender’s severer punishment, would be a heavy 
burden, especially upon the person himself, and might drive him to despair. 
That, in turn, would be a burden to all the members of the Church ; not only 
to the majority, who regarded the penalty that had been temporarily imposed 
as sufficient, but to the minority, who, either because they feared the effect 
of leniency, or because they honoured Paul’s judgment, felt that a severer 
penalty ought to be imposed. This supposed obligation they could have 
fulfilled only with bleeding hearts, and the wound would not be easily 
healed. Instead of ἱκανή Paul writes ἱκανόν, evidently under the influence 
of the legal use of τὸ ἱκανόν (Acts xvii. 9; Mark xv. 15). There is a legal 
colouring also to κυροῦν (ii. 8, cf. Gal. iii. 15) and the expressions used in 
vii. 11 f. ἀπολογία (cf. Phil. i. 7, 16; 2 Tim. iv. 16; Acts xxv. 8, 16, 
xxvi. 1 f.; Rom. ii. 15); ἐκδίκησις, ὁ ἀδικήσας, 6 ἀδικηθείς (Acts vii. 24-27; 
1 Cor. vi. 7 f.; Philem. 18); πρᾶγμα (1 Cor. vi. 1; 1 Thess. iv. 6). "If 


348 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


2 Cor. followed 1 Cor. without an intervening letter or a visit of Paul’s, there 
is no question that II. ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f. refers to the same case as I. v. The 
language used points in the same direction, ris (Il. 11. 5; I. v. 1); 6 τοιοῦτος 
(II. ii. 6, 7; I. v. 5). Then ὁ ἀδικηθείς (vii. 12) cannot refer to Paul, which 
would imply a strangely impersonal way of speaking, but to the offender’s 
father (above, p. 296, n. 4). Paul might have said that the Church had done 
him wrong, in causing him the disgrace and the grief occasioned by the 
occurrence of such a scandal in a Church which he had founded; but he 
could not have called it a violation of his rights, particularly since what the 
offender had done had no relation whatever to Paul’s own person, When, 
now, Paul says that he discussed this matter in his letter, not in its relation 
to the offender himself, nor in relation to the father whose rights had been 
violated, this is quite in keeping with the manner in which the affair is 
handled in I. v. Nothing is said in this passage about the father, who 
evidently did not belong to the Church. Neither is the offender himself the 
object of the discussion, but the Church in which, to its disgrace and injury, 
an offence of this kind remains unatoned for,—a fact, however, that does not 
imply that Paul was indifferent to the fate of any individual member of the 
Church. But, with regard to this individual, Paul had expressed only the 
hope that by the judgment which destroyed his physical life his “spirit” 
might be saved. What is said in vii. 12 must have been occasioned by com- 
munications from the Church concerning the offender, who had repented, 
and concerning the father, who possibly had been persuaded to be lenient or 
even to forgive the offence. This was done in order to influence the apostle 
to leniency. But Paul no longer needed such arguments (cf. ii. 10). In 
their gratification at the favourable outcome of the matter, both as regards 
father and son, the Church is not to overlook the fact that from the beginning 
the apostle has been concerned about the attitude of the Church, which, 
therefore, has been a matter of greater importance to him than the adjust- 
ment of the legal relations between the father and son. Consequently also 
his present joy does not concern these individuals, but the conduct of the 
Church in this matter, and the restoration of the friendly relation to himself, 
which had been disturbed by their earlier attitude in the affair (vii, 7-11). 
Rightly recognising the fact that the matter here dealt with is one which 
does at least have a legal side, but falsely assuming that the matters dealt 
with in 1 Cor. have been pressed into the background by a long interval of 
time and by the intervention of new and important transactions between 
Paul and the Church, both by letter and in person, Krenkel (S. 306) con- 
jectures that the occasion for ii. 5-11, vii. 11 f. was a suit at law between 
members of the Church (cf. I. vi. 1 ff... Much more common is the assump- 
tion that some member of the Church (Bleek, 1830, S. 629; Neander, 296, 
347; Hilgenfeld, Einl. 284), or one of Paul’s Judaising opponents, possibly 
a member of the governing body of the Church (Ewald, 8. 227), had publicly 
offered him a grave insult, very likely on the occasion of his second visit in 
Corinth, putting it in legal form (Weizsäcker, S. 298), and the Church had 
failed to come earnestly to the insulted apostle’s defence. According to this 
last mentioned hypothesis, the insulted apostle was filled with wrath, and 
what he was unable to accomplish in person, namely, the punishment of the 
one who offered the insult by the very majority of the Church which had 


PAUL AND THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 349 


indorsed him, he accomplished by means of the letter, now lost, which. he 
sent by Titus! In the exposition of this view it is not accidental, but 
fundamental for the theory (perhaps we should say destructive of it) that the 
words, “The insulter” and “The insulted,” which are taken from, Luther’s 
translation, recur again and again as if this were, of course, the correct transla- 
tion of ὁ ἀδικήσας and ὁ ἀδίκηθείς. Of course, the idea of injured reputation 
comes under the general conception of ἀδικεῖν ; but in Paul’s writings, where 
ἀδικεῖν occurs eight times, ἀδικία twelve times, and throughout both the Old 
and New Testaments, where these words (also ἄδικος, ἀδίκημα) occur very 
often, there is not a single instance where the words can be shown to have the 
meaning, insult, libel, still less the narrower sense of slander. On the 
contrary, its universal meaning is illegal action; or where the verb has an 
object (generally personal), the illegal injury of a person, or injuring of a 
thing (Rev. ix. 4), ef. Aristot. Ehetor. i. 10, p. 1368, ἔστω δὴ τὸ ἀδικεῖν τὸ 
βλάπτειν ἑκόντα παρὰ τὸν νόμον. Τί it were a matter of insult or abuse by 
word or deed, Paul would write the words ὁ λοιδορήσας and ὁ λοιδορηθείς ; or, 
if he wanted to use a legal term in this passage, 6 ὑβρίσας and ὁ ὑβρισθείς ; οἵ. 
Meier-Schömann, Attischer Prozess, bearb. von Lipsius (1883-87), S. 394-402. 
The prevailing misunderstanding of the passage is helped by the failure to 
distinguish between the broader and narrower meaning of injuria, the latter 
of which corresponds to the Greek ἀδικεῖν, ἀδικία, ἀδίκημα. Cf. Theophilus, 
Paraphr. instit. Just. iv. 4 end, οὐκ ἐῶσι τοὺς ὑβριστὰς ἀτιμωρήτους οἱ νόμοι. 
Γενικῶς δὲ injuria λέγεται πᾶν ὃ μὴ κατὰ νόμον γίνεται, quod non jure fit ; 
ἀδικῶς δὲ λέγεται contumelia a contemmendo, ἣν οἱ “Ἕλληνες ὕβριν καλοῦσιν. Cf. 
Scholion to Leo’s Basilica, lib. 1χ. tit. 21, 1, and Ulpian, Digest. xlvii. 10, 1 end. 
The difficulty which one has in understanding how Paul, in such a deep expres- 
sion of his feelings as this, which is thoroughly intense, and which is put in the 
first person throughout, could in one instance designate himself by the third 
person, 6 adırndeis, as if he were a stranger, would, of course, be removed if 
we could assume that possibly Timothy is “the injured person” (thus 
Beyschlag, ThStKr. 1871, S. 670). But this interpretation gives no logic- 
ally possible connection between vii. 12)—where Paul speaks not only of 
himself, but includes at least Timothy—and vii. 12c. If, with a view. to 
lessening the contradiction, it be said that the main reason for writing the 
letter was not regard for the one who had been wronged, nor for the one 
who had suffered the wrong (Krenkel, 299), it is nevertheless. true that, 
according to vii. 12b, the real purpose of the letter was to give the Church 
an opportunity to prove their zeal for Paul (and Timothy); and so, if “the 
person injured” were Paul himself or Timothy, he did, as a matter of fact, 
in a very real sense, write on account of the aödırndeis. Moreover, this 
hypothesis in all its forms stands in contradiction to ii. 5. If οὐκ ἐμὲ 
λελύπηκεν be taken as a statement of fact, then it is hypocrisy unworthy of 
the apostle ; if it be taken as a question, it is incomparably foolish. Nor is 
it easy to see how the Church could have succeeded in making itself appear 
blameless in this matter (vii. 11). 

7. (P. 337.) Frequent doubt has been expressed as to whether II. vi. 14- 
vii. 1 was originally a part of the letter and as to its Pauline origin, Ewald 
(282 f.) held that it was taken from the writings of one who belonged to the 
apostolic circle at a somewhat later date. Hilgenfeld (287, A. 1) conjectured 


350 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


that it was taken from the letter mentioned in 1 Cor. v..9,-a theory which 
Francke (ThStKr. 1884, 8.544 ff.) undertook to prove. Krenkel rejoices 
(332) that the fact that this section does not belong in 2 Cor. is coming more 
and more to be recognised, and thinks that he discovers many similarities 
to the language of the Epistle of Clement. 'The problem calls for a discus+ 
sion of the context. After the general discussion concerning the office of 
preaching, to which he was led through opposition to the Jewish Christian 
wandering teachers (ii. 17-iii. 1, v. 12), Paul, in vi. 1, returns again to the 
discussion of the special conditions in the Corinthian Church, which, with 
the exception of a few brief remarks (iii. 1-3, v. 11-13) seem to have been 
lost sight of from ii. 14 on. He and his companions are not only com- 
missioned to preach the gospel of reconciliation to the unconverted (v. 11-21), 
but also to help the Churches already gathered through the preaching of the 
gospel,—in this instance those of Achaia here addressed, and in particular 
those of Corinth (vi. 11),—and to warn them lest they receive grace in vain 
in the day of salvation (vi. 1-2, cf. i. 24). As was recognised even by Clement 
(Strom. i. 4), and, as is clearly set forth by Hofmann (ii. 3. 166-174), 
vi. 3-10, which has no grammatical connection with what: precedes, is the 
introduction to vi. 11, between which and what precedes there is undoubtedly 
an anacoluthon. Conscious that his work and personal life among them 
have been blameless, Paul (and Timothy) now ‘opens his mouth unto them,’ 
ie. he is about to tell them solemnly and frankly what he has in his heart 
to say to them (ef. Matt. v. 2; Acts viii. 34, x. 34). And this is an exhorta- 
tion like that in vi. 1, 1.6. a warning against everything which might make 
their acceptance of that redemptive grace by which Christians are dis- 
tinguished from the still unregenerate world seem to be an illusion, The 
remark that his heart as well as his mouth is open to the Corinthians, and 
the request that the readers open their hearts to him, as children ought to do 
to their father (I. iv. 14), is a further introduction to the statement he is 
about to make, occasioned by the distrust of the Church which has not 
altogether disappeared. Now this statement, which has been led up to at 
such length and in so many different ways, and which has been held back so 
long, would be ridiculous if it were simply the two words χωρήσατε ἡμᾶς, 
vii. 2a. That, however, would be the case if vi. 14-vii. 1 were to be set 
aside as an interpolation, for, in what follows vii. 2b-18 there is nothing 
which corresponds to the promised παράκλησις. This is found in vi. 14—vii. 2a. 
It is the demand that is found running through 1 Cor. that the Church 
separate itself more entirely from the heathen immorality by which it was 
surrounded. With vi. 16 cf. I. iii. 16, viii. 10, x. 20-22, xiv. 25; with 
vi. 17 f. cf. I. x. 13f., cf. above, p. 274f., 296,n. 2. There is nothing peculiar 
in the character of the words used, although ἑτεροζυγεῖν, μετοχή, συμφώνησις, 
Βελίαρ do not occur elsewhere in the writings of Paul nor in the N.T. The 
passionate antithesis with which the section begins is quite in keeping with 
the mood which is reflected in vi. 3-10, vii. 1-11, while the solemn words of 
vi. 16b-vii. 1 harmonise with the manner of the announcement in vi. 11. 
These pressing exhortations have their own significance, but, in addition to 
that, serve appropriately as the introduction to the matter discussed in 
vii. 5-16, all the more so because the case of the man who had committed 
incest, which had caused Paul so much anxiety, had now become a source of 


PAUL AND 'THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH 351 


joy te him. Since, however, these exhortations did not touch at all Paul’s 
personal relation to the Church, the exhortation vii. 2a, which is clearly 
different from vi. 13, forms an appropriate transition to what follows. 

8. (P. 343.) Although no representatives of the Corinthian Church are 
mentioned as accompanying Paul to Jerusalem along with the representa- 
tives of the Churches of Galatia, Asia, and Macedonia (Acts xx. 4, above, 
p. 209, n. 2), in view of Rom. xv. 25-28 we may not assume that the collec- 
tion in Achaia was not completed, and that Paul’s efforts in this matter 
(2 Cor. viii.-ix.) were fruitless. 


V. 
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


8 21. CONTENTS OF THE LETTER AND THE PROGRESS 
OF ITS THOUGHT. 


Tue Epistles of Paul, considered up to this point, have 
been addressed to Churches, or groups of Churches, that 
owed their Christianity to him. In this letter, however, 
he turns his attention to a Church which was undoubtedly 
founded without any co-operation from him or his helpers. 
Though individual Christians living in Rome at the time 
may have been personally, or even intimately, acquainted 
with Paul, to the Church as a whole he was a stranger, 
and to the large majority of the Roman Christians per- 
sonally unknown. His first concern, therefore, was to 
establish a connection between himself and the Church. 
This explains why he begins with a salutation which is 
more elaborate than in any other of his Epistles, and why 
in this instance the part in which the author speaks of 
himself is expanded into a lengthy complex of clauses 
(i. 1-5), whereas, in other letters, either the characterisa- 
tion of the readers (1 Cor. i. 2) or the contents of the 
salutation (Gal. 1. 3-5) is more fully developed. Paul 
introduces himself to the Church, so to speak, not as if 
they had never heard of him before, but still in such a 
way that the Church can form some idea, from the very 
way in which he characterises himself, as to the occasion 
of the letter, and the grounds on which Paul based his 
right to address them thus in along Hpistle. He is not 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 353 


merely an individual engaged in the service of Christ like 
all Christians, but also an apostle ; he is not merely one 
of the numerous missionaries about whose call there may 
be some question (above, p. 289 f.), but he owes his position 
to a definite call from God, just as the readers owe their 
Christian faith to a definite call of God. Although the 
contrast with which he testifies to the genuineness of his 
apostleship is not so strong here as in 1 Cor. 1. 1, par- 
ticularly Gal. i. 1, nevertheless the threefold repetition of 
κλητός (vv. 1, 6 f.) does show the same careful premedita- 
tion as 1 Cor. 1. 1 f. How anxious he is that the readers 
shall realise the full import of this self-characterisation is 
shown by the fulness with which he develops this par- 
ticular idea, though it was familiar to every Christian of 
that time. The fact that all which follows κλητὸς ἀπόστο- 
Aos in 1. 15-5 is an expansion of this idea, proves that 
Paul cannot here be saying anything of himself not 
equally applicable to others who have been called to be 
apostles. While in other places he speaks of his special 
call to be the apostle to the Gentiles (xi. 13, xv. 16), 
and so of his special gospel (ii. 16, xvi. 25), here he calls 
the gospel, for the proclamation of which he has been 
separated from all other avocations, a message of God. 
This expression is employed here in the same sense in 
which it and its synonyms are everywhere used, in dis- 
tinct contrast to the conception of teaching, which is the 
product of human reflection and which varies in each case 
with the type of mind or the peculiar gifts of the preacher 
(1 Thess. ii. 2, 8, 9, 13; 1 Cor. u. 1-5; 2 Cor. ii. 17, 
xi. 7). When he goes on to say, further, with reference to 
this same gospel, that long before God had suffered this 
message of His to enter the world He had promised the 
sending of the same through the prophets, and that this 
promise was recorded in the Holy Scriptures (i. 2, ef. 
x. 15; Luke iv. 17-21); and when, further, the central 


point of this gospel is declared to be the Son of God, who 
VOL. I. 28 


354 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


entered into a natural human life as a descendant of 
David, and was appointed to become a Son of God in 
power, and so to enter into a new and higher life; of 
which the Holy Spirit was the norm and the resurrection 
the beginning, the points made are simply the close. con- 
nection between the gospel and the revelations, scriptures 
and history of the O.T. on the one hand, and the exalta- 
tion of the Son of David, living in the flesh, to His present 
glory (cf. Jas. ii. 1; 2 Pet. 1. 16), on the other. When; 
now, at this pomt with the mention of Christ he passes 
again by a natural transition from the description of the 
gospel to a direct characterisation of his apostolic calling 
(1. 5), he includes himself at once with others to whom 
what he here says of himself is equally applicable. Since 
this letter was not written in conjunction with anyone 
else, and since from 1. 8—xvi. 23 or xvi. 25 Paul: uses 
the singular when speaking of himself, it is self-evident 
that the plural in i. 5 is to be taken literally, as always in 
Paul’s writings (n. 1). Since, moreover, the only thought 
expressed indicating any wider or narrower circle to which 
Paul belonged is that of his apostolic calling, it was: per- 
fectly clear to his readers that he included with himself 
other men who, like him, were κλητοὶ ἀπόστολοι (cf. χ. 15, 
xvi. 7). They could say with Paul, “ Through Christ we 
received grace as Christians, and a call as apostles’ to ‘the 
end shat we might arouse obedience to the faith among 
all peoples, to the glory of His name.” The idea that 
Paul is speaking here of his special commission as the 
apostle to the Gentiles, has against it not only the con- 
text of the salutation, as pointed out above, but also the 
usage elsewhere of πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (n. 2). The whole human 
race with its national divisions, representing as it does 
the utmost diversity, is the common, originally undivided 
field in which the older apostles and Paul were appointed 
to labour. Nor can it be claimed that in this passage 
“all peoples” must mean the Gentiles, on the ground 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 355 


that otherwise in 1. 6 Paul would impart the trivial in- 
formation to the Romans that they are a part of the 
human race. Paul does not say that they are included 
in the πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, but that they are the called of Jesus 
Christ, a Church already gathered through the influence 
of the gospel, in that region which is the appointed field 
of labour for all the apostles. For this reason, neither 
Paul nor any of the apostles, whose call is essentially 
a call to preach the gospel, have any direct missionary 
relation to the Roman Christians. But this does not by 
any means render the apostles indifferent to those who are 
already converts. For, in the first place, existing Churches 
are centres of the Christian faith (ef. Phil. ii. 15 f.), the 
spreading of which is the distinctive function of the 
apostles; and, in the second place, the word of the 
apostles has a right to special consideration among those 
who are already believers (cf. xii. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. 
1, 20, iv. 11-16; 1 Pet. v. 1). Such consideration for 
what he is about to write Paul seeks from all the Chris- 
tians in Rome at the time whose character, not only as 
children of God through grace, but also as those called 
to be saints, 2.e. as a Christian Church (ef. 1 Cor. i. 2), 
he emphasises once more before adding his general salu- 
tation (ver. 7). 

The first thought expressed after this carefully weighed 
greeting is that of gratitude to God for all the Roman 
Christians, more particularly for the fact that their con- 
version to the Christian faith has become known through- 
out the whole world (i. 8, ef. xv. 19; 1 Thess. i. 8 f.). 
How much this means to Paul is evidenced by the solemn 
assurance which follows, that in his private devotions, 
which have relation to the gospel quite as much as his 
outward activities, he remembers recularly also the Roman 
Christians, making request in all his prayers that the way 
may be finally opened for him, in the will of God, to 
come to them (ver. 10). This thought he expands by 


356 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


explaining that he has a longing desire to see them im 
_ order to impart some spiritual gift from which he expects 
the Roman Christians to be strengthened, or, as he im- 
mediately adds by way of explanation and correction, 
from which he expects them and himself to be mutually 
encouraged by the faith that is in each (ver. 11 f, ef. xv. 
24, xvi. 25). 

Paul could not have spoken with greater precaution or 
Ἢ modesty of the result for which he hoped from this long 
intended visit to Rome. Not only does he place the 
Christians in Rome on the same level with the Churches 
organised by himself (cf. 1 Thess. iii. 2, 13; Acts xv. 32, 
xvi. 5, xvill. 23), but he guards expressly against giving 
the impression that they alone are to be benefited by 
the visit (cf. per contra, 2 Cor. i. 15; Phil. 1. 24-26). 
If he had said nothing further with reference to the 
purpose of his projected visit, all that could be im- 
ferred from his words would be that for Paul as a mis- 
sionary the existence of a Christian Church in Rome was 
a matter of great importance; that for a long time he had 
had it in mind, in further pursuance of his missionary 
plans, to come also to Rome, regarding which. plans, 
however, nothing more definite is er Br finally, that 
the exchange of spiritual gifts which would take place 
with the Roman Christians on that occasion would be 
advantageous both to them and to him. But now he 
mentions a second motive for his coming, using a phrase 
which indicates the introduction of a new thought, namely, 
his desire to obtain also in Rome some fruit, 2.e. his hope 
to preach the gospel with result also among the Roman 
populace, the great mass of whom. are ee eS 
Although he expresses himself very modestly with refer- 
ence to the result for which he hopes from this contem- 
plated missionary preaching (twa καρπόν), still this seems 
to have been the chief purpose of the visit to the capital 
which had been planned so long and so repeatedly post- 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 357 


poned on account of some external hindrance; for in 
concluding this discussion with the words, “Such is the 
willingness on my part to preach the gospel to you 
(al. among you), 1.6. to the people in Rome,’ he men- 
tions only the missionary preaching as the object of his 
coming, making no reference whatever to the hoped-for 
effect of his visit upon the Roman Church (vv. 13-15, 
n. 3). That he is just as willing to labour as a missionary 
in Rome as he is conscious of his obligation to do so, is 
proved by his declaration that he is not ashamed of the 
gospel (ver. 16). The fact that until now he has remained 
away from Rome is not, therefore, to be explained as due 
to any lack of willingness on his part, nor this lack of 
willingness as due in turn to his want of confidence in 
the gospel. 

In this way Paul prepares the way for statements 
about the gospel which go far beyond any requirements 
of the purpose manifest from the connection with the pre- 
ceding context, and which are to be made the theme of more 
extended discussions. Paul does not hesitate to introduce 
the gospel, this weak and foolish preaching (1 Cor. 1. 17- 
25), into the very. centre of the world’s culture, because 
he has learned and experienced its essence to: be what he 
describes ini. 16£. [Ὁ is. a power of God unto salvation 
for every one that believes, primarily for Jews and Greeks 
(nu. 4). he gospel is such a universal means of salvation, 
upon the sole condition of faith, because in the same is 
revealed a righteousness of God which, results from faith, 
and; which has for its aim the creation of faith. | This 
is In accordance with the word of the prophet: “ The 
righteous shall attain to life as a result of faith” (Hab. 
u. 4; cf, Gal. i. 11); since this prophecy contains the two 
thoughts which are fundamental in the statement about 
the gospel, namely, that only, the righteous attain to 
life, and that by, no other means than through faith, 
all that follows to vill, 39, or indeed to xi. 36, is in- 


358 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tended to make clear to the Romans this construction of 
the gospel. 

In the first section (1. 18-1ii. 20) he proceeds to show 
in proof of the first of the two propositions contained in 
the citation, that the wrath of God is directed against all 
unrighteousness and ungodliness of men, for which they 
are responsible and inexcusable, throughout the course of 
history (i. 18), as well as at the final judgment, when the 
righteousness of God, concealed from the thoughtless by 
the manifold proofs of God’s goodness in creation, shall 
be revealed as retributive righteousness (i. 3-10). 
Furthermore, in God’s impartial determination of the 
destiny of the individual soul there is no distinction 
between Jew and Gentile (11. 11-22). While the advan- 
tage of being an Israelite, and thus of belonging to the 
people of God’s revelation, is not to be denied, this cannot 
in any way alter the fact that in the final judgment all 
men must appear before God as liars and sinners worthy 
of condemnation, for He is the only true and altogether 
righteous one (iii. 1-8). Finally, even Christians are not 
to imagine that they are exempted a prior from this 
condemnation of a sinful race under God’s wrath. On the 
one hand, they are included in the scriptural judgment 
already quoted concerning the universal sinfulness of men ; 
and, on the other hand, they are aware that the proof 
furnished by the history of Israel regarding the impos- 
sibility of obtaining righteousness through the observance 
of the law holds for the entire race (iii. 9-20). 

Although from the ‘course of the argument condem- 
nation seems to be the inevitable end of the entire human 
race, a second section (111. 20-v. 11) is devoted primarily 
to showing how the righteousness of God necessary to life 
is restored in Christ, being proclaimed in the gospel which 
requires faith, and how by faith it becomes the possession 
of all Christian believers, Jews and Gentiles alike (iii. 20- 
30). The objection that through the doctrine of justifica- 


THE EPISTLE TO ‘THE’ ROMANS 359 


tion as here set forth Christians are in danger of falling 
into antinomianism is disposed of very briefly (iii. 31). 
On the other hand, the further objection that by accept- 
ine this doctrine Christians sever themselves from the 
relioion of the O.T., or, in other words, render entirely 
external the unquestionable relation existing between 
the Christian Church and Abraham, the progenitor of 
the religious community under the O.T. dispensation, is 
answered in ereat detail. Since, according to Gen. xv. 6, 
the religious attitude of Abraham was, rather, essentially 
similar to that of the Christian, the opposite conclusion 
follows, namely, that the theocratic community of which 
Abraham was the founder has its proper continuance in 
Christianity, which embraces the circumcised and the un- 
circumcised, but is self-consistent because it makes both 
alike stand in the faith through which Abraham, being 
yet uncircumcised, obtained his position of acceptance 
with God, and his significance for the history of religion 
(iv. 1-22, ἢ. 5). Since, now, this exposition ends with 
the reaffirmation of the original position that Christians 
are justified by faith (iv. 23-25), upon it is very properly 
based the assurance that Christians, being justified and 
reconciled, are at peace with God, and in spite of all the 
afflictions of the present may and should cherish the eon- 
fident hope of their future glory or final redemption (v. 
1-11, n. 6). 

Here the theme stated in 1. 16 f. seems to have been 
developed to its logical conclusion ; since, from the pre- 
ceding description of the origin and nature of the 
Christian life, with the future consummation of the same 
which this nature involves, it must be apparent that in 
Christian experience the gospel, being a revelation of the 
righteousness requisite to life, has proved itself to be a 
saving power. Nevertheless, a third section (v. 12—viil. 39) 
is added, closely connected with the one which precedes, 
concluding with similar thoughts. Although the main 


360 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


statement beginning with διὰ τοῦτο in v. 12 is left un 
finished, and although even the comparative sentence 
introduced into the main sentence immediately after the 
latter is begun is not concluded, the progress of thought 
can hardly be said to be obscure. As death, which was 
brought into the world by Adam, more specifically by 
Adam’s sin, reigned over all Adam’s descendants, so shall 
the grace and the gift of God and of Christ, which had. 
their inception in history through Christ, more precisely 
through Christ's one act of righteousness, reign in. the 
new humanity descended from Christ who is the second 
Adam. Inasmuch as the Mosaic Law is described as 
subordinate to the two world principles, Adam and Christ, 
or sin and righteousness, or death and life (v. 20), it is 
at once clear that the reign and supremacy of grace 
under the Christian dispensation may not be limited, or, 
rather, set aside, by the subordinate dominion of the law. 
In proof of this last point, he calls attention to the fact 
that in the very community where the law had served 
only to increase sin, namely, in Israel, redemptive grace 
had been revealed in its greatest fulness. This statement 
is intended to guard against the possibility of grace being 
looked upon as a makeshift, or as one means of salvation 
among others, as might easily have been the case had 
grace been manifested first to another people without 
Israel’s experiences with the law. The fact that Christ 
appeared in Israel is assurance that. grace. may. reign 
wherever it is accepted. 

The objection that if this doctrine of law and grace 
be true, one needs only to continue in sin in order to 
receive constantly new supplies of grace, Paul. meets, by 
recalling the fact of the new birth connected with bap- 
tism, which makes a sinful life on the part of the Christians 
seem unnatural, furnishing the strongest motive for holi- 
ness. It is just because Christians are not under, Jaw, 
which in itself has no power to overcome sin, but under 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 361 


grace, which in the resurrection of Christ and regeneration 
of the Christian proves itself to be a life-giving power, 
that they dare to hope for mastery over sin (vi. 1-14). 
But from the experience of the readers not only is this 
pernicious theory (vi. 1), but likewise the possibility of 
any practical misuse on the part of the Christian of his 
privileges under the gentle rule of grace, instead of under 
the hard discipline of the law, easily refuted as due to 
wrong inferences from the doctrine of justification ex- 
pounded above. From being sinful and disobedient ser- 
vants of God, as they were formerly, they have become 
servants obedient from the heart, and are, therefore, no 
longer slaves and mercenaries of sin, but slaves of 
righteousness and soldiers of God. They have only to 
recall their pre-Christian life, and the death which was 
the inevitable issue of that life, and then to observe the 
process of sanctification taking place in their present 
Christian life, and to remember that eternal life is its 
final goal, in order to lose all desire to sink back into 
their former state (vi. 15-23, n. 7). 

Moreover, Paul feels that it is incumbent upon him to 
justify to his readers even the presupposition, namely, that 
the Christian is no longer under the law, but under grace 
(vii. 1-6), which in vi. 1-14 and) vi. 15-23 is defended 
against false inferences. From, their acquaintance with 
the law, the readers know that the Mosaic ordinances 
have authority over a man only so long as he lives, which 
implies that it has no power beyond death. Both these 
phases of the truth are illustrated by a single appropriate 
example, namely, the law of marriage, which unites two 
human lives into one. In the case of the surviving party 
when a marriage bond is annulled by death, we see that 
death frees from the law. The illustration of the marriage 
bond thus cited is used also as a figure in the application 
of the principle stated in vil. 1 to the subject under dis- 
cussion. Since Christ’s obligation to, the law ceased with 


362 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


His death, and since Christians became subsequently 
through baptism partakers of Christ’s death, the same as 
though they themselves had actually died (vi. 3, ef. Gal. 
ii. 19, iv. 4f.), for them also obligation under the law as 
a marriage bond is lesally annulled, in order that they 
may be united to the risen Christ in a new marriage union. 
Not until they come into this new fellowship with Christ 
are they able to attain to a true moral life permeated by 
a new spirit; whereas, on the other hand, while they lived 
still under the law and served God according to the letter, 
sinful desires awakened by the law held sway over their 
bodies, and life under the law issued in death (n. 8). 

Here again a conclusion seems to follow fatal to all 
that has been said heretofore. If exemption from the law 
and cessation from the life of sin go together, then we 
seem driven to the blasphemous conclusion that the law 
and sin are identical. This objection Paul answers in 
vil. 7-vii. 11 chiefly from his own experience with the 
law in his early life'and now in his Christian life. This 
experience he describes: under the presupposition that 
Christians who’ like himself have been brought up under 
the law have had essentially the same experience.’ When 
he became a Christian he continued to regard the law as 
holy, righteous, and good; and as a converted man his 
will gave fullest assent to it. But in individual experi- 
ence, as in the life of men generally (cf. 11. 20, iv. 15, 
v. 20), the law has proved itself to be a power awakening 
and developing latent sin, thereby deepening the know- 
ledge of sin; and even when the will gives assent to 
the contents of the law, it is incapable of overcoming 
sin. If, along with his lament due to doubt about his 
moral capacity, there is a place in the Christian’s life for 
gratitude to God for His gift in Christ (vii. 24 f.), this is 
no effect which after all has been wrought by the law, 
but the outcome of the liberating work of the Spirit, 
begetting a new Christlike life in those who have been 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 363 


born again. God’s very act in sending the Son was 
positive expression of His will that henceforth sin should 
no more rule in the flesh; and with Christ’s coming was 
begun the actual fulfilment of this divine purpose (viii. 3). 
Through the Spirit received by the Christian from Christ 
the ordinances of the law are fulfilled in their unity by 
those who give themselves up to the control of this Spirit 
instead of continuing under the power of their inborn 
nature (vill. 4). Eventually, through the same Spirit the 
body also, which is still subject to death, shall be quickened 
(vii. 11). Finally, in language which soars higher and 
higher as the climax is approached, the fact is proclaimed 
that the sonship wrought in us by the life-giving Spirit 
involves not only the obligation of a present walk ac- 
cording to the Spirit, but warrants also the hope of future 
glory, and supplies the power to overcome all the sufferings 
of the present (vii. 12-39). 

Thus the discussion of the supremacy of grace over all 
who have been renewed by Christ (v. 12—viii. 39) leads to 
the same conclusion as the discussion of the doctrine of 
justification (iii. 21-v. 11), and the development of the 
theme announced in i. 16 f. might be considered complete 
if in the discussion up to this point Paul had taken 
adequate account of Israel’s special position of privilege, 
at which he hinted in his statement of the theme, and 
expressly admitted in 111. 1-3 (cf. 1.25). When a Jewish 
Christian like Paul is able to describe with constantly in- 
creasing enthusiasm the glory of the redemption wrought 
by Christ for the whole human race, affirming that in its 
completion even inanimate nature is drawn into its sweep, 
while he passes by with a single incidental remark (iii. 3), 
the fact that by the vast majority of his own nation, 
mediators of the divine revelation though they are (iii. 2, 
v. 20), no benefits are enjoyed from this salvation, this 
omission itself requires explanation. ‘This is given in the 
fourth section (ix. 1-xi. 35). After the song of thanks- 


364 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


giving in vill. 31-39, it was most fitting for Paul to aver 
with all solemnity that he speaks the absolute truth when 
he says that in his heart he suffers unceasing pain because 
of his unbelieving countrymen. To be sure, he does not 
want this to be understood as implying that God did not 
fulfil the promise which He made to Israel, or that the 
unbelieving Jews have a right by reason of their origin, 
and of such moral service as they may have rendered in 
addition, to complain of the new course taken. by history 
with the entrance of the gospel (ix. 6 f.). From such 
errors he is saved by his knowledge of O.T. history and 
propheey (ix. 70-29). . But nevertheless it grieves him 
exceedingly that while Gentiles, who are little concerned 
about righteousness, are saved, Israel, with all its striving 
after legal righteousness, obtains neither this righteousness 
nor the righteousness of faith, stumbling at the very point 
where they ought not to stumble, namely, the revelation 
of God, in Christ (ix. 30-33). But Paul is not satisfied 
with merely lamenting the tragic fate of his nation. 
Because of their earnest, albeit blind zeal, which led them 
to resist the gospel, thereby giving the Gentiles, their 
present, pre-eminence, he longs for their salvation, and 
beseeches that it may be granted them by God (chap.:x.). 
That there can be no question of a permanent rejection of 
Israel. is proved by every conversion of individual Jews, 
like Paul, and by: the existence of a body of Jewish 
Christians, numbering thousands (xi. 1-7a, cf. ix. 27-29). 
The hardening of Israel, which carries with it still other 
-judements of a more external kind (xi. 7b-10), is not an 
end in itself, but designed, primarily, to enable the Gentiles 
to obtain part in redemption. There is,hope that finally, 
the conversion of the Gentiles will react upon Israel,leading 
to their salvation also (xi. IL£f.). Paul calls the special 
attention of the Gentile Christians at Rome to, the fact 
that, in fulfilling the specific work involved by his com- 
mission as an apostle to the Gentiles, he does 50. always 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 365 


with the additional purpose in view of arousing the jealousy 
of his countrymen and of winning at least some of them, 
and thus of preparing the way for the conversion of Israel, 
with which event will come the end of the world (x1. 13-15, 
cf. ver. 12, π. 9).. Similarly, applicable only to Gentile 
Christians is the warning against an overbearing attitude 
toward the Jewish people in their present hardened state 
(vv. 16-24), and the proclamation of the final redemption 
of the whole of Israel as a truth of scriptural revelation 
(vv. 25-32). The fourth section ends with an exclama- 
tion of wonder at God’s government of the world (vv. 
32-36). 

To the explanation of the nature of the gospel here 
concluded Paul adds in a fifth section (xii. 1-xv. 13) a 
comprehensive and well-arranged statement of how one 
ought to walk in accordance with the same. Unlike what 
immediately precedes, which is directed to the Gentile 
Christians alone, what is here said is expressly addressed 
to all the Christians in Rome (xii. 3). Compared with 
similar parts of other letters, this section of Romans is 
especially noticeable for its pressing exhortation to obedi- 
ence to State authority, together with the fulfilment of all 
the duties of citizenship (sci 1-7), and for the emphasis 
which it lays~much stronger than in Gal. v. 14—upon 
the principle that active brotherly love is the true fulfil- 
ment of the law (xiii. 8-10, ef. vii. 4). The exhortation 
to live a sober and self-controlled life in view of the con- 
stantly nearer approach of the day of Christ, and in the 
care of the body to avoid everything that mischt arouse 
the passions (xiii. 11-14), introduces at once the discus- 
sion of a schism among the Roman Christians regarding 
which Paul must have been well informed (xiv. 1-23). 
There were Christians in Rome who from principle 
avoided the use of meat, possibly also of wine (vv. 
2, 20), claiming that such use was  defiling (vv. 14, 
30). This being their position, naturally they con- 


366 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


demned severely all other Christians who used the 
customary foods without distinetion, and were them- 
selves in turn despised for their superstitious scruples 
(vv. 3, 10). From the opinion of the vegetarians that 
those who ate meat were not steadfast, but in danger of 
stumbling (ver. 4), we infer that they looked upon their 
own abstinence as a means of securing religious stead- 
fastness, and commended it as such to others (cf. Heb. 
xiii. 9). Although Paul rebukes the ascetics for their 
bigoted judgment of others, declaring them to be weak 
in faith, and takes his own stand with those strong in 
faith, as regards the actual practice in the matter he goes 
no further than to state that both practices are consistent 
with the Christian profession, dealing at greatest length 
with the obligation of those strong in faith to avoid 
offending the conscience of their weaker brethren. They 
are not to influence such either by their contemptuous 
treatment of them, or by their challenging example to 
act against their consciences (vv. 13-23, cf. 1 Cor. viii. 
7-13). The ascetic party must, therefore, have been in 
the minority. That they were native Jews is probable, 
as evidenced by the use of the conceptions κοινός and 
καθαρός (vv. 14, 20), and made certain by the fact that 
in correcting their judgment of those who eat meat Paul 
argues that the use of meat is just as consistent with 
Christianity, and just as much to be tolerated im the 
Christian Church, as is the observance of certain. days 
(n. 10). This argument has weight only if the ascetics 
claimed the unquestioned right to set apart on religious 
grounds certain days, which could have been none other 
than the Jewish Sabbaths, feasts, and fasts. From the 
fact that the ascetic party were Jews it does not follow 
necessarily that those who ate meat were exclusively 
Gentiles. They could equally well have been Jews, like 
the apostle, who, in using the phrase “ we who are strong,” 
identifies himself with those who used meat (xv. 1). 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 367 


According to a reliable tradition, xiv. 23 was followed 
immediately by xvi. 25-27 (§ 22); but even if this were 
not its original place, it is clear that after concluding the 
discussion of the differences between the vegetarians and _ 
those who ate meat, Paul must have passed to a more 
general exhortation to preserve the unity of the Church 
by mutual concessions. From the fact that in the 
application of this exhortation to the readers united 
thanksgiving is declared to be the goal toward which 
they are to strive (xv. 6), and that in the explanation 
which follows (vv. 8-12) the union of Israel and of 
the Gentiles is proved from history and Scripture to 
be the final goal of the course of redemption, one sees 
that in these closing sentences of the fifth parenetic 
section Paul’s aim was to remove all differences be- 
tween the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome by 
which the unity of confession and of worship was 
imperilled. 

The sixth section (xv. 14-xvi. 24, or —xvi. 27) begins 
with a retrospect of the letter itself, now nearing its 
close. Paul corrects the possible impression which may 
have been produced by the elaborateness of the letter and 
its strenuous tone, that he regarded the Roman Christians 
as in very special need of instruction. To him even it 
had seemed a venture to direct such a letter to them. 
Still this feeling was mitigated somewhat by the fact that 
he discussed only certain phases of Christian truth, and 
in doing so was always conscious of reminding them of 
truths with which they were already familiar. He had 
ventured to write them in the interest of his calling as 
the apostle to the Gentiles. By reason of the wide 
extent of the territory in which heretofore he had carried 
on his work, it had happened that up to the present 
he had found constantly new labours close at hand, and 
so had been prevented from realising the desire which he 
had often felt of coming to Rome (n. 11). And even 


368 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


now, when he finds no more occasion in the regions lying 
about the eastern part of the Mediterranean for the kind 
of missionary work which he recognises as his special 
work, namely, that of laying foundations, he cannot at 
once visit Rome on his way to Spain, as he had longed to 
do for many years, but must go first to Jerusalem to 
deliver the collection gathered by the: Christians in 
Macedonia and Greece. Not until this business is fin- 
ished will he go to Spain by way of Rome. So for the 
present he requests the prayers of the Romans for his 
protection against the dangers which threaten him at 
the hands of unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem, and for a 
favourable reception of the collection on the part of the 
Christians there, in order that by the will of God he may 
come to Rome in a joyful state of mind. Here the letter 
returns to the point at which it began (i. 1-15), and is 
temporarily concluded with a benediction (xv. 33). The 
discussion of his projected missionary journeys and his 
missionary plans, which is merely begun in i. 1-15, 15 
here completed. Now for the first time we understand 
clearly Paul’s statements at the beginning of the letter 
about his desire to come to Rome, and the hints about the 
hindrances which hitherto he had always encountered in 
endeavouring to carry out this purpose (i. 10, 13a). In 
particular is it clear why he was unable at the beginning 
of the letter to announce his approaching visit, but had 
to be satisfied with merely expressing his earnest desire, 
his willingness, and his hope to come. Great emphasis 
is laid upon the significance of the circumstance which at 
this time compels him to postpone his visit still longer, 
and which justifies the composition of this elaborate 
letter, namely, the journey to Jerusalem with the col- 
lection. In this collection the Gentile Christian Churches 
founded by him fulfil an obligation of love and of grati- 
tude to the mother Church (xv. 25-27), and Paul hopes 
that this gift will be the means of producing similar 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 369 


kindly feeling toward the Gentile Christians among the 
Jewish Christians of Jerusalem (xv. 31). What he said 
in 1. 11 about the purpose of his visit to Rome, and of 
the fruitful effect which he hoped to see resulting from 
his visit for the Roman Christians and for himself, is here 
repeated. He himself hopes to be quickened by his 
sojourn among the Roman Christians (xv. 24), and is in 
turn convinced that he will come to them in the fulness 
of Christian blessing (xv. 29). Since, however, he calls 
the quickening which he himself hopes to receive among 
the Roman Christians a “partial filling” (ver. 24), it is 
certain that he did not contemplate any protracted stay 
in Rome. This agrees with the modest way in which he 
spoke in i. 13 of the results which he hoped to obtain 
from his proposed missionary work in Rome; but just 
why this was the case is made clear now for the first 
time, by the repeated notice (vv. 15, 24, 28) that the real 
objective of his more extended missionary plans is Spain, 
and that Rome is only a stopping-place for the missionary 
pressing his way to the extreme West. 

The remembrances, greetings, and repeated parting 
wishes (chap. xvi.) require special investigation, there 
being more serious question as to their place in Romans 
than as regards any other part of the letter. 


1, (P. 354.) Concerning Paul’s use of the first person plural, see above, 
p- 209, n. 3, p. 316, n. 3. The treatise of Dick, Der schriftstellerische Plural 
ber Paulus, 1900, heave’ in the very title the lack of a distinction between 
the true epistolary style and the usage of the literati. As is well known, the 
ancient form of the introductory greeting designated by their personal names 
the writer of the letter in the nominative and the recipient in the dative ; in 
other words, with entire objectivity as third persons. Paul follows this scheme 
essentially in all his writings, except that he makes the greeting proper a 
grammatically independent sentence expressive of his wishes toward them 
(cf. ZKom. Gal. 29 f., and above, p. 177,n.2). It appears, therefore, to be con- 
trary to literary style, when before the greeting, which is moulded after the 
Semitic form into an address to the recipient, ver. 7b, an J and thou, or a we 
and ye appear, as ver. 4, ἡμῶν ; ver. 5, ἐλάβομεν ; ver. 6, καὶ ὑμεῖς. So Gal. i. 2, 
ἐμοί ; 2 John 1, 3 John 1, Tit. i. 3 ἐγώ ; Philem. 2, σοῦ, more often ἡμῶν and 
nyiv, 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Thess.i. 1; 1 Tim.i,1; Philem. 1; 2 Pet.i.1; 2 John 2, 

VOL. I. 24 


370 INTRODUCTION TO "THE NEW TESTAMENT 


This prominence of subjectivity, however, is not at all confined to the letters 
of the ΝΙΝ or the early Christian literature, Cf. eg. Berl. dgypt. Urk, No. 
405. ὁ, ὁμογαστρίῳ pou ἀδελφῇ, Nos, 814. 1, 892. 1, and even in Cicero, Ep. ad 
Jomil. xvi. 1. In inscriptions also the same thing occurs nob infrequently, 

2. (P. 354.) Like other Biblical writers, Paul applies the name (τὰ) ἔθνη 
to Gentile nations in contrast to Israel, and also, following the later Jewish 
usage (9 mas., mafom., Gentile), to individual Gentiles in contrast to Jews 
(Rom. ii. 14, iii, 29, ix. 24, 80, xi. 11-13, 25, xv. OF, 12, 16, 18, 27, xvi. 4). 
But since Israel also is an ἔθνος (John xi. 48-52, xviil, 85; Luke vil. 5, xxiii. 2 ; 
Acts x. 22, xxiv. 8, 10, 17, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 19; also a Ex, xix. 6, xxxili. 13; 
Deut. iv. 6; Isa. i. 4, iv. 2), πάντα τὰ ἔθνη could not well be used to denote 
the Gentile world excluding Israel, In Rom, xv. 11 (Ps. exvii. 1) the syn- 
onymous expression coupled with it (στάντες. of λαοί) shows rather thab the 
apostle’s meaning is mankind as it is divided into peoples, including Israel, 
and that the two parties which are distinguished in xv. 8-10 as περιτομή, Or 
Lads τοῦ Θεοῦ and ἔθνη, are here spoken of together. Lf it is perfectly plain 
that in Matt, xxviii, 19, Luke xxiv. 47, Israel is by no means excluded, but 
simply that the confining of missionary work to that nation is forbidden, 
ZKom. Matt. 714, A 9, why should the interpretation be different in Rom, 
i. 5, xvi. 26; Gal, iii, 8; 2 Tim, iv. 17; Matt, xxiv. 9, 14, xxv. 32 ; Mark xi. 17, 
xiii, 10% Moreover, in a speech to Gentiles who had heard nothing as yet of 
the choice of a people of God and of a special revelation to that people, it would 
be most inappropriate to say, Goll alle Heiden ihre eigenen Woge habe wandeln 
lassen (* God suffered all Gentiles to walk in their own ways”) (Acts xiv. 16), 
This translation of Luther’s would require the reading ταῖς ἰδίαις αὐτῶν ὁδοῖς, 
and necessitate the placing of the words in an emphatie position. The 
meaning is rather that formerly, in contrast to the present preaching of 
the gospel to all mankind, God suffered the many nations which make up 
humanity to go their several ways; ef. Acts xvii, 24-80; Rom, in, 25, 
Even in the O,T. the term commonly includes Israel; ef. Jer, xxv, 15, 
17-25. It is also a very significant fact that the LXX repeatedly uses 
τὰ λοιπὰ ἔθνη, Where the other modifying words do not make it quite clear 
that oan or osarrby is restricted to nations other than Israel, Deut, viii. 20, 
xvii. 14; 1 Sam, viii. 5. But the whole of mankind is just as much the field 
of labour for those apostles to whom the Son of David had given grace and 
apostleship while He lived in the flesh (Matt. v. 131, [xiit, 88], xxviii. 195 
Luke xxiv. 47; Acts i. 8), as for Paul, who had been called by the ascended 
Son of God (Acts ix. 15, xxii, 15, xxvi. 175 1 Cor. i. 17-24, ix. 20°; ‘Col. 
i. 28). True, the original apostles had to begin their work with Israel and 
in Jerusalem (Matt. x. 5, 23; Luke xxiv, 47; Acts i. 4, 8, ii, 39), while Paul, 
on the other hand, was chiefly an apostle to the Gentiles. But this fact did 
not affect the universality of the apostleship of either, neither was it affected 
by the subsequent division of their field of labour (Gal. ii. 9, above, p. 266, 
line 28). Paul considers his mission to the Gentiles only one part of his calling, 
and indicates that even this has reference also to Israel (Rom, xi. 18 f.). 
But in his greeting to the Romans he does not speak as an apostle to the 
Yentiles, but simply as one called to be an apostle, with the same right to 
address them that Peter would have. He writes, not on the authority of his 
calling as an apostle of the Gentiles, but only in the interest of it (av. 15 i} 


THE KEPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 371 


wee below, αὶ 24, n, 1), If Paul had wished to say that by origin the Roman 
Christiane belonged to the class indicated by πάντα ra ἔθνη, aecording to 
established usage he must have written ἐξ bv ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς, οἵ, Gal. ἡ, 15; 
Rom, ix. 6, 24, xi. 1; Phil iii, 5; Acts x. 45, xi, 2, xv. 28; Rev. ν, 9, vii. 
4-9. Whathe really does say is that they are a Christian community within 
the bounds of the apostolic field of labour, Writers as carly as Ambrosi- 
aster and Chrysostom (x. 453) give the correct interpretation of the plural 
ἐλάβομεν, an do also Benge) and von Hengel, There is nothing im the greet, 
ing to justify the assumption that persons like Timothy are included in thin 
plural rather than the original apostles (Holmann, iii, 9, who cites xvi. 21). 
By those who had received an ἀττοστολή, the readers must have understood 
those who, like Paul, were κλητοὶ ἀπόστολοι, and only those (ef, i, 1). Buch 
a full title would not be appropriate to subordinate missionary helpers. 

2, (2. 857.) Since ob θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, 1. 13 (ef, 1 Them, iv. 18; 1 Cor. 
xii, 1; Phil. i. 12), introduces either a new subject or anew phase of the same 
subject (more certainly even than if γάρ were used ; ch, 1 Cor. x. 15 Kom, κί, 26; 
2 Cor. 1,8; Col, 11, I), and since ὅτι πολλάκις «δεῦρο contains nothing which 
has not been said before (Gi, 10 £.), it follows that the new point of view from 
which Paul here considers his journcy to Rome ig to be found in the new 
statement of hie purpose in coming, namely, iva τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ καὶ dv ὑμῖν. 
By this cannot be meant the effect of his coming upon the Roman Christians, 
which has been already described, 1, 11 £, but rather the successful winsionary 
work he hoped to accomplish among the Koman populace. ‘This, too, ia the 
only interpretation that accords with the term used (not to be confounded 
with καρπὸν ποιεῖν, φέρειν, καρττοφορεῖν), which denotes the results of labour 
(ef, Rom. vi, 21; Phil, i. 22; Matt, xxi, 34 ; John iv, 36) or, to put it more 
precisely, since an apostle, 7.0. a missionary, is here speaking, the results of 
preaching, which is represented under the figure of labour in a field or 
garden (1 Cor, 1, 6-9). Vaul’» intercourse with the Roman Christians 
(i, 11 1.) will not require labour on his part, but will bring him quickening 
(xv. 24), There is no emential change in the sense, if, with D*Gd g, 
Ambrowiaster, we read ob« olopa (instead of Air) δέ, which sounds more 
natural, and could have been easily displaced by the other reading which 
occurs #0 frequently in Paul’s writings, The dv ὑμῖν, 1, 12, is quite syn- 
onymous with dv “Ρώμῃ; just ae ἐξ ὑμῶν, Col. iv. 9, means “from Colon” 
(Onesimus was not a member of the Church there, but probably had lived in 
Colossi) ; πρὸν ὑμᾶς, Rom. i. 10, xv. 22, 24, 32, “to Rome”; and δι’ ὑμῶν, 
Rom. xv. 26; 2 Vor. i, 16, not directly through the midet of the assembled 
congregation in Rome or Corinth, but “through (via) Rome or Corinth.” 
That in this passage the readers are addressed not a» members of the Roman 
Oburch, but as representatives of the Roman populace, the vast majority of 
whom were as yet unconverted, appears—(1) from the fact that in 1, 15, 
where unquestionably the reference in to the same work as in 1, 13, the ὑμῖν 
in very clearly defined by the appositional τοῖς dv Ῥώμῃ. To state that the 
readers are in Rome would seem superfinous, vince up to this time it has 
always been presupposed, and according to the prevailing text of 1, 7 was 
also formally expressed (see below, # 22, n. 3). On the contrary, it would 
he very much in place to remark, “When I vay ὑμεῖς and ὑμῖν, I mean 
the people in Rome” The point is just as clear if we read dv ὑμῖν in 


372 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


i, 15 as in i. 13 (so D* and several Latin MSS., also G with its copyist’s 
error ἐπ᾽ ὑμῖν, for which g substitutes in vobis). (2) The same conclusion 
follows from the meaning of εὐαγγελίζεσθαι. It is impossible longer to 
speak of preaching the gospel to those who are already κλητοὶ ἅγιοι (i. 
6, 7). Against a perverted use of Gal. iv. 13 see above, p. 171,n.2. (3) It 
is evident also from the fact that in i. 13 ἐν ὑμῖν stands in contrast not to 
ἐν ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκκλησίαις (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 17, vii. 17, xiv. 33), but to ev τοῖς 
λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν. Thus the readers are addressed as τὸ ἔθνος τῶν Ῥωμαίων. 
But that does not mean the Roman nation, even if it were possible to use such 
a term; nor yet the populus Romanus (δῆμος Ῥωμαίων, Just. Apol. i. [in the 
address]), the whole body of cives Romani, but the total population of Rome 
at that time, citizens and non-citizens, foreigners and natives, slaves and free 
men, consisting of all sorts of nationalities, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Celts, 
Syrians, and Jews,—an ἐπιτομὴ τῆς οἰκουμένης, as the rhetorician Polemo (in 
Galenus, ed. Kühn, xviii. 1. 347) called Rome. The sense of i. 13 would 
have been practically the same if Paul had written καὶ ἐν Ῥώμῃ, καθὼς καὶ 
ἐν ταῖς λοιπαῖς πόλεσιν. Cf. an imperial writ of the third century (Grenfell 
and Hunt, Faydm Towns, 120: ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν ἁπάσαις, ταῖς τε κατ᾽ Ἰταλίαν 
καὶ ταῖς ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἔθνεσιν ; further, Galenus, Anat. admin. i. 1, ed. Kühn, 
xix. 218, ev ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ δὲ καί τισιν ἄλλοις ἔθνεσιν γενόμενος ; cf. Acts xxvi. 
4 (above, p. 68, n. 15); also Acts ii. 5 (not ex, but ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔθνους, above, p. 
61); ef. further the contrast in Dio Cass. xxxvi. 41 (al. 24) between οἴκοι (in 
Rome) and ev τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (in the provinces, 7.6. among the subject peoples) ; 
liv. 30, ἡ ᾿Ασία τὸ €6vos=the province of Asia with all its motley population. 
Ramsay, Stud. Oxon. iv. 30, compares for this use of ἔθνος C. I. Gr. 2802 ; Le 
Bas-Waddington, No. 1219; Inscr. Brit. Mus. 487. The argument remains 
unchanged if we make καθώς begin a sentence running through and inclading 
ver. 14, a punctuation which has much to commend it (ef. Klostermann, 
Korrekturen, 4f.). Paul’s purpose through missionary preaching to achieve 
some results in Rome also is in keeping with the fact that among all other 
peoples and in all other parts of the world he feels himself a debtor both to 
Greeks and Barbarians, to the cultured and uncultured alike. Although the 
reference here is primarily to the regions in which Paul had laboured 
hitherto, where he had to deal now with Barbarians who spoke Lycaonian 
(Acts xiv. 11), now with Athenians trained in philosophy, sometimes with 
Jews, sometimes with Greeks, nevertheless in the comparison of Rome with 
these provinces there is an indirect reference to the peculiarly varied mixture 
of peoples in the imperial capital. Paul is thinking, however, not so much 
of the different nationalities represented in Rome, as of the different degrees 
of culture among the individuals to whom the gospel is to be brought. 

4. (P. 357.) The omission of πρῶτον, i. 16, in BG and in Marcion (Tert. c. 
Marc. v.13; GK, ii. 515), proves merely that it was early found to be embarass- 
ing. Inii. 9, 10 there is no question as to the soundness of the text, and there 
is no conceivable reason why πρῶτον should have been introduced from these 
verses into i. 16. But, as Klostermann (Korrekturen, 14-24) was the first to 
point out, the common view, that Jews and Greeks (=Gentiles) here repre- 
sent the two divisions of mankind or Christendom comprehended in the 
phrase παντὶ τῷ mıorevovrı, is quite untenable. For, on this interpretation, 
the essential equality of Jew and Gentile and the Jew’s priority over the 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 373 


Gentile are asserted in the same breath. The correet interpretation is that 
found in an ancient summary (Cod. Anvat., ed. Tischendorf, 240, e. iii.), which 
gathers up the contents of Rom. i. 13-17 in the words “de gentibus grecis 
ac barbaris et primatu Judzorum atque Grecorum.” The reasons for so 
interpreting the passage are—(1) Paul does not use Ἕλλην, ἑλληνικός κτλ. in 
the sense of “Gentile,” as did other Jews who wrote in Greek subsequent to 
the time of the Seleucid (above, p. 58, n. 2). 1 Cor. 1. 22 is applicable only 
to Greeks, not to all non-Jews. In Col. iii. 11 Seythians and Barbarians 
are mentioned with Greeks. There are other passages (Rom. iii. 9, x. 12; 
1 Cor. x. 32, xii. 13; Gal. ii. 3, iii. 28) where it is uncertain whether the 
word is used in its proper national sense, or its derivative, religio-historical 
sense. But here the latter meaning is impossible, for, in the immediate 
context (i. 14), “Ἕλλην is used to denote not Gentile in contrast to Jew, but 
the Greek and the man of Greek culture, including the Hellenised Jew, the 
Hellenist (above, pp. 41, n. 8, 71, n. 21) in contrast to the Barbarian, 7.e. the 
man without Greek culture ; (2) an instance has yet to be cited where πρῶτον 
or a similar word inserted between ré—xai destroys the parity of the words 
connected by these particles. Even if the reading were πρῶτόν τε καί, it 
would not bear this interpretation. In Acts xxvi. 20 the preaching in 
Damascus and Jerusalem which afterward affected the whole country of 
Judea (cf. Acts ix. 27 f.; Gal. i. 22 f.; Rom. xv. 19) is treated as one 
composite whole and spoken of as the apostle’s first preaching, in contrast to 
his later preaching to the Gentiles, which was separated from his first 
ministry by an interval of several years. There is a passage in Eusebius 
(Eel. Proph. iii. 26, ed. Gaisford, p. 162) which may be considered parallel in 
spite of the difference between πρῶτον and πρότερον, and which weighs 
against the common interpretation of Rom.i. 16. Speaking of what the devil 
had done to Jerusalem through the instrumentality of the Roman legions, his 
agents, Eusebius says: πᾶσαν φθορὰν ἐνηργήσατο αὐτῷ τε πρότερον τῷ had 
καὶ τοῖς τὴν πόλιν ἐνοικοῦσι πολίταις, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τῷ ναῷ καὶ τῇ πάλαι 
συντελουμένῃ ἐν αὐτῷ λατρείᾳ ; (3) certainly in Rom. i.-ix. we do not find any 
development of the idea that the gospel is a power of God unto salvation in 
a higher degree or sooner in tlıe case of believing Jews than of believing 
Gentiles. On the contrary, up to x. 12 the whole argument is to show that, 
with respect to the divine judgment and in regard to the way of salvation, 
there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. This statement is not 
invalidated by the mention of the privileges of Israel in iii. 1. Not until 
x. 19 (if πρῶτος be taken as a part of the preceding question—with Bentley, 
Critica Sacra, ed. Ellies, 30, and Hofmann, ad loc.) is mention made of the 
prior elaims of Israel to Christ’s redemption and the gospel, and their corre- 
sponding treatment at the hand of God. It is referred to again slightly in 
xv. 8f., but by this time the theme stated in i. 16 f. must have been quite 
forgotten by the readers. On the other hand, the thought would be more 
appropriate that, whereas the gospel exists, as it certainly does and ought, 
for all men, it is intended, however, primarily, or at least in the first instance, 
for the people of God’s revelation and for the world of Greek culture. In 
view of actual facts, this thought would not require further elucidation. As 
yet, the apostolic mission had not extended to the barbarous peoples beyond 
the bound of civilisation, but had been directed to Jews and Greeks, or at 


374 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


least Hellenised peoples, of course without neglect of its duty toward indi 
vidual Barbarians in the Graeco-Roman world (Rom. i. 14), and without losing 
sight of its ultimate goal (Matt. xxviii. 19; Actsi.8; Rom. xi. 11-15, 25-32 ; 
2 Tim. iv. 17). Consequently Paul does not go to the Parthians or the Ethio- 
pians, but, after having preached the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyrieum (Rom. 
xv. 19), he “must see Rome also” (Acts xix. 21). Jews and Greeks are 
prepared beyond the rest of mankind for the reception of the gospel, and for 
that very reason, too, are most responsible for their religions and moral 
attitude. This explains πρῶτον in ii. 9 f. as in i. 16. A δεύτερον and a 
τρίτον are not excluded but rather implied, so there is no contradiction of the 
complete universality of divine providence and revelation. 

5. (P. 359.) Although the different views regarding iv. 1 f. (ef. above, p. 
131 f., n. 2) and iv. 16-22 cannot be discussed here, it should be observed that 
two aspects of Abraham’s fatherhood are distinguished in iv. 11, 12 which in 
πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν, iv. 16, are combined. He is the father of uncircumcised 
believers (ver. 11), and more definitely by reason of circumcision he is father 
of those Jews who have not only been circumcised but also walk according to 
Abraham’s faith (ver. 12). The logical and stylistic incongruity of the article 
before στοιχοῦσιν is perhaps relieved by Hort’s conjecture (Append. 108) that 
we read καὶ αὐτοῖς instead of καὶ rots, the only reading that has come down 
to us. Or perhaps the τοῖς before oro (χοῦσιν) is due to an unconscious 
repetition on the part of the copyist. 

6. (P. 359.) Since we are to read ἔχωμεν and not ἔχομεν in v. 1, and must 
accordingly construe καυχώμεθα, v. 2, 3, as subjunctive, the section v. 1-11 
begins, it is true, in hortatory form. But this does not change its logical 
relation to what precedes, as indicated above, especially in view of the fact 
that from ver. 9 on the declarative form is resumed. The key to the inter- 
pretation of v. 12-21 is to be found in the word βασιλεύειν, which is five 
times repeated (v. 14, 17, 21, ef. also vi. 12, and κυριεύειν, vi. 14). 

7. (P. 361.) The characteristics of this kingly rule are—(1) its absolute- 
ness ; (2) its independence of the will and conduct of those born under its 
sway. The latter applies especially to the line beginning with Adam, the 
former to that beginning with Christ. 

8. (P. 362.) If ἁμαρτίας and ὑπακοῆς, vi. 16, cannot denote the two masters 
between whom choice must be made (which would require rather τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ 
and τῇ ὑπακοῇ), and if both are used attributively, it follows that the readers 
were always servants, and servants of God. The τῆς ἁμαρτίας in vi. 17 is also 
to be taken attributively, which the article does not forbid (ef. Luke xvi. 8, 
xvili. 6; 2 Cor. i. 8) ; for the thing contrasted with their former state is not 
the choice of a new master, but the fact that they have become obedient from 
the heart in their conversion to the gospel. The attracted clause eis ὃν 
παρεδόθητε τύπον is to be expanded into eis τὸν τύπον διδαχῆς, ὃν παρεδόθητε, 
and the latter phrase further into ὅς παρεδόθη ὑμῖν (cf. Ewald and Hofmann, 
ad loc.; possibly also Philo, de Josepho, xvii, ἐν οἷς ἐπετράπησαν karmyopn@&vres). 
It is plain that language like this could be addressed only to Jewish 
Christians who, prior to their conversion, considered themselves servants of 
God (ef. viii. 15), but rendered their Master only an external or seeming 
obedience. Really at that time they were the slaves of sin, and did not 
become slaves of righteousness until their conversion. The change from the 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 375 


contrast between obedient and disobedient servants of God in vv. 16, 17 tc 
the different contrast of vv. 18-23 is quite in keeping with Paul’s style (ef. 
also John viii. 33-34), as is also the change from the figure of slavery to that 
of military service in ver. 23 (cf. vi. 13); observe also that while ὀψώνια 
(=stipendia) denotes regular pay (ef. 1 Cor. ix. 7; Luke iii. 14), χάρισμα 
means an extraordinary largess (donativum) ; ef. Tertullian’s translation, De 
Resurr. xlvii, and pseud-Origenes, Tract., ed. Batiffol, p. 198. 5, “stipendia 
salutis . . . charismatum donativa.” It is perfectly clear that in vii. 1-6 
Paul addresses the readers as if they, like himself, had lived under the law 
prior to their conversion and new birth. No rational man could possibly 
say this of native Gentiles. Neither could a Christian who had grown up 
in Judaism speak in this connection of native Gentile Christians in relation 
to himself as Paul does from vii. 4 (καρποφορήσωμεν) on. Consequently, 
for this reason if for no other the question of the nationality of the Roman 
Christians may be regarded as settled, for it is equally clear that Paul is 
not here addressing a part of his readers. Manifestly the fact that he 
addresses them as brethren in vii. 1 and again in vii. 4 is not an accident, 
since no address of this kind has been used since i. 13. He remembers 
that the great majority of these Christian brethren in Rome are of like 
origin with himself, and have stood in the same relation to the law. But 
there is nothing in the passage which justifies us in taking ἀδελφοί differ- 
ently from the way in which it is taken in i. 13, viii. 12, xii. 1, by making 
it refer simply to a part of the Roman Christians, who as yet have been 
addressed without distinction. Had Paul wished to direct to the Jewish 
members of the Church in contradistinction to the Gentiles the address 
which begins here, it would have been necessary for him to write ὑμῖν δὲ 
λέγω, τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου κατὰ σάρκα (cf. xi. 13, ix. 3), Or τοῖς ἐκ περιτομῆς ; 
or, if after he had written the ambiguous ἀδελφοί it occurred to him that 
the part of the Church which he was addressing needed to be more clearly 
distinguished, he could have added after ἀδελφοί, ὑμῖν γὰρ λέγω, τοῖς τὸν 
νόμον γινώσκουσιν. As the passage reads, Paul does not make a distinction 
between those of his readers who know the law and those who do not; 
but, as he appeals to their experiential knowledge concerning the length of 
time the law is valid, he simply reminds himself and all his readers that he 
is speaking in this letter to those who know the law. It is difficult to under- 
stand how Hofmann, iii. 261, in spite of his grammatically correet rendering 
of the words ἀδελφοὶ---λαλῶ, can still hold that Paul is addressing here only 
the Jewish portion of his readers, and that λαλῶ refers merely to what is 
said in vii. 1-6. This is logically impossible. Moreover, a less important 
but sufliciently valid objection is the fact that if Paul had intended thus to 
make the word refer to the statement that follows, it would have been 
necessary for him to write λέγω (I say) instead of λαλῶ (talk, speak), Rom. 
iii. 5, vi. 19, ix. 1, xi. 13, xii. 3; 1 Cor. vi. 5, vii. 6, 8, x. 15; 2 Cor. vi. 13, 
vii. 3, viii. 8, xi.21). Even where λέγω and λαλῶ occur together (Rom. iii. 19; 
1 Cor. ix. 8) the distinction is not lost. 

9. (P. 365.) A decision between the reading ὑμῖν δέ (NABP) and ὑμῖν yap 
(DGL) in xi. 13 is difficult, but it is not of much importance in determining 
the historical meaning of the passage, for evidently Paul is not thinking here 
of some characteristic of his readers suggested by what he is about to say (as 


376 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


if, eg. he had said ἔθνεσι γὰρ λαλῶ ; ef. vii. 1, n. 7). The appositive ron 
ἔθνεσιν may be translated in one of two ways: “You who are Gentiles in 
distinction from other people”; or “You who are the Gentile members of 
this circle.” Both renderings are possible grammatically (cf. the similar 
ambiguity in Luke xviii. 13). But the emphatic position of ὑμῖν at the 
beginning of the sentence shows clearly that Paul is here distinguishing a 
special class among the readers who hitherto have been addressed as one 
body (cf. Rev. ii. 24; Luke xi. 42-53). 

10. (P. 366.) Ifin xiv. 5 we read ὃς μὲν yap (R* ACP), it is even clearer than 
when ydp is omitted (BDG) that the contrast between observance and non- 
observance of certain days is intended only as an illustration. Moreover, 
according to the shorter and more correct reading in xiv. 6, only those who 
do observe days are mentioned and compared with those who eat meat and not 
those who make no distinction between days, which renders it evident that 
the illustration is intended to show the ascetic that the eating of meat to 
which he objects is just as much to be tolerated as the observance of certain 
days. From this it follows that the ascetics must have regarded the observ- 
ance of days as right beyond all question, and made it their own practice 
(cf. Skizzen, 177, 353, n. 13). From this we are not, however, to conclude 
with E. Riggenbach (ThStKr. 1893, S. 652 1.) that the question of the observ- 
ance of days was a subject of controversy between the weak and the strong 
parties in the Roman Church. Since the Mosaic law did not forbid to 
Israelites the use either of meat or of wine, these ascetics could not possibly 
have based their own practice and their demands upon their fellow-Christians 
on the doctrine that the law, particularly the Mosaic law, prohibiting the use 
of certain foods, was binding upon Christians. A connection with Essenism 
is the more unlikely, because the opinion which was first advanced by Jerome 
(adv. Jovin. ii. 14), that the Essenes abstained from the use of meat and wine, 
has very little to support it (ef. Lucius, Der Essenismus, 8.56; Schiirer, 11. 569 
[Eng. trans. 11. ii.200]). Philo’s statement (Quod omnis prob. lib. xii, Mangey, 11. 
457), that the Essenes do not sacrifice beasts, but purify their hearts, indicates 
nothing as to abstinence from the use of meat. But this statement is to be 
understood in the light of the more definite language of Josephus (Ant. 
xviii. 1. 5). Although in places the text of Josephus is not quite certain 
(Niese, ed. major on vol. iii. 143, 10), it is nevertheless clearly stated that in 
place of the sacrificial ritual in the Temple at Jerusalem from which they 
were excluded, the Essenes made the required sacrifices among themselves 
(ἐφ᾽ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσιν). Farther on we learn that they considered 
the preparation of the bread and other food to be a priestly function (iepeis de 
[χειροτονοῦσιν] ἐπὶ ποιήσει σίτου καὶ τών βρωμάτων), considered the house 
where they ate a temple, and looked upon their common meals as sacrificial 
feasts (Bell. ii. 8. 5). Had the food which was set before the members of 
the order by the cook (judyerpos—named along with the baker—Bell. ii. 8. 5) 
consisted solely of vegetables, it would have been necessary to state the fact 
explicitly, since the use of θυσίας ἐπιτελεῖν to denote the preparation of food 
most naturally suggests the slaughter of animals. It is also to be noted that 
according to Philo (Eus. Prep. viii. 11. 4, βοσκήματα ; ὃ 8, παντοδαπὰ θρέμματα) 
they engaged to a large extent in the raising of cattle in addition to agri- 
culture, Moreover, when it is said to their credit that they were always 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 377 


temperate at their meals, and that only enough food and drink to satisfy 
hunger and thirst was set before them, the drinking of wine is presupposed 
(Jos. Bell. ii. 8.5). Their abhorrence of all food not prepared by themselves 
(Bell. ii. 8. 8 and 10) plainly refers not to particular kinds of food which they 
were forbidden to use, but to the method of its preparation (slaughter), 
which, in their eyes, assumed the character of worship. This feeling of the 
Essenes may be compared to the Jews’ detestation of “Hellenic oil” (Jos. 
Vita, 13), although they made abundant use of “clean” oil. If only absti- 
nence from the use of meat were under discussion in Rom, xiv., one might 
conclude that reference was intended to the School of the Sextii in Rome, 
under whose influence Seneca became a vegetarian in his youth (/'pist. eviü. 
17-22). But since it is implied in xiv. 17, 21 that these ascetics abstained 
from wine also (cf. Col. ii. 16, ev πόσει), and since in xiv. 5 f. it is presupposed 
that they and possibly other Christians in Rome observed certain days on 
religious grounds, the probability is that the tendency in question had a 
Jewish source. Upon various occasions Jews were accustomed to abstain 
from meat and wine—that is to say, from whatever was physically stimulating 
or ministered merely to pleasure. Sometimes it took the place of a complete 
fast as a preparation for receiving revelations (4 Esdr. ix. 24-26, xii. 51) ; 
again, it was a way with the pious of expressing sorrow for some painful 
misfortune. According to Baba Bathra, 60b, after the destruction of the 
Temple (70 A.p.), the Pharisees resolved never again to taste of wine or meat, 
and only earnest effort prevented this custom from becoming general (cf. 
Delitzsch, Brief an d. Römer in d. Hebr. übersetzt u. aus Talmud u. Midrasch 
erläutert, 1870, S. 97). The Jewish Christians in Rome, like James in Jeru- 
salem (Eus. H. E. ii. 23. 5), may have practised such abstinence and urged 
it upon all Christians, either as a sign of sorrow for the unbelief of their 
people and for the approaching judgment upon Israel and Jerusalem (ef. 
1 Thess. ii. 16; Rom. ix. 3), or in view of the near approach of the Parousia 
(ef. Rom. xiii. 11-14; 1 Thess. v. 4-8; Matt. xxiv. 37, 49, ix. 15, xi. 18 f.). 
11. (P. 367.) Since διό, xv. 22, means “therefore,” not “thereby,” the 
hindrances in question could not have been formally stated in the preceding 
verses. Nor is the real cause which had kept Paul away to be sought in xv. 
20 f.; for the reason that, if it was a matter of honour with Paul to preach 
only where Christ had not yet been preached, the number of places where he 
found it necessary to tarry would have been fewer, and rapid progress from 
the East to the West instead of being hindered would have been furthered. 
Hence διό refers to what precedes the description of the method of his mis- 
sionary work (vv. 20, 21), namely, to the statements concerning its import- 
ance and wide compass (vv. 155-19). Assuming that the rather late 
reading ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, xv. 23, is spurious, and that γάρ, xv. 24, is 
genuine, it follows that ὡς ἂν---Σπανίαν is dependent upon the preceding 
participial clause, and the sentence beginning with νυνὶ dé, ver. 23, but 
deprived of its proper conclusion by ἐλπίζω γὰρ---ἐμπλησθῶ, is taken up 
again by νυνὶ δέ in ver. 25. If this was written at the beginning of 58 a.p., 
the ἀπὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν, xv. 23 (which the reading ἱκανῶν, BC, is possibly meant 
to weaken somewhat), would imply that Paul’s mind was turning towards 
Rome earlier than might be inferred from 2 Cor. x. 16 and Acts xix. 21— 
perhaps as early as his first stay in Corinth (end of 52 until Pentecost 54) 


378 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Communications from his landlord concerning the conditions in Rome (Acts 
xvili. 2) may have moved him to this. The main difficulty that prevented the 
fulfilment of his desire was the work in Ephesus, which occupied him for 
three years altogether. After having sought in vain to reach the western 
coast of the province of Asia, before he crossed into Europe (Acts xvi. 6), 
and perhaps even on his first missionary journey (above, p. 181), Paul would 
not have been inclined to leave the East, nor could he have set out from 
Corinth for Italy and Spain without first having accomplished the preaching 
of the gospel in the province of Asia. But how Paul could write xv. 23 
without having been in Alexandria must find its explanation in facts about 
which we can only make conjectures ; ef. Skizzen, 343, A. 32. 


§ 22. THE INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE 
ROMANS. 


There are facts in the tradition of the text which are 
or seem calculated to arouse suspicion as to whether some 
parts of the received text belonged originally to the letter 
(n. 1). These facts are as follows :—(1) In the West as 
* in the East, and indeed in the East even before Origen, 
texts were in existence, which, though differing among 
themselves, agreed in that in all of them ἐν ‘Poun was 
wanting ini. 7 (n. 2). There is no more probability that 
these words belong to the original text than that ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ 
belongs to Eph. i. 1. But because of the general convic- 
tion, which in this case also was not disputed by Marcion, 
that the letter was intended for the Christians of Rome, 
ἐν Ῥώμῃ was inserted, only much earlier than the ἐν 
᾿Εφέσῳ, in order that at once in the introductory greeting, 
as at the beginning of the other Church letters of Paul, 
this letter might have a clear designation of its recipients. 
This supposition would also not have any greater his- 
torical significance even were it proved by means of 
further documentary evidence to be beyond question. 
For in i. 15 the words τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ, which are lacking in 
only one of the witnesses for the reading of i. 7, here 
approved, are also for internal reasons indisputable. It 
is evident besides from i. 8-13 that Romans was addressed 
to a locally defined group of Christians, and from xv. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 376 


22-32 that the residence of the readers lay on the road 
from the East to Spain. Only the one who confounds 
the introductory greeting with the general address can 
fail to feel the lack of definiteness of locality in the 
greeting (see above, p. 77 f.). (2) According to the testi- 
mony of Origen, when this testimony is mghtly under- 
stood, Marcion not only threw out entirely the so-called 
doxology, xvi. 25-27, but also mutilated all that followed 
xiv. 23 in the text commonly used by the Church (n. 3). 
Now, even if the interpretation of Origen’s testimony 
were correct, which makes Marcion throw out entirely 
not only xvi. 25-27 but xv. 1—xvi. 24 as well, it would 
not necessarily follow that Marcion’s recension was 
based upon a copy of the text current in the Church 
which concluded with xiv. 23; for we know that Mar- 
cion threw out, either altogether or in large part, whole 
chapters from the text of the Epistles which he found 
current, partly because they did not seem to him 
adapted for the edification of the Church, and partly 
because they were contradictory to his own views. If, 
on the other hand, the interpretation of Origen be correct, 
it is proof that Marcion had a copy of Romans which 
contained sections beyond xiv. 23 at least similar to our 
text of chaps. xv.—xvi., and that these were so objectionable 
to him that he struck out considerable portions of them. 
(3) The attempt has been made to connect with the facts 
mentioned under (1) and (2) certain doubtful traces of 
the circulation of a Latin text which in chaps. xv.—xvi. 
is supposed to have contained only the doxology (n. 4). 
(4) Even as early as Origen’s time there existed among 
the exemplars used in the Church the difference, that in 
some of them xvi. 25-27 stood between xiv. 23 and xv. 1, 
and in others at the end of the letter (n. 3). From the 
fact that Origen interprets the doxology as the conclu- 
sion of the letter, we may infer that this location was 
the one preferred in the circle to which he belonged. 


380 0 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


When, however, he characterises this position ut nune 
est positum, he seems to imply that the older tradition 
was in favour of the position after xiv. 23. Since, how- 
ever, he considered it a matter of small importance, he 
merely expressed his opinion and refrained from all 
critical consideration of the question. The testimony of 
Origen does prove at least that the difference in the loca- 
tion of the doxology was not due in the first place to the 
systematic revision of the text (Lucian, Hesychius) which 
was made subsequent to Origen’s time, but that it goes 
back to the time of the unregulated growth of text-trans- 
mission, at-least back of the year 230. This fact renders 
our judgment regarding the original position of the 
doxology independent of the question as to the age of the 
existing sources for the text which have the deze in 
one or the other of these positions, and of the very diverse 
opinions regarding the value of these extant sources; for 
all of these are later than Origen. The question as to 
the original location of the doxology is essentially inde- 
pendent of the question whether it was written by Paul 
or added by someone else later. For whoever wrote it 
could not have left it doubtful where he intended it to 
be placed. Assuming that the doxology is an interpola- 
tion, there is a third possibility, namely, that the writer 
placed the doxology after xiv. 23, but that this was at 
the same time the conclusion of the letter, in addition 
to the other two, namely, that the doxology stood origin- 
ally either between xiv. 23 and xv. 1 or after xvi. 23 (24). 
This third possibility arises, however, only in case chaps. 
Xv.—xvi. are also questioned. 

The external evidence involved in the above problem 
is as follows :—I. Witnesses for the doxology between 
xiv. 23 and xv. 1: (1) Nonnulli codices known to 
Origen and regarded by him as witnesses of the original 
tradition, or at least of the tradition most prevalent in 
the earlier period; (2) the Antiochian recension of the 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 381 


text, represented by L and most Greek cursives, by the 
liturgical tradition of the Greek Church, by the commen- 
tators of the Antiochian school, Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
and their successors, by the later Syriac (55), and by the 
Gothie translation (n. 5). (3) That this position of the 
doxology was once widely current also in the West, is 
evidenced (a) by an old Latin capitula which divides 
Romans into fifty-one chapters: chap. 1. begins with xiv. 
15 and is followed immediately by chap. li, which began 
with xvi. 25-27, or consisted only of these verses (n. 4); 
(b) the copyist of the Greek and Latin bilingual G, who, 
without copying any part of the doxology itself, did, 
nevertheless, leave space enough for it after xiv. 23 (n. 6). 
To this is to be added still other evidence, that in the West 
also the position of the doxology at the end of the letter 
was not the only position (n. 5). (4) In favour of the 
location after xiv. 23, or partly favouring it, is the testi- 
mony of those MSS. which have the doxology twice (n. 7), 
after xiv. 23 and after xvi. 23 (24). 11. Witnesses for the 
doxology after xvi. 23 or xvi. 24: (1) the Alw codices 
of Origen, which represented the tradition preferred in his 
vicinity ; (2) the so-called best MSS. xBCD (regarding 
these see n. 6), also three or four cursives; (3) of the 
versions, the Coptic, Vulgate, and Peshito (n. 8); (4) of 
the commentators, Origen, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius (n. 4), 
Augustine (n. 4), Sedulius, and possibly also John of 
Damascus (n. 5). To this is to be added the partial 
testimony of MSS. which give the doxology twice (above, 
under I. 4). III. So far as we know, throughout the ~ 
entire ancient Church only in Marcion’s N.T. was the 
doxology wholly omitted, which fact is referred to in a 
notice by Jerome, the meaning of which is not clear (n. 9). 
The actual omission of the doxology in G [see under 1. 3 
(b) above], and other facts which some have attempted to 
interpret in this way, cannot be taken as evidence of the 
existence in the ancient Church of a text without the 


382 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


doxology. The single case where the doxology is omitted 
altogether, that of a Vulgate MS. of the ninth or tenth 
century, which has a mixed text, is to be explained as 
an isolated, but very natural result in the mixing οὗ 
Latin texts in which the position of the doxology varied 
(n. 6). 

This review shows only that the difference in the 
tradition, which existed before Origen’s time, was decided 
in and about Antioch and Constantinople in favour of the 
position of the doxology at the end of chap. xiv., by the rest 
of the Church in favour of the position at the end of 
chap. xvi. For us the question must be decided by the 
internal evidence, and this evidence is in favour of the 
opinion that originally the doxology stood after chap. xiv. 
For (1) while Paul not infrequently inferunds the course 
of a letter with a doxology ending with ἀμήν, he never 
concludes a letter in this manner, but always with a 
benediction ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου «ri. (n. 10). (2) If it is 
dificult to see how Paul could have written these weighty 
sentences, most intimately connected with the argument 
of the Epistle, after a long series of personal notices (xv. 
14-xvi. 23), which as it grows longer shows constantly 
less and less connection with the theme of the letter, still 
less is it possible to conceive how in thus gathering up 
the thread of the discourse, broken so long before, he 
should have been suddenly so deeply moved as to be 
unable to conclude properly the sentence which he began. 
In view of this anacoluthon, the evidence for which is 
conclusive, it is doubtful whether originally xvi, 25-27 
was a doxology at all (n. 11). (3) The subtle connection 
in thought between the doxology and the contents of both 
chap. xiv. and chap. xv. 1-13 makes it impossible to sup- 
pose that the doxology found its place so appropriately 
between xiv. 23 and xv. 1 by accident. Nor could it have 
been placed there by a reviser, who would look at the 
matter from a purely external point of view. However, 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 383 


the position after chap. xiv. must be due to the writer of 
the doxology, and this is true whether the writer is the 
same as that of the letter or is to be distinguished from 
the latter (n. 12). (4) That the doxology did not stand 
originally at the end of chap. xvi. follows also from the 
fact, that it is hardly possible naturally to explain the 
confusion in the tradition of the text otherwise than by 
assuming that this confusion is due either to a later 
insertion of the doxology in chap. xvi. or later addition 
to the same (n. 13). (5) Assuming that the doxology 
stood originally at the end of the letter, there is no natural 
way in which to explain its transference to the position 
following xiv. 23 (n. 14). If, on the other hand, the 
doxology stood originally after xiv. 23, it is easier to see 
how in certain localities it came to be transferred to the 
end of the letter. Since in Origen’s time this transference 
had been generally accepted in his neighbourhood (above, 
p. 399f.), it is probable that it was made in the second 
century, 7.6. at a time when as yet’ a general freedom 
which later disappeared was allowed in the handling of 
apostolic texts. Furthermore, the change was made prob- 
ably in Alexandria. Because, beginning with Origen, 
the oldest witnesses for the position of the doxology at 
the end of the letter may be traced directly or indirectly 
to Egypt. And Alexandria was the point from which a 
text modified by critical reflection could spread most 
easily both toward the East and the West (n. 15). The 
text under discussion is of this character. The doxology 
seemed to disturb the close connection between xiv. 1—23 
and xv. 1-13, and, after the analogy of Jude 24f.; Phil. 
iv. 20; 1 Pet. iv. 10£.; 2 Pet. iii. 18; Heb. xin. 20f, 
seemed to belong much more naturally at the end of the 
letter, for which reason it was transferred to this position. 
Or possibly criticism reached simply the negative conclu- 
sion that the doxology was not in its right place after 
xiv. 23, so that it was transferred to the end, in order 


384 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


that a portion of the text handed down by the tradition 
might not be altogether lost. ‘There are other instances 
where this has happened (n. 15 regarding John vii. 53- 
vill. 11); and the principle involved was openly avowed 
in the fourth century in connection with the discussion of 
critical questions (Eusebius, in Mai, Nova p. bibl. iv. 1. 
255; GLK, ii. 913). 

Presupposing the genuineness of the doxology, the 
attempt has been made to trace the uncertainty regarding 
its position back to the time when the letter was written, 
and to explain the uncertainty partly in a mechanical way 
as due to the manner in which the letter was written, 
partly as due to intention on Paul’s part. Neither sup- 
position has any plausibility (n. 16). More is to be said 
for the suspicion roused by the varying position of the 
doxology as to its genuineness, or even as to the genuine- 
ness of the section, xv. 1-xvi. 24, standing between the 
two locations of the doxology, about which there has been 
a question ever since before Origen’s time. For, on either 
supposition, it is easy enough to explain the varying 
position of the doxology. If xv. 1-xvi. 24 is a later 
addition, the position of the doxology after xiv. 23 is 
easily explained by supposing that the new section was 
added, while the position of the doxology at the end of 
the letter only requires the supposition that in order to 
retain the old conclusion the new section was simply 
inserted between xiv. 23 and the doxology (cf. what is 
said regarding xvi. 24 in n. 13). On the other hand, 
supposing that everything else is genuine and that the 
doxology alone is a later addition, it is only necessary to 
imagine that in some cases the work of the interpolator, 
who, it is assumed, certainly inserted the doxology be- 
tween xiv. 23 and xv. 1, was simply copied, while in 
other cases, where the doxology seemed out of place in 
this location, or where, after comparison with other MSS., 
its position seemed suspicious, it was omitted here and 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 385 


inserted ratlıer at the close of the letter, in order that no 
portion of the existing text might be lost. | 

Suspicion as to the genuineness of the doxology was 
proportionally increased according as the error was ac- 
cepted that in antiquity there were MSS. in the Church 
which did not have the doxology. Then, in addition, there 
were the objections, which were made to the contents of 
all that follows xiv. 23, so that up to the present time 
there are three opinions which have been maintained, 
supported in every case by inaccurate representation of 
the facts of the tradition: (1) that only the doxology is 
spurious (Reiche, Mangold); (2) that while xvi. 1-23 or 
parts of this section were written by Paul, it was intended 
for the Church in Ephesus (n. 20); (3) that all following 
xiv. 23 is a false enlargement of the original letter (Baur, 
n. 19). It is self-evident that the last hypothesis leaves 
unexplained the very ancient variations in the position 
of the doxology. It is equally plain also that the second 
view must be helped out by assuming peculiar accidents 
in connection with the preparation and transmission of 
Paul’s letters. If the preceding account of the tradition 
be correct, taken alone it furnishes positive support to no 
one of these negative views. Consequently, to secure 
acceptance, they must have all the stronger support from 
the internal evidence. 

Taking it for granted from what has been said above, 
that in the Bible used in the Church the doxology stood 
originally immediately after xiv. 23, the considerations 
which led to this conclusion are also for the most part 
strong arguments against the view that the doxology is 
spurious. The internal connections between the doxology 
and what precedes (xiv. 1-23) and follows (xv. 1-13), 
which have been already referred to (n. 12), show a 
subtleness of thought which one seeks for in vain in the 
whole body of ancient Christian literature proved to be 


the work of interpolators. The doxology re-echoes the 
VOL. I. 25 


386 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


main thought of the letter; but for all that it is not made 
up of words or phrases taken from the preceding part of 
the Epistle or from other letters of Paul and patched 
together again, as is the case in the ancient pseudo-Pauline 
Epistles to the Laodiceans and Corinthians. On the 
contrary, thoughts which had influenced the author from 
the beginning of the letter are summed up again in’a 
manner independent and yet in entire conformity to the 
context of chap. xiv. and chap. xv. (n. 17). Further- 
more, the harshness of the expression, the anacoluthon in 
the construction of the sentence (n. 11), and the fulness 
and intensity of the thought are strong proofs of the 
genuineness of the doxology, unless it be shown that these 
qualities are characteristic of the compilations made by 
interpolators in the ancient Christian Church. All clear 
cases go to show only the contrary. Finally, no reason- 
able motive for the forgery has yet been discovered. If 
the forger found the letter concluding abruptly with xiv. 
23, he would have met the necessity for a proper con- 
clusion to the letter by adding Paul’s usual benediction, 
e.g. a sentence like xvi. 24. At most he would have 
added only some blessings and greetings such as could be 
found at the close of almost any of Paul’s Epistles. On 
the other hand, if he found chap. xv. already a part of the 
letter, the same reasons which led at a very early date to 
the transference of the doxology from its position follow- 
ing xiv. 23, and which render it impossible to believe 
that it stood originally at the end of the letter, and was 
transferred later to the position after xiv. 23, would 
be conclusive arguments also against the supposition 
that the interpolator inserted it between chap. xiv. and 
chap. xv. 

Paul himself could not have concluded the letter either 
with xiv. 23 or xiv. 23+ xvi. 25-27. Nor would a simple 
benediction like xvi. 20 or xvi. 24, which might have 
been pushed out of its original place by the addition of 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 387 


xv. 1-xvi. 20 (or —xvi. 23), have sufficed. ἔοι, leaving 
out of consideration the fact that elsewhere Paul is 
accustomed to prepare the way for the conclusion of his 
letters at considerable length (n. 10), in this instance 
there were special reasons why something needed to be 
added to chap. xiv. It is clear not only from the dis- 
cussions of chap. xiv., but also from the entire letter, that 
Paul was quite thoroughly informed concerning the con- 
ditions and feeling of the Roman Church. He must have 
had friends there who gave him this detailed information. 
Is it likely, then, that he would conclude the letter without 
a parting greeting to these friends? Such unfriendliness 
would be all the more unnatural in this instance, because 
here he is approaching a Church the majority of whom 
were unknown to him and he to them. If, as any careful 
investigation will show, Paul’s purpose in this letter was 
to establish a more intimate relation between himself and 
this Church, which up to the time had remained a total 
stranger to him, had he brought the letter to a close 
without emphasising, at least at the end, the personal 
relations which he undoubtedly had with individual Chris- 
tians in Rome, and so making evident the connecting ties 
already existing between himself and the Roman Church, 
he would have been neglecting the most obvious means of 
accomplishing this end. 

The surprise expressed now for more than a hundred 
years, that Paul should have had such an exceptionally 
large number of greetings to express and convey to the 
Church in a place that he had not yet visited, shows lack 
of careful observation. Not a single salutation or other 
communication intended for individual members is to be 
found at the close of letters addressed to the Churches 
founded by Paul at Thessalonica, Corinth, Philippi, and 
in Galatia. Similarly, the greetings from individuals in 
1 Cor. xvi. 19f. and Phil. iv. 21f. are only those of 
persons of special importance to these Churches, and are, 


388 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


moreover, addressed to the whole Church in Corinth and 
Philippi (n. 18). On the other hand, in the letter to the 
Church at Colosse, which Paul had not organised, and 
which he had never visited (Col. ii. 1), he conveys the 
greetings of six individuals (iv. 10-14), who, with the 
exception of Epaphras, were quite as unknown to the 
Church personally as was Paul himself. More than this, 
he requests the conveyance of a special greeting to an 
individual member of the Colossian Church; also to a 
member of the neighbouring Church of Laodicea, which 
likewise he had never visited (Col. iv. 15, 17), although 
at the same time he had despatched to a prominent 
Christian household in Colosse a private letter dealing 
exclusively with personal matters. Nor does he fail in 
this letter to the Church, which as yet was a total stranger 
to him, to make special mention of Onesimus, about whom 
the private letter despatched at the same time was written, 
and to remark expressly that Colossze was Onesimus’ home 
(Col. iv. 9), a fact which the readers themselves knew 
without being informed. He makes exactly the same 
remark about Epaphras (iv. 12), who, being the founder of 
the Church (i. 7), was certainly well enough known to all. 
Who does not see that all these personal references are 
due to Paul’s desire to make the Church feel that it is not 
such a stranger to him as it seems, and at the same time 
are indicative of an effort on his part to bring himself into 
closer touch with the Church where as yet he was really a 
stranger? This is exactly the case in Romans. Further- 
more, in Rom. i. 10-15 he had spoken of the desire which 
he had felt for a long time of coming to Rome. But in 
making this statement he had not said when or under 
what circumstances he hoped to come, nor explained why 
now he sent this long letter to Rome before carrying | 
out the plan which he had had in mind for so long. 
Inasmuch as he deemed the matter of sufficient import- 
ance to the Romans and to himself to be mentioned at 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 389 


the very beginning of his letter, it is inconceivable that he 
should have brought the letter to a close without answer- 
ing questions which were suggested by his statements, 
and which must have been raised in the mind of every- 
one who read i. 8-15 with interest (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 18-21, 
xvi. 1-11). Im short, he must have concluded his letter 
with something at least closely resembling xv. 13-xvi. 24. 
If this passage is a later addition, it must have been 
slipped in in an underhand way in place of the original 
conclusion of the letter, the contents of which were similar 
to what is found here. And this substitution must have 
been made before Marcion’s time, since in his own recen- 
sion of the Epistle he adopted portions of Rom. xv.—xvi. 
from the text current in the Church (n. 3). Moreover, 
the substitution must have been made before any copies 
of the letter were put into circulation ; otherwise in the 
widely ramified tradition there could hardly fail to be 
some clear trace of a copy of Romans without chaps. xv.— 
xvi. The substitution must have been made in the 
archives of the Roman Church, or just as the letter was 
about to be issued, before any copies were made for 
general circulation. Those who believe that possible 
must make at least an effort to render it comprehensible 
and clear to others. They must also advance strong 
arguments to prove that chaps. xv.—xvi. were not originally 
a part of the letter. With regard to chap. xv., these 
arguments are such that the number convinced by them 
grows constantly fewer (n. 19). Similarly, the opinion 
that chap. xvi. like chap. xv. was intentionally added 
to Romans has scarcely any advocates left. More popular 
is the view that either wholly or in large part chap. 
xvi. was directed to Ephesus and became attached to 
Romans by accident (n. 20). This view was first suggested 
by the mention of Prisca (Priscilla) and Aquila and the 
Church in their house, and of Epzenetus, the first convert 
of Asia, whose name follows directly (xvi. 3-5, n. 21). 


390 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


At Easter 57, Aquila and his wife were still in Ephesus 
(1 Cor. xvi. 19). If Paul wrote Romans in Corinth at the 
time indicated by Acts xx. 3 (information which, pre- 
supposing that Rom. xv., xvi. are genuine, we get also 
from Rom. xv. 25—xvi. 2), some ten or eleven months had 
elapsed since that time. Now, this Jewish couple, who 
were natives of Pontus, who had lived for a time in Rome, 
and who, after they were driven from Rome in the year 
52, came to Corinth, had been closely associated with 
Paul ever since, and, as the circumstances of their removal 
to Ephesus show, had guided their movements altogether 
in accordance with his missionary plans (above, p. 262, 
265, n. 3). It is consequently not at all impossible that 
when Paul turned his attention toward Rome and pre- 
pared to give up his work in Ephesus, this couple left 
Kphesus, very soon after the sending of 1 Corinthians, at 
about the same time that Paul did, and returned to 
Rome, where they had resided earlier, in order to prepare 
quarters for the apostle there as they had done previously 
in Ephesus. That Epeenetus should accompany them 
thither is not strange, in view of the fact that he was the 
first convert of Asia, and so probably owed his conversion 
to the zeal of this couple, not becoming acquainted with 
Paul until afterward. Through these old friends and 
companions, whom he mentions first among the Christians 
in Rome to be greeted, he may have received news from 
Rome more than once before Romans was written. More- 
over, what he says in praise of them would sound very 
strange in a letter to the Ephesian Church. For three 
years the Church which gathered for worship in Ephesus 
had seen them share Paul’s labours, and had witnessed 
their self-sacrifice on his behalf. If Paul desired to remind 
the Ephesians of this service (cf. Phil. iv. 3; 1 Cor. xvi. 
15f.; 1 Thess. v. 12; cf, however, 2 Tim. i. 18), he must 
have called their attention to the services which they had 
rendered in Ephesus, instead of speaking, as he does, of 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 39) 


the gratitude felt toward them by all the Gentile Churches, 
Indeed, the use of this last expression to designate the 
Churches founded by Paul and his helpers and under his 
care, an expression not to be found in any of the letters 
directed to these Churches (cf., however, 1 Cor. iv. 17, 
vii. 17, xi. 16, xiv. 83; 2 Cor. vill. 18, xi 28, xiL013; 
2 Thess. i. 4; Phil. iv. 15), can be understood only if this 
letter is intended for a Church outside this circle (cf. § 23). 
All the Gentile Churches are indebted to this Jewish 
couple. Like xv. 26-28, the statement im: xvi. 4: is 
designed to make the Romans realise that in those parts of 
the Church which were under Paul’s dominating influence 
Gentile and Jewish Christians were united to feah other 
by ties of self-sacrificing love and by a pious sense of 
gratitude. That these remarks are not only in harmony 
with xv. 1-13, but have also close relation to the general 
purpose of Romans (§ 24), is self-evident. It is with the 
same purpose in mind that in three passages Paul calls 
particular attention to the fact that the persons to be 
greeted (xvi. 7, 11), or sending greetings (xvi. 21), are 
countrymen of his (n. 22, also ὃ 23, n. 1). Not only does 
the language suggest ix. 3, but the purpose of these short 
notices is the same as that expressed. with so much in- 
tensity in ix. 1-5, x. 1f, xi. If, xiv. He wants. the 
Romans to know that he is anything but an apostate Jew 
without sympathy for his own unfortunate countrymen. 
The deeper his grief for the obdurate and unfortunate 
majority, of his countrymen, the profounder his joy for 
every brother after the flesh who has become also a 
brother after the Spirit. The further remark that Andro- 
nicus and Junius were honoured among the apostles, 1.6. 
in the mother Church, and that they became Christians 
before he did himself (n. 23), is also one of the trivial 
means which Paul uses to accomplish the great apologetic 
purpose of the letter, and is in so far evidence that these 
greetings were an original part of Romans. Rome is alse 


392 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


suggested by Rom. xvi. 13. In this verse a certain Rufus 
and his mother are greeted, the latter of whom had at one 
time shown so much motherly kindness to Paul that he 
calls her his own mother. On the other hand, in a 
passage peculiar to Mark’s Gospel, Simon of Cyrene is 
called the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark xv. 21), 
which can hardly be explained otherwise than by the 
assumption that the sons of Simon were known to the 
first readers of Mark’s Gospel. Since, however, Mark’s 
Gospel was intended for Roman Christians, and since, 
according to the unanimous tradition, this Epistle was 
directed to Roman Christians, it cannot well be due to 
accident that in the former a Christian from Jerusalem 
named Rufus is mentioned as a person known to the 
readers, and that in the latter a Christian by the name of 
Rufus isgreeted. The close relation existing between Paul 
and the family, shows that this Rufus, with his mother, 
must have resided earlier in the East; ef. below, $ 53, 
especially also n. 5 of that section. Accepting these 
facts as conclusive evidence that the list of greetings was 
intended for persons in Rome, other names, which support 
this conclusion, deserve notice. The expressions τοὺς ἐκ 
τῶν ᾿Αριστοβούλου and τοὺς ἐκ τῶν Ναρκίσσου τοὺς ὄντας ἐν 
κυρίῳ do not refer to Christian households (1 Cor. 1. 16, 
ΧῸΝ 15521 Timm. Hi LE) ΧΘῈΣ ef Wy Cori 10) u 
the Christian members of two larger circles mostly non- 
Christian (x. 11, n. 24). In all probability Aristobulus 
and Narcissus were two prominent men, some of whose 
slaves or freedmen had beeome Christians. Nareissus, the 
once all-powerful freedman of the emperor Claudius, died 
in Rome at the end of the year 54. Also an Aristobulus, 
a favourite of the emperor Claudius and brother of Herod 
Agrippa L, lived in Rome for a time at least during 
Claudius’ reign. Since the slaves of such distinguished 
households not infrequently retained the family name, 
even when they passed into the possession ofother masters 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 393 


after the death of their own, probably we have to do here 
with the former slaves of this Aristobulus and Nareissus. 
This is rendered even more probable by the mention of 
the Jew Herodion (ver. 11), whose name indicates that he 
belonged to the household of the Herodian prince just 
mentioned. The fact that he is mentioned co-ordinately 
with the group of the Aristobuliani does not prevent him 
belonging to the same, any more than the mention of 
Epzenetus in ver. 5 prevents him from belonging to the 
Church in the house of Aquila. It has been shown 
further by Lightfoot from numerous inscriptions, that 
many of the names which occur in this chapter were more 
or less commonly used in the royal household in the 
first century, e.g. Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, 
Tryphana, Tryphosa, Plilologus, Nereus (n. 24). Al- 
though as yet no one of these persons has been certainly 
identified, nevertheless the information gathered by 
Lightfoot, taken together with the fact that the Christian 
faith made its way at an early date into the royal house- 
hold in Rome, winning converts among the royal servants 
(Phil. iv. 22), does go far to confirm the belief that these 
greetings were intended for persons in Rome. At the 
same time the tradition of the Church, even where it has 
local colouring, is always under the suspicion of being 
dependent upon what is said in the N.T., and the material 
which up to the present time has been gathered from 
inscriptions and legends with a view to clearing up the 
question of the names in Rom. xvi. needs to be further 
tested and further confirmed before it can be utilised as 
proof in a text-book. Without recourse to this material, 
however, it may be regarded as proved that Rom. xvi. 
1-16 was intended for persons in Rome, and that it was, 
therefore, an original part of the letter. To the unity of 
the Epistle, which in tradition has come down to us as a 
single letter, other objections have been made, without 
reference to the facts of the tradition concerning the text, 


394 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


and based on exegetical discussions and internal criticism 
of the thought connection. These can be refuted only by 
a full and complete exposition of Romans, which at the 
proper time the present writer hopes to be able to pub- 
lish (n. 25). 

1. (P. 378.) Regarding Rom. i. 7, W. B. Smith, JBL, 1901, pp. 1-21, and 
Harnack, Z/NTW, 1902, S. 83 ff., have written, following the present writer. 
From the literature on Rom. xv. 16, and the doxology in particular, the 
present writer calls special attention to SEMLER, Paraphrasis Ep. ad Rom. 
1769, pp. 277-311; GRIESBACH, Opusc. Acad. ii. 62-66 ; REICHE, Comm. Crit. 
in Epist. Pauli, i. 88-120; Baur, Paulus,? i. 393-409; LiGHTFooT in the 
Journal of Philology, ii. (1869) p. 264f. ; iii. (1871) p. 193 f., which articles, 
together with Hort’s reply in the same journal, iii. 51f., will hereafter be 
cited as reprinted in Lightfoot’s Bibl. Essays (1893), pp. 284-374 ; MANGOLD, 
Der Rom. und. seine geschichtl. Voraussetzungen, 1884, 8. 44-166 ; LucHt, Uber 
die beiden letzten Kapitel des Rom. 1871; E. RıiGGEnBacH, NJbfDTh. 1892, 5. 
498-605 ; 1894, S. 350-363, the latter treatise being cited here as Riggenb. ii. ; 
W. B. Smith, JBL, 1901, p. 129 ff. ; Spitta, Zur Gesch. u. Lit. des Urchristent. 
1Ππ| 10926 ii: 

2. (P. 378.) Rom.i. 7 reads(1) in Gg πᾶσιν rots οὖσιν ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ κλητοῖς 
ἁγίοις. χάρις κτλ. Many clues show that this text was in early times widely 
current. For (2) just the same text lay before Ambrosiaster (the Roman 
commentator, circa 370, ed. Ben. ii. App. p. 28). According to most MSS., the 
text preceding his comment is the ordinary reading of the Vulgate (“omnibus 
qui sunt Romer, dilectis dei, vocatis sanctis”) ; but a “Cod. Mich.” has, on the 
contrary, Rome in caritate dei (plainly without dilectis dei). This Vulgate text 
(with Rome and dilectis dei) was not that of Ambrosiaster, and even in Cod. 
Mich. Rome is an interpolation, as is shown by the exposition : “Quamvis 
Romanis scribat, illis tamen scribere se significat, qui in earitate dei sunt.” 
Farther on vocatis sanctis is utilised, but not dilectis dei. Hort, in opposition to 
Lightfoot in the latter’s Biblical Essays, p. 345, cf. 288, 365, has sought vainly 
to'weaken this argument. Ambr. does not set over against all the Christians 
in Rome those who are in the love of God, but he considers it noteworthy 
that Paul, when writing to the Romans, designates his readers not as Romans, 
but as persons in the love of God. (3) The Greek text of D begins with 
«Anrois ἁγίοις, but is to be restored to τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ 
κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, following the Latin text (ἃ : “omnibus qui sunt Rome in cari- 
tate dei, vocatis sanctis”). In d a corrector of the eleventh century (d***) 
pointed, by means of a critical sign before in, to a correction on the margin, 
which is now torn off (Cod. Clarom. ed. Tischendorf, pp. xxv, 537). The cor- 
rector wished either to strike out in caritate dei, or in place of it to read 
dilectis dei, The former is the more probable, if one compares the text of E 
(the former S. Germanensis, now in St. Petersburg), which, according to 
a transcript furnished the present writer by C. R. Gregory, reads τοῖς 
οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ KAnrois ἁγίοις. As is well known, E is a copy of D, a copy, 
however, of D made after that MS. had gone through the hands of its cor- 
rectors (Tischendorf, op. cit. xxv ; Gregory, Prolegomena, 423). Therefore ἐν 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 395 


ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ after ev Ῥώμῃ, which was original in the lost text of D, has been 
removed by a corrector, and likewise from d. (4) The diffusion in the West 
of the uncorreeted text of Dd is attested by old MSS. of the Vulg. like 
Fuld. Amiat. (“omnibus qui sunt Rome in caritate [Amiat. dilectione] dei 
vocatis sanctis”). (5) Origen has the ordinary text, to be sure, in his Comm. 
in Jo. tom. xix. 5 (ed. Preuschen, p. 304, the citation tom. ii. 10, p. 64, is not 
in point), and in the Hom. in Num. (Delarue, ii. 301), preserved in Latin only. 
But in such matters dependence can be placed neither on the versions nor 
on such long quotations as that in John (tom. xix. 5), which Origen hardly 
could have copied single-handed from the Bible. The Comm. in Rom., which 
belongs to the last period of his life, gives us only his text of Rom. i. 1-7. 
According to the text preceding his exposition, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις was wanting, 
a lack which the exposition confirms (Delarue, iv. 467). Moreover, also, 
Origen could not have read the ἐν Ῥώμῃ which the text printed above 
contains. Although Origen doubted as little as Ambrosiaster that the letter 
was addressed to the Romans (iv. 468, 487, etc., cf. below in § 28 his view of 
Eph.), he says nothing at all of Rome in his exposition of the introductory 
greeting, but writes: “dilectis dei, ad quos scribit apostolus.” So his text 
ran πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσιν ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, χάρις κτλ. (6) A scholion of the minuscule 
47 reads, τὸ “ἐν Ῥώμῃ" οὔτε ἐν τῇ ἐξηγήσει οὔτε ev τῷ ῥητῷ (in the text) 
μνημονεύει (Griesbach, Symb. Crit. ii. 15). In the first edition the present 
writer could refer this to Origen only conjecturally. Recently this conjecture 
has been established by the Mt. Athos MS. mentioned below in ἢ. 3. This 
MS., it is true, in spite of the assurance that its text of Rom. is drawn from 
Origen’s Commentary (v. ἃ. Goltz, S. 8), has ev “Ῥώμῃ in the text ; yet right 
here is the same scholion as in min. 47, except that rod replaces ro at the 
beginning (op. cit. 52 f., cf. ThLb. 1899, col. 179f.). There existed then in 
ancient times a Western (Nos. 1, 2) and an Eastern (Nos. 5, 6) text, which 
agreed in leaving out ev Ῥώμῃ. But they differ from one another in this, 
(a) that Nos. 1, 2 retained κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, while Nos. 5 (and 6?) rejected it; 
(b) that Nos. 1, 2 have ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ, No. 6 having ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ in its 
place. The texts classed under Nos. 3, 4, as well as that of Ambrosiaster’s 
Cod. Mich. (under No. 2) and of the translator Rufinus, or his editor (under 
No. 5), evidently present mixtures of the old text (without ev Ῥώμῃ) with 
the common text. There is no satisfactory explanation of a subsequent 
substitution of ἐν ἀγάπῃ for an original ev Ῥώμῃ. It was a firm belief of the 
early Church (Can. Mur. lines 47-59 ; Tert. c. Marc. v.17; Apolonius in Eus, 
H. E.v. 18.5; Ambrosiaster on Col. iv. 16, cf. GK, ii. 74 f.) that the letters 
of Paul were intended for the whole Church, in spite of their being addressed 
to definite localities ; but this belief has not produced the omission of the 
name of the place from the introductory greeting in any of the other letters. 
On the other hand, we have in Eph. i. 1 an example of how in antiquity the 
name of a place, originally lacking, has subsequently been inserted, and indeed 
on the basis of the still much older tradition that that letter was intended 
for the Church of Ephesus (see below, § 28). The same cause occasioned 
the insertion of an ἐν Ῥώμῃ in Rom. i. 7; for although Marcion disputed 
that Ephesians was intended for Ephesus, neither he nor anyone else has 
doubted that Romans was intended for Rome. Since, also, those who found 
no ἐν Ῥώμῃ in 1. 7, as Origen and Ambrosiaster, were convinced of this, it is 


396 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


easy to understand that others wished to see this expressed in the intro- 
ductory greeting after the analogy of all other Church letters, finally also of 
Ephesians. To this especially led also the expression ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ κλητοῖς, 
unusual in the N.T. After the analogy of καλεῖν (κληθείς) with ἐν εἰρήνῃ, Ev 
χάριτι, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, ἐν ἐλπίδι, ev κυρίῳ (1 Cor. vii, 15, 22 ; Gal. i. 6; Eph. iv.4; 
1 Thess. iv. 7), the originator of the text under consideration doubtless desired 
to join ev ἀγάπῃ with κλητοῖς, and understand it as follows, “all, who in (or 
by) God’s love are called to be saints” (cf. Rom. viii. 28). But how natural 
was the connection of τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ with the inopportune recollec- 
tion of τῇ οὔσῃ ev Κορίνθῳ, 1 Cor. 1. 2, and τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις, Phil. 1. 1. 
At first ἐν ρώμῃ may have been written alongside of ἐν ἀγάπῃ as a marginal 
gloss, then have been inserted in the text before ev ἀγάπῃ (so D originally 
and Amiat., Fuld.), and finally have fully displaced the ἐν ἀγάπῃ (so. the 
corrector of Dd and E). This appears to have been the history of the de- 
velopment of the text in the West. Also in the Greek Orient ἐν ἀγάπῃ 
θεοῦ, appearing in such an unusual connection, was the stumbling-block. | It 
was changed into ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, and κλητοῖς ἁγίοις was omitted, which ap- 
peared unnecessary alongside of κλητοὶ 'I. Xp. of ver. 6. Only Gg and Am- 
brosiaster have preserved the original text entirely unchanged (see Νο. 1). 
The question concerning τοῖς ἐν Ρώμῃ; i. 15, is entirely different from that 
concerning ev Ῥώμῃ, i. 7. Cod. Οὐ, which omits these words also, stands 
entirely isolated in this respect. The witnesses, which partly or fully con- 
firmed his text of i. 7, also Orig. and Ambrosiaster in their expositions, 
failed him in i. i5. Therefore, whoever questions the genuineness of τοῖς 
ev Ῥώμῃ (i. 15) must hold that these words were interpolated very much 
earlier than ἐν Ῥώμῃ, i. 7. It is, however, out of the question that a place of 
destination for the letter should have been missed earlier in i. 15 than in i. 7, 
and that an interpolation resulting therefrom should have spread more rapidly 
and universally than the ἐν Ῥώμῃ, i. 7. In none of the passages where πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς, δι’ ὑμῶν, Or ἐν ὑμῖν gives, an undoubted designation of the residence of 
the group of readers intended, so that Rome or Corinth could be substituted 
(Rom. xy. 22f., 28 f.; 1 Cor. xv, 5-7; 2 Cor. 1. 15f.,x..14£.), is such an in+ 
terpolation to be found. ‚On the other hand, the subsequent insertion of ἐν 
Ῥώμῃ, i. 7 has its exactly corresponding analogy in Eph. i. 1, and in the 
places of destination of the remaining introductory greetings of Pauline 
Church letters its fully satisfactory explanation. 

3. (P. 379.) Orig. Comm. in Rom. Interpr. Rufino ad xvi, 24-27 (Delarue, 
iv. 687) : “Caput hoe Mareion, a quo scripture evangelice atque apostolicae 
interpolate sunt, de hac epistula penitus abstulit ; et non solum hoe, sed 
et, ab (al. in) eo loco, ubi seriptum est, ‘omne autem, quod non est ex fide, 
peccatum est’ (xiv. 23), usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit. In aliis vero 
exemplaribus, id est in his, que non sunt a Marcione temerata, hoe ipsum 
caput diverse positum invenimus. In nonnullis etenim codicibus post eum 
locum, quem supra diximus, hoc est, ‘omne autem, quod non est ex fide, 
peccatum est,’ statim coherens habetur, ‘ei autem, qui potens est vos con- 
firmare,’ Alii vero codices in fine id, ut nune est positum, continent. Sed 
jam veniamus ad capituli hujus (al. ipsius) explorationem.” A MS. of the 
tenth century (Cod. 184, B 64 of the St. Laura monastery on Mt. Athos), 
brought into prominent notice by E. v. d. Goltz (TU, N. F. ii. 4a, 1899), 


δ 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 397 


which gives a text of Rom. drawn directly from Origen’s commentary, con- 
firms the view that this Father read and exegeted the doxology at the end 
of the Epistle. Unfortunately, however, two scholia drawn from Or. upon 
xiv. 23 and xvi. 25 are quite erased except for the abbreviated name of Or. 
(Goltz, S. 60). Hort (in Lightfoot, Bibl. Ess. 330; NT, App. 112) preferred 
the reading of a Parisian cod. adduced by Delarue, in eo loco, which, according 
to Riggenb. ii. 359, is found also in Cod. 88 of the library of the monastery 
of St. Gall; and by the conjecture non solum lic (instead of hoc) he sought 
to bring out the meaning that Marcion elided the doxology not only after 
xiv. 23, but also after xvi. 23 (24). Among the arguments against this con- 
jecture and the opinion built upon it (cf. GK, ii. 519, also Lightfoot, 353), 
the following ought to suffice :—Even supposing Or. had known MSS. which 
had the doxology twice, after chap. xiv. as well as after chap. xvi. (so Hort, 
341), a thing unattested and most improbable, and even if Or. had tacitly 
assumed that Marcion had found the doxology in both places, a thing still 
more incredible, one cannot believe that a man of Origen’s learning would 
take this remarkable way of expressing the simple thought that Marcion did 
away with the doxology altogether. Without changing hoc into Mc (here), we 
can see that the clause beginning with sed et treats not of the doxology again, 
but of chaps. xv., xvi., and that after this remark Or. returns again to the 
doxology (“hoc ipsum caput, capitulum hoc”). The reading of in (instead of 
ab) eo loco makes no essential change in the sense, since whatever Marcion is 
here represented as doing to the rest, usque ad finem indicates the extent of 
his emendation, If Or. wrote ev ἐκείνῳ τῷ τόπῳ, he was pointing out 
primarily the passage where Marcion began to use his knife, and not till later 
did he specify how far the devastation which he wrought extended. Just as 
caput hoc and (ab eo loco) usque ad finem ewncta form a contrast, so also do the 
new predicates penitus abstulit, and dissecwit. The doxology he had wholly 
discarded ; on the other hand, all that the MSS. of the Church give from xiv. 
23 on to the end of the Epistle he had cut to pieces and mutilated by omis- 
sions (cf. Reiche, Comm. Crit. 1. 90, A. 7; Fr. Nitasch, ThStKr. 1860, 5. 285 ff., 
and the present writer’s GK, ii. 519f.). An attempt has often been made 
to take dissecwit in the sense of deseewit (amputavit), this, too, in the writings 
of a cultured Latin like Rufinus ; moreover, the St. Gall MS. gives as its 
reading the otherwise unsupported desecwit (Riggenbach, ii. 359); but such 
a meaning is incompatible with the structure of the sentence. “Et non solum 
hoc, sed et” presupposes in the original that elliptical οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀλλὰ kal, 
to which a Latin translator (Rom. ix. 10, Vulg.), or a Latinising scribe (Cod. 
D, Rom. v. 3), very naturally would add a demonstrative : “not only did he 
do this which was just mentioned, but he also committed something other 
and different which is now to be mentioned.” Further than this, Tertullian’s 
words (c. Mare. v. 14 at the end, “bene autem quod et in clausula tribunal 
Christi comminatur,” cf. Rom. xiv. 10) cannot prove in opposition to Or. that 
Marcion closed his Rom. with xiv. 23, as the present writer thinks he has 
shown from Tertullian’s use of words (@K, ii. 521) more exactly than Hort 
(Bibl. Ess. 335). If it is unthinkable that Paul should have ended his letter 
at xiv. 23 without anything like a greeting, it is no less so that Marcion 
should have simply cut away all such material as he found there. He retained 
the personal references in Col. iv. quite fully, and accepted without change 


398 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Philem.—a letter which consists almost entirely of such references, GK, ii 
527, 529. On the contrary, he expunged all of Rom. iv. and 2 Cor. vii. 2-xi. 
1, and all but a few sentences of Rom. ix. 1-xi. 32. But Rom. xv., xvi., in- 
cluding the doxology, also called for a free use of his knife. The appeal to 
the prophetic Scriptures, xvi. 26, xv. 2f., 9-12; the recognition of Israels 
prior rights, xv. 8; and the debt of the Gentile Church to Jewish Chris- 
tianity, xv. 27, xvi. 4, cf. also xvi. 7, were unbearable to him; while the 
names xvi. 5-15—meaningless to Churches of a later time—must have seemed 
to him superfluous. What le retained we have no means of finding out ; but 
there is nothing against the supposition that he worked up xv. 1-3a, 5-7, 
14-24, 29-31a, 32, 33, and something from chap. xvi., into a tolerable whole. 
The present writer does not understand how Spitta, 8. 18f., without any 
attempt to refute the demonstration given above, can confidently repeat the 
old mistake that Marcion did not at all have the doxology any more than 
he had chaps. xv. and xvi. in his N.T. ; and then again, also on the basis of 
this statement, can venture the conjecture that he had found a text of the 
Church limited to chaps. i.-xiv. That this is due to an accidental mutila- 
tion of a copy is, to be sure, very “simply” explained by the insufficient 
analogy of the ending of Mark. 

4. (Pp. 379, 381.) In very many Vulgate MSS. there is a list of chapters 
(so-called Brevis, also Capitula) belonging to Rom. which Wetstein, NT, ii. 91, 
was the first todeem worthy of notice, a notice, however, which was not exactly 
clear. Later, however, it was made use of for the critical question by Light- 
foot, Bibl. Ess. 289, 355-362 ; Hort, ibid. 337, 351; also NT., Appendix, p. 
111; Corssen, Epist. Paulin. codd. greece et latine script. Spec. i. (1887) p. 21; 
Riggenbach, 531-558, ii. 350-363. It is found, eg. in the Amiatinus, ed. 
Tischendorf, 240 ; in six Roman MSS. cited by J. M. Thomasius (Opp., ed. 
Vezzosi), i. 388; in many English MSS. cited by Lightfoot, 357 ; and in 
others cited by Riggenbach, 532. This Capitulatio Amiatina, as, for the sake 
of brevity, it must be called here, is in the oldest dated Vulg. MS. (Fuldensis, 
ed. Ranke, 176-179) so combined with another that its chaps. 24-51 (be- 
ginning with Rom. ix. 1) are added directly to chaps. 1-23 of the other 
(which embrace Rom. i—xiv.). This naturally may be explained by saying 
that there was wanting in the exemplar of Fuld. a leaf which contained 
chaps. 1-23 of this Capit. Amiat., and that for this reason the copyist of 
Fuld. was induced to fill up the gap from another MS. with an altogether 
different Capit., taking chaps. 1-23 from this without noticing that in this 
mechanically combined Capit. Rom. ix.-xiv. occurred twice ; ef. Riggenbach, 
ii, 355. This is proved by the fact that Fuld. has the Capit. Amiat. through- 
out for the other Epistles, that in the very part of Rom. for which the 
other Capit. was used the chapter numerals of the Capit. Amiat. are in- 
serted in the text, and that in a list of Chureh leetions, p. 165, it follows 
not its own combined Capit., but the unmixed Capit. Amiat. This was 
present then in the exemplar of Fuld. originally, just as in the numerous 
MSS. mentioned. It lies also at the basis of an old concordance (Concordia, 
also Capitulatio, Uanones, Concordia canonum), consisting of a hundred and 
one titles not numbered ; one which Vezzosi (Thom. Opp. i. 489) edited from 
a Murbach MS. and which is extant in many Vulg. MSS. in a mutilated 
form only, that is to say, without the first forty-three titles (Amiat. p. 237; 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 399 


Fuld. p. 173; in three MSS. in Thomasins, i. 384, and in many others; cf. 
Berger, Hist. de la Vulg. p. 209,n. 2. The first words “de unitate ecclesiz” 
=title 44 of the Murbach Concordance (Thomasius, i. 492). The high antiquity 
of the Capit. Amiat., which appears from the facts already adduced, is estab- 
lished by the Biblical text presupposed in it; this is not the Vulg., but a 
text earlier than Jerome’s time; cf. Lightfoot, 362; Riggenbach, 531-541. 
But the Capit. Amiat., which the present writer quotes according to Amiat. 
and Fuld.,ignoring slight orthographic variations, consists of fifty-one chapters, 
Chap. xlvi., according to the wording of the title and the specification in the 
text, includes Rom. xiii. 145 (“et carnis curam ne feceritis”) -xiv. 6; chap. xlvii., 
only Rom. xiv. 7-8; chap. xlviii., Rom. xiv. 9-13; chap. xlix., only Rom. xiy. 14; 
chap. 1. has the title, “De periculo contristante fratrem suum esca sua, et 
quod non sit regnum dei esca et potus, sed justitia et pax et gaudium in 
spiritu sancto”; chap. li., “De mysterio domini ante passionem in silentio 
habito, post passionem vero ipsius revelato.” Cf. the like sequence in the Con- 
cordance quoted in Thomasius, i. 392. From this we cannot decide definitely 
whether chap. 1. included Rom. xiv. 15-23 or only xiv. 15-20; and whether 
chap. li. included simply the doxology, to which title 51 without doubt 
refers, or also something before and after. The chapter numerals in the text 
embarass us here, for it is not until Rom. xv. 4 that we find the numeral 51, 
and the doxology, to which alone reference is made in title 51, stands in the 
text of this Vulg. MS. not here, but at the close of the Epistle, and without 
chapter numeral. The only thing certain is that the Capit. Amiat. was pre- 
pared for an old Latin text of the Bible, in which xvi. 25-27 followed chap. 
xiv. immediately, and that whoever transferred it to Vulg. MSS. left the 
Capit. unchanged while allowing it to exert no influence upon his Biblical 
text. Since in this text the section to which title 51 refers was not to be 
found near at hand, the numeral 51 was put at xv. 4, apparently with the 
idea that xv. 4-13 contained something measurably corresponding to this 
title. In the lectionary of Fudd. p. 165, it is taken for granted that Rom. 
xv. 8 is contained in chap. li. Further, though the limits of the sections 
cannot be determined always with certainty from the wording of their titles, 
we cannot believe that the Capit. Amiat., which cut up Rom. xiv. into five 
chapters, 1 Cor. xvi. into seven, and 2 Tim. iy. into no less than eight, should 
have included Rom. xv., xvi. under the one title 51, which refers only to 
Rom. xvi. 25-27. It was consequently natural to conjecture that the Capit. 
Amiat. was intended for a Bible in which Rom. closed with chap. xiv + 
xvi. 25-27, so that of chaps. xv., xvi. only the doxology was included. 
Nevertheless it is exceedingly precarious to infer from what remains of the 
Capit. Amiat. that a Latin Rom., which contained only i. 1-xiv. 23+xvi. 
25-27, existed and was more or less current. For (1) the significant diffusion 
of this Capit. Amiat. does not prove that it included only these fifty-one titles 
from the start. Even if the lists adduced by Lightfoot from English MSS., 
which are identical in the main with the Capit. Amiat., but include also chaps. 
xv., xvi., should prove to be nothing but later supplements, neither does this 
prove that the Capit. Amiat. is more than a fragment. 'The Concordance 
mentioned above is likewise only half preserved in the oldest and best MSS. 
(Fuld Amiat. and three MSS. in Thomasius), and thus far is fully known 
from just a single MS. Before Heb. in Fuld. is a Capit. consisting of 


400 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


twelve headings, the last heading of which begins with Heb. ix. 11 (see the 
italic numerals in Ranke, 322. 12), so that Heb. x.-xiüi., and perhaps also a 
part of Heb. ix., remain unnoticed. This is also the case with Cod. Regina 
Suecie (Thomasius, i. 428), from which the numerals xi., xii., which have 
fallen out of Fuld. p. 312. 26, 28, must be supplied. The fact that the text 
ci Heb. in Fuld. is, besides, divided completely into one hundred and 
twenty-five chapters, and by a later hand again, as also in the Amiat., into 
thirty-nine chapters (Ranke, 492), makes the defect in the Capit., which 
prefaces the Epistle, and in the numerals in the text corresponding to it, all 
the more striking. So this Capit. also lay before the scribes of the oldest 
Vulg. MSS. in a mutilated form, and even yet is known in that form only. 
(2) Among the countless Latin Bibles, about the contents of which more or 
less is known, not one has been found so far which contains a Rom. consisting 
simply of i. 1-xiv. 23+xvi. 25-27. Since the same is true of the Greek MSS. 
and of all the versions, and since even Marcion accepted fragments of Rom. 
Xv., xvi. (above, p. 396f., n. 2), we have not a single sure trace of this shorter 
form of the Epistle. Some have thought that such a trace was found in the 
circumstance that Irenzeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian quote nothing from Rom. 
xv., xvi. How much this argumentum e silentio is worth can be seen in the 
case of Irensus, who quotes nothing from the following chapters of Paul’s 
letters :—1 Cor. xvi. ; 2 Cor. i., vi., viii—xi. (only a doubtful reference to 
ix., x. in iv. 25. 3); Col. iv. ; 1 Thess. :ii-iv.; 2 Thess. iii.; 1 Tim iii.—v. ; 
2 Tim. iii. ; Tit. iii. If this incompleteness in his quotations cannot prove 
that these twenty chapters and Philem. besides were wanting in the N.T. of 
Irenzus, neither is his silence about Rom. xv., xvi. of any weight. As for 
Tertullian, there should be an end of making that in clausula, which refers 
to Rom. xiv. 10, c. Marcion, v. 14 (above, p. 397), apply to this argument ; 
for even if this should mean “at the end of Rom.” it would be- unimportant 
in determining Tertullian’s N.T., for everywhere in his ὁ. Marcion he 
argues on the basis of Marcion’s N.T., not his own, with only here and there 
a side glance at the Church Bible; cf. GK, 1. 601-606, ii. 453. Besides, 
Tertullian, de Fuga, 12 (“Quando Onesiphorus aut Aquila aut Stephanus 
hoc modo” by bribing the persecutors “eis” the apostles “in persecutione 
succurrerunt?”), has in mind plainly Rom. xvi. 4, the only passage from 
which we can gather that Aquila too, like Onesiphorus (2 Tim. i. 16-18) and 
Stephen (Acts vi.-vii.), had exposed himself to mortal danger. Other hints 
are less conclusive; ef. Rönsch, Das NT Tertullians, 350 ; Mangold, 36 ff. ; 
it is doubtful whether Cyprian, Epist. Ixv. 3 (“conprobantes, nec ante se 
religioni, sed ventri potius et questui profana religione servisse”), had Rom. 
xvi. 18 in his thought. Of other Latins who cite passages from Rom. xv., 
xvi., the present writer adduces pseudo-Cypr. de Singul. Cleric. pp. 181. 19, 
212. 23 (chaps. xv. 2, xvi. 17); Hilary (Trin. iv. 8, Bened. p. 830), only the 
doxology ; Ambrose (Pref. in Ps. xxxvii., ed. Ben. i, 819) and Vietorinus (ec. 
Arium, iv. 17, Migne, 8, col. 1112) only Rom. xvi. 20; Priscillian, ed. Schepss, 
92. 14 (chap. xv. 4); cf. the same author’s Canons and Sections, pp. 128, 129, 
131, 135, 136, 140, 141, 170 ; August. Haposit. Preposit. Ex Epist. ad Rom., ed, 
Bass. iv. 1222 (without touching on the doxology); ὁ. Mawimin. Her. ii. 18, 
tom. x. 844, 845 (“in fine epistols sie loquitur”), then follows the doxology : 
Specul., ed. Weihrich, pp. 204. 8-208, 21 (chaps. xii. 1-xv. 7 continuous, 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 401 


without doxology; then xv. 26, 27; further, xv. 30; finally, xvi. 17-19); 
Jerome often. Of the commentators, Pelagius (see the recast form of his 
commentary under the name of Jerome, Vall. xi. 3. 210, 216 f., and Zimmer, 
Pelagius, S. 310, 312) seems to have discussed the doxology, not after xiv. 23, 
but at the close of the letter, however, with xvi, 24 after xvi. 27, as his re- 
mark upon xvi. 24 (“hee est subscriptio manus ejus in omnibus epistolis,” 
etc.) shows, and is confirmed by the Würzburg excerpt in Zimmer, S. 64. 
Ambrosiaster also is important; for though elsewhere he notes differences 
between texts (GK, i. 34), he expounds Rom. xv., xvi., placing the doxology 
at the end, without any critical comment. Origen, too, who was once in 
Rome, knew only of the uncertain position of the doxology (see above, p. 
396 f., n. 3). Of old quotations or allusions, aside from Jude 24 (see below, 
§ 44, n. 13), the present writer instances the following: Ign. Eph. (address) 
(εὐχλογημένῃ . . . πληρώματι) appears to be founded upon Rom. xv. 29, cf. 
Trall. address ; ἐκκλίνειν, often applied in later times to heretics, was used 
by him also (Eph. vii. 1, in connection with the writer’s comment, Patres 
apost. ii. 11), and is drawn probably from Rom, xvi. 17. Clem. 2 Cor. xx. 5; 
Mart. Poluc. xx. 2, may have been imitations of Rom. xvi. 27. It is quite 
conceivable that the greeting occurring just there in Mart. Polyc., Ἑὐάρεστος 
6 ypawas, received its form under the influence of Rom. xvi. 22. Of more 
weight are the Actus Petri cwm Simone, ed. Lipsius, p. 45. 4 (Quartus from 
Rom. xvi. 23), pp. 48. 7, 49. 15, ete. (Narcissus from Rom. xvi. 11), also p. 
52. 27 from Rom. xvi. 20; from which we may conclude that this writer 
of legends at about 170 considered Rom. xvi. as an integral part of Rom. ; ef. 
GK, ii. 845, 855. We may add the citations in Clem. Alexandrinus (collected 
in Griesbach, Symb. ii. 493 f.), who quotes in Strom. v. 65, Rom. xv. 29 in 
loose connection with xvi. 25, and in Strom. iv. 9 the doxology, without 
stating more exactly their position in the Epistle. 

5. (P. 381.) Of the uncials which give the Antioch recension in a pure 
state (KL), K has a gap between Rom. x. 18 and 1 Cor. vi. 13 (Gregory, 
Proll. 431). Alongside of L, Tischendorf, NT, ii. 442, 456, puts al (t.e. min.) 
Sere 200, item lectionaria. Indeed Hort (in Lightfoot, 340) can find only 8-10 
min. which do not have the doxology after xiv. 23, and there alone. It 
signifies little that a Greek, who wrote the min. 66 (Harleian MS, 5552); 
Griesbach, Sym, ii. 166-188 ; Gregory, p. 656) in the sixteenth century, after 
Erasmus had published his N.T., remarks on xvi. 24: τέλος τῆς ἐπιστολῆς 
ὧδε ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀντιγράφοις. τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ εἰς τέλος τοῦ ιδ΄ κεφαλαίου εὑρίσ- 
κεται (Griesb. ii. 180), Chrysostom (vol. ix, 718-756) and Theodoret (Noesselt, 
146-162) seem to know nothing at all of another text. They see also a close 
connection in the sense between xvi. 25-27 and xiv. 23, and treat xvi, 24 as 
the end of the Epistle. Cf, the Catene (Cramer, iv. 490, 528), (Heumenius, 
and Theophylact (Migne, tom. 118, col. 604, 633; tom. 124, col. 533, 557). 
John of Damascus, on the contrary, who gives little more that an excerpt from 
Chrysostom, commented upon the doxology after xvi. 24. The scribe of our 
solitary MS. has on his own responsibility inserted the doxology in the sec- 
tion embracing xiv. 23b-xv. 7, for it receives no notice in the exposition there 
(ed, Lequien, ii. 54,59). Influenced by the Alexandrian tradition, Joh. Dam. 
has here broken loose from Chrysostom. It would be an odd counterpart to 
this if Cyril of Alexandria had followed the Antioch text; but this we cannot 

VOL, L 26 


402 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


safely infer from the order of citations in Orat. I. de recta fide ad reginas 
(Aubert, v. 2, 118 f.; Rom. x., xvi. 25-27, xv. 8), for he returns straightway 
to Rom. iv. Inanother set of citations (op. cit. 59) the order is Rom. xiv. 10, 
xv. 13ff., xvi. 16, 20. The fragments of his commentary (Mai, Nova. p. bibl. 
iii. 1, 45) treat Rom. xiv. 6, 14, xv. 7, but not the doxology. Of the Gothic 
version there is preserved after Rom. xiv. 20 only xv. 3-13, xvi. 21-24, and 
the latter section servesas the close of the letter in a Cod. Ambrosianus which 
lacks xiv. 6-xvi. 20. Since this version rests in essentials upon a Greek text 
of Antiochian recension, it almost goes without saying that it admitted the 
doxology after xiv. 23, an assumption confirmed by the close of the Epistle, 
which has been preserved. Hort, in Lightfoot, 340, and Riggenbach, 550, by 
calculating the space necessary, have established the same point also in the 
ease of the Gothic and the parallel Latin text of the Cod. Carolinus at 
Wolfenbiittel, which contains, among other passages, xiv. 9-20 and xv. 3-13 
(Tischend. Anecdota sacra et prof. 155-158 ; Bernhardt, Vulfila oder die goth. 
Bibel. xiii. £., 369, 372). The Cod. Carolinus is not a strong witness for the 
existence of an independent Latin text which had the doxology after xiv. 23. 
On the other hand, Riggenbach, 553 f., through calculation and conjecture, has 
made it quite certain that a Latin Bible at Monza (Riggenb. 532 ; Berger, Hist. 
de la Vulg. 189 f., 395), out of which all but a few leaves of Rom. x. 2-xv. 10 
are torn, had the doxology after xiv. 23, the Epistle closing with xvi. 24. 
Moreover, there is nothing against our assuming that the exemplar of the Latin 
text g, as well as that of the Greek text G bound with it (see n. 6), had the 
doxology after xiv. 23. The Latin testimonies in n. 4 are also in point here. 
For the liturgie tradition of the Byzantine Church, ef. Scrivener, Introd.‘ i. 84 
(Rom. xiv. 19-23 +4xvi. 25-27, lection for Sabbath before Quinquagesima). 

6. (Pp. 381, 382.) Cod..G (ed. Matthei, 1791), written in the ninth century 
by an Irish monk in Switzerland, with a Latin interlinear version, leaves a third 
of page 18 v. blank, 2.e. between xiv. 23 (fol. 18 τ.) and xv. 1 (fol. 18 v.). Codex 
F, the Greek text of which is copied either from G or from the same exemplar, 
joins xv. 1 immediately to xiv. 23, and only in its Latin text (f) retains, in 
dependence on the Vulgate, xvi. 25-27 after xvi. 24, with which the whole 
letter closes in its Greek text just as in G. One thing is accordingly certain, 
that the exemplar of G did not have the doxology after xvi. 24; for why 
should a monk of the ninth century have refused to copy the verses which 
stand at this place in all Vulg. MSS. if he found them there also in his 
exemplar? The only thing open to question is what induced him to leave 
a blank space large enough for the doxology after xiv. 23. The simplest 
explanation is that he found it at this place, but on account of his trust in 
the Vulg., which has no doxology here, he hesitated to copy here a passage 
which seemed strange to him in this connection. Leaving a space sufficient 
for xvi. 25-27 is in any case a half-way proceeding, and so proof of a critical 
reflection, serious indeed, but not carried to a conclusion. But just such re- 
flection could be induced by the two factors mentioned, the existence of the 
doxology in the copyist’s exemplar at this point, and the self-evident ac- 
quaintance of a Western monk with the Latin Vulg. On the other hand, 
it is most improbable that his exemplar contained the doxology either after 
xiv. 23 or after xvi. 24, and that, as Hort still assumed (Lightf. Bibl. Ess. 
340), the mere recollection of other Greek MSS. which placed it after xiv. 23 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 40% 
should have aroused in him strong critical suspicions. For (1) Greek MSS. 
were certainly such rarities in the monasteries of Switzerland in the ninth 
century that it is most improbable that a seribe should reflect upon the 
textual peculiarities of other Greek MSS. than that lying directly before him. 
(2) There was surely nothing in xiv. 23 to stir a Latin monk to special re- 
flection if the doxology was wanting here in his exemplar ; for neither in 
the Vulg. was he wont to read it at this point in the Epistle nor to hear it 
so read in public worship. The lack of the doxology could have impressed 
him only when he came to the end of the letter, since it appeared there 
in the Vulgate ; for which reason it was also attached there in the Latin text 
of F (f). (3) The hypothesis that, aside from the Marcionite Bibles (see 
above, n. 3, below, n. 9), there were Latin and Greek Bibles without the 
doxology, finds even less support than the assumption that there were Bibles 
with the doxology but without chaps. xv., xvi. (above, n. 4). Of the count- 
less Bible MSS. of all tongues, just one has been pointed out thus far which 
gives Rom. xiv.-xvi. complete except for the doxology. This is a MS. at 
Milan hailing from Bobbio in the ninth or tenth century (Ambros. E 26 
infra; ef. Riggenbach, 556; Berger, Hist. de la Vulg. 138 f., 394). But what 
is more natural than that in mixed texts, to which class this MS. belongs, 
the variation of the exemplars with respect to the place of the doxology 
should finally result in some one instance in its complete disappearance? In 
the development from G, or the exemplar of G and F, to F we can see this 
process going on before our eyes. The effort has been made to wring from the 
Graeco-Latin Cod. D (See. vi.), which has the doxology after xvi. 24 and no gap 
between xiv. 23 and xv. 1, testimony to an older text without the doxology. 
While the text of D is divided throughout according to the sense into short 
lines, the doxology is written in lines considerably longer and repeatedly 
breaking off in the middle of a word, ed. Tischendorf, p. 92. Corssen 
(Speeim. ii. 27) concluded from this that the scribe of D, who with this 
exception copied throughout an exemplar divided into lines according to 
the sense, took the doxology from another MS. with lines not thus divided, 
the reason being that the chief exemplar did not contain the doxology at 
all, On the further assumption that G and F also go back to this chief 
exemplar of D, he holds that the absence of the doxology in G (F) can also 
be explained in the same way. Not to speak here of Corssen’s genealogy 
of MSS. in other respects, we have seen already that G’s attitude to the 
doxology definitely presupposes an exemplar in which the doxology stood 
after xiv. 23. But as for D, the form of the letter’s close, like the same 
phenomenon at the end of Eph., p. 327, demands another explanation. Such 
a one is given in GK, ii. 160; similarly Riggenbach, 577. The last four 
lines of Eph., too (from καὶ ἀγάπη, vi. 23, to ἀμήν, vi. 24), are written 
without reference to division according to sense. Moreover, while under all 
the other Epistles except the last (Philem., @K, ii. 160) the end of the pre- 
ceding Epistle and the beginning of the following are marked by three 
lines wider apart than usual, and by the words ἐπληρώθη ἄρχεται, there stand 
under Romans merely πρὸς Ρωμαίους in a single line, and under Eph. simply 
πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους, πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς in two lines. A glance at the requirements 
of space explains all. The scribe wished to begin a new Epistle always upon 
a new page. But there were cases where at the close of an Epistle a con- 


404 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


sistent division according to the sense would have made a few words run 
over to a new page, or rather two pages, since it concerned the Latin text on 
the right hand page as well as the Greek on the left. So rather than leave 
so much parchment blank, he determined to adopt a style of writing not so 
wasteful of space, and in Eph. at least, to make the subscription shorter for 
the same reason, The four long lines of Eph. vi. 23f. would have made seven 
lines divided according to sense. There are twenty-one lines on a page, and 
since fifteen lines of text precede, the last of the (1 - 7) twenty-two lines and 
the subseription would not have found room on the page. By compressing 
seven lines into four, the scribe retained (15+4) nineteen lines of text and 
had two left for the subscription, which for this very reason he made shorter 
and more compact as before described. In the case of Rom. the ten (or 
including the “Amen,” eleven) lines written without reference to the sense, 
would have made perhaps seventeen or eighteen ordinary lines divided 
according to the sense, or including the preceding seven ordinary lines, 
twenty-four to twenty-five for the page. The scribe, therefore, when he came 
to a fitting break, gave up his diffuse way of writing, wrote the doxology 
in longer lines, and retained this more sparing method to theend. He thus 
obtained seventeen lines of text, without the Amen. By more fully utilising 
the space he could have found room not only for the decoration at the end, 
but also for a complete subscription as under the following Epistles, or 
at least like that under Eph. But not having formed any rules as yet in 
this the first Epistle of the collection, he preferred to be lavish with the 
space he had saved. Contrary to the rule he afterwards followed, he put 
the ἀμήν in a line by itself (18), and some distance below πρὸς Ῥωμαίους as 
line 19. The present writer paid no attention to this when he saw the 
MS., but is relying upon Tischendorf’s copy, p. 92, cf. pref. ix. Other 
isolated cases in which D’s so-called stichometric writing is awkwardly 
carried out, or even quite given up (p. 130. 10, where ἀδελφήν belongs 
to the next line, as also καί in 130. 13, and p. 134. 2-4), need another 
explanation, which Corssen, at any rate, has not found; ef. Riggenbach’s 
remarks in opposition to him, 575, and against Lucht, et al. 565-574. 
Tischendorf, Cod. Clarom. p. 550, noticed that a corrector of the seventh 
century (D**) found nothing in the doxology to correct ; and that another 
corrector (D***), a Greek, who in the ninth century supplied the whole 
MS. with accents and made some corrections, accented only the first four 
words of xvi. 25-27. Arguing from this, he was of the opinion that both 
doubted the genuineness of the doxology. The first difficulty was set at 
rest by the fact that the doxology in D has no mistake of grammar or 
spelling. The second is explained by assuming that this Greek of the ninth 
century consulted in his revision a Greek text which had the doxology after 
xiv. 28, like the great majority of Greek MSS. for centuries. He had nothing 
to guide him then after xvi. 24, and was unwilling to undertake the task of 
accenting the rest of the text proprio Marte. Whether at the same time he 
made critical conjectures as to the genuineness or relevancy of the doxology 
here, is of no importance to us, A Greek text without the doxology must 
be first discovered or its existence established on stronger grounds than those 
found hitherto. Concerning Treschov’s error, more often repeated years ago 
(Tentamen descr. codd. 1773, p. 55), that the doxology is altogether wanting in 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 405 


five Vienna MSS., which really have it after xiv. 23, and concerning a similar 
mistake of Erasmus, cf. Reiche, 89, n. 3. 

7. (P. 381.) The doxology follows chap. xiv. as well as chap. xvi. in AP, 
some Armenian MSS., and a few Greek minuse. (Paul, 5, 17, 37, of which No. 5 
is especially noteworthy in putting Phil. immediately before Thess., a pro- 
ceeding very common in the West during the fourth century, GK, ii. 349). 
Hort’s view (in Lightfoot, op. eit. 341 ff.), that the doxology was used thus 
twice before it came to be placed after chap. xiv. alone, has all analogies 
against it, and, in addition, the oldest testimony, that of Origen, who knows 
simply the alternatives: “either after chap. xiv. or after chap. xvi.” (above, 
p- 396, n. 3). 

8. (P. 381.) We know not how the doxology was arranged in the Syrians’ 
N.T. before its recasting in the Syriac Vulgate, the so-called Peshito. 
Aphraates cites nothing from Rom. xiv. and xvi., including the doxology, 
but only xv. 1 (Wright, 141). Ephrem in his commentary (ed. Lat. 43, 46) 
passes over the doxology in both places; but this signifies nothing, for he 
does the same with Rom. ii. 2-16, xv. 13-16, xvi. 1-12. And it is only the 
inexact translation of the Mechitharists which makes it appear as if Ephrem 
joins xv. 1 immediately to xiv. 23a, xiv. 23) being omitted. P. Vetter kindly 
informs the writer that the word rendered there in line 11 by subdit is the 
same as that rendered by dixit in line 8. According to the Armenian 
original, the chapter numeral belongs after manducat, line 10. After that 
the translation should run: “ Et ut arceat et (etiam) credentes (without 
ipsos), dixit ; ‘ Debemus inquit, nos qui potentes sumus,’ ” etc. 

9. (P. 381.) Jerome in Eph. 111. 5 (vol. vii. 592): “ Qui volunt prophetas 
non intellexisse, que dixerint, et quasi in ecstasi loquutos, cum presenti 
testimonio (Eph. iii. 5) illud quoque, quod ad Romanos in plerisque eodieibus 
invenitur, ad confirmationem sui dogmatis trahunt legentes: ‘Ei autem qui 
potest vos roborare juxta evangelium meum et predicationem Jesu Christi 
secundum revelationem mysterii temporibus eternis taciti, manifestati autem 
nune per scripturas propheticas et adventum domini nostri Jesu Christi et 
reliqua’ (Rom. xvi. 25). Quibus breviter respondendum est, temporibus 
preteritis tacitum Christi fuisse mysterium non apud eos, qui illud futurum 
pollicebantur, sed apud universas gentes, quibus postea manifestatum est. Et 
paritur annotandum, quod sacramentum fidei nostre nisi per scripturas 
propheticas et adventum Christi non valeat revelari. Sciant igitur qui 
prophetas non intelligunt nec scire desiderant, asserentes, se tantum evangelio 
esse contentos, Christi neseire mysterium, quod temporibus eternis gentibus 
cunctis fuerit ignoratum.” That this was copied quite literally from Origen, 
Hort saw (Lightfoot, bibl. Ess. 333; Appendix, 113). The present writer 
thinks in GK, ii. 428f., he has pointed out and proved as well that this 
polemie of Origen is directed, not against Montanists, as Jerome seems to 
have understood it (cf. col. 589), nor yet confusedly, first against Montanists, 
then against Marcionites, as Hort assumed, but. exclusively against the latter, 
and against Marcionites indeed, who when disputing with the orthodox, 
appealed to a text (Rom. xvi. 25f.) which they did not receive at all them- 
selves. Now, when Origen speaks of the doxology as contained in most MSS., 
the MSS. without it, which he implies, must be simply those of the Marcion- 
ites, where the doxology was indeed lacking ; for among the Church MSS. 


406 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Origen had found no variation with respect to the doxology but that of post 
tion, now alter xiv. 23 and now after xvi. 23 (above, p. 396 f., n. 3). 

10. (Pp. 382, 387.) Doxologies in the course of Epistles, Rom. i, 25, ix. 5, 
xi. 36; Gal.i. 5; Eph. iii. 20 f.; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 16;:2 Tim. 
iv. 18; ef., further, 1 Pet. iv. 11,v. 11; Heb.xiii.20£. (A solemn wish with 
doxological close ; 22-24 personal matters; 25 benedietion). Im all these 
cases, and so also in Rom. xvi. 27, ἀμήν at the end of the doxology is attested 
by most or all sources (2 Cor. xi. 31 cannot be compared here) ; on the con- 
trary, it is very doubtful whether Paul closed a single Epistle or benediction 
with ἀμήν. Also in Gal. vi. 18 it is lacking in G, Ambrosiaster, and Vietor- 
inus. A doxology as the real end of an Epistle occurs in the N.T, only in 
2 Pet. iii. 18; Jude 25. If we compare the other Epistles of Paul, we shall 
find no ground at all for wondering at the endings of the letter which it is 
alleged are heaped up in Rom. xv. 5, 13, 33, xvi. 20, xvi. 24 (xvi. 27). Gal. 
vi. 11 retrospect of the completed letter, vi. 16 blessing, vi. 18 benediction. 
In 1 Cor, the intimation of the coming benediction (xvi. 21) is followed, 
after an intervening remark of warning, by a double benediction (xvi. 23 f.). 
1 Thess. iii. 11-13 blessing with well attested ἀμήν, and following λοιπόν 
(iv. 1), so that all that follows appears supplementary to the letter already 
virtually ended. But it is followed by v. 23 another blessing, 26 greetings, 
27 remark about the letter, 28 benediction. Similarly 2 Thess. ii. 16 f. first 
closing blessing (iii. 1, τὸ λοιπόν), iii. 5 another blessing, iii. 16a third bless- 
ing, 16) benediction, 17 intimation of the last greeting, 18 actual benedic- 
tion. 2 Tim. iv. 18 closing doxology with Amen, 19-21 greetings with other 
information, 22 double benediction. 

11. (Pp. 382, 386). The genuineness of 6, xvi. 27, can hardly be doubted ; 
for, in the first place, the remarkable incompleteness of the sentence was very 
easy to remedy ; and, secondly, the emendations which we find are most various. 
Some changed @ into αὐτῷ (P, Copt., min. 31, 54); others struck out ᾧ (B) or 
@ ἡ (min. 33, 72), or made from ᾧ ἡ an ein (min. 55 and scholion of min. 
43). To the latter group belong also f (the Latin text of F, the Greek text of 
which lacks the doxology), and Rufinus as translator of Origen (iv. 687), who 
here at least has not rendered fairly Origen’s very peculiar text (GK, ii. 429, 
A. 2). S! treated the doxology very freely : “ But to God who can stablish you 
in [according to] my gospel, which was preached about [περί] Jesus Christ 
according to the revelation of the secret, which from eternal times was hidden, 
but in the present was revealed through prophetic Scriptures, and by command 
of the eternal God was made known to all nations for the purpose of 
obedience of the faith : to Him, who alone is wise, glory through Jesus Christ 
for the age of the ages. Amen.” Clement, Strom. v. 65, p. 685, and Origen, 
vol. i, 389, 488, iv. 104 f., 226, 257, always quote the doxology incompletely, 
without ver. 27. 

12. (Pp. 383,385.) The asceties judged that their fellow-Christian of liberal 
views would not stand firm, but ran the risk of falling. Paul, however, 
assures them that he will surely be kept in his upright position, and that the 
Lord has the power to make him stand (xiv. 4). The liberals, on the other 
hand, who like Paul thought the ascetics weak, also despised them, and Paul 
warns them not to put in the way any stones over which these weak brethren 
might stumble (xiv. 18, 20f.). The τῷ δυναμένῳ ὑμᾶς στηρίξαι, χνὶ. 25, refers 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 407 


to both these things at once, Paul does not here utter a pious wish, but 
again reminds himself and the readers, as in ver. 4, with the similarly sound- 
ing words δυνατεῖ ὁ κύριος στῆσαι αὐτόν, of the power of God which is able 
to establish those who are in danger of unstable going, of stumbling or of 
falling; cf, also the expressions στήκει ἢ πίπτει, σταθήσεται, ver. 4; πρόσ- 
koppa ἢ σκάνδαλον, ver. 13; διὰ προσκόμματος... προσκόπτει, VV. 20, 21. 
He comforts himself with this power of God, both in regard to the liberals, 
who in the judgment of the ascetics are in danger of falling, and also in 
regard to the ascetics, concerning whom he has the fear, that they might be 
enticed by the inconsiderate behaviour of the strong to act contrary to the 
dictates of conscience, and thereby to fall in the most disastrous way. As 
Paul, ver. 10b, unites in a we the two parties addressed separately in ver. 10a 
(cf. vv. 18a, 19), so he can unite them both in ὑμᾶς, xvi, 25, after ver. 22, 
which refers to the liberals, and ver, 23, which refers to the ascetics. : What 
Spitta (S. 7f.) has to say against the present writer’s proof of this connection, 
is at least not founded on the error that ornpi¢ew means “ strengthen” ; it 
means rather “establish,” either at the outset so to place something that it 
remains firm, or to make more secure, to support, what is already standing, 
but might easily become unstable or fall. The contrast between falling and 
destructive temptation is found, e.g., 2 Pet. iii. 16.£. (ἀστήρικτοι---ἐκπεσεῖν τοῦ 
στηριγμοῦ) ; Luke xxii. 32, cf. Mark xiv. 27 ff.; 2 Thess. iii. 3 ; Rev. iii. 2, and 
the connection of στηρίζειν with the idea of standing, being stable, is unmis- 
takable (1 Thess. iii. 2, 8, 10; 1 Pet.v. 10, 12). Also Rom, 1. 11; Acts xviii. 
23 (variant reading) the idea is not of strengthening the faith, but of stablishing 
the believers in upright bearing (cf. 2 Cor. i. 24). Here, however (xvi. 25), 
the question concerns a stablishing not in the πίστις τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (Phil. 
i, 27), but in the ethical manifestation of faith (ef. 1 Thess. iii. 13; 2 Thess. 
ii. 17). The connection with κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον «rd. suits only this inter- 
pretation. The Gospel of Paul and the preaching of Jesus Christ are not 
named as the means of producing and strengthening faith, but as the norm 
of conduct, and as the standard according to which God will stablish the 
Romans. His personal assurance in the matter of clean and unclean things, 
Paul emphasises strongly in xiy. 14; at the same time, however, he expresses 
the thought that in this he knew that he was of the same mind as the “ Lord 
Jesus.” He desires also here to give utterance to the two thoughts, namely, 
(1) that the ethical principles which he has developed in chap. xiv. correspond 
especially with what he himself—the Apostle of the Gentiles—has preached, 
and (2) that, moreover, also in the preaching of Jesus Himself the outlines of 
these principles had been drawn (cf. Matt. xv. 1-20). In confirmation of the 
fact that τὸ κήρυγμα I. Xp. does not mean the preaching about Christ, but the 
preaching and teaching of Jesus Himself, the following proofs are offered : 
(1) The comparison with Matt. xii, 41; 1 Cor. ii. 4, xv. 14; (2) the similarity 
of the genitive with εὐαγγέλιον and κήρυγμα demanded by the style ; (3) the use 
of the personal name ’Inaov before Χριστοῦ ; (4) the placing alongside of each 
other of the two ideas determined by the article—a position which excludes their 
identity (cf. below, $48,n. 2). By means of this, however, the passage xv. 1-3 
following is prepared for in more than one way. The κατὰ Xp.’L., xv. 5, corre- 
sponds to the κατὰ τὸ κήρ. I, Xp. In xv. 8, 7, 8 there is presented as authori- 
tative example the Jesus Christ who lived on earth, renounced self-will, cared 


408 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


for the needy, was calumniated by the ungodly of His own nation, and yet 
who all His life long served the people of the circumcision. In the διάκονον 
γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς, however, the διακονία τοῦ Aöyov, the preaching, is alse 
included as an essential element. Moreover, the further reference to the 
prophetie writings (xvi. 26) agrees perfectly with xv. 4, 8-12; and the men- 
tion of the especial gospel of the apostle to the Gentiles and the thought that 
the mystery of salvation formerly kept secret is intended for all nations 
(xvi. 26) is an excellent preparation for xv. 8-13. Moreover, xv. 1-6 also bears 
upon the discussion of the relations existing between the Jewish and Gentile 
Christians ; as is especially shown by the comparison of ver. 4 f. with ver: 13, 
and the close connection between ver. 6 and vv. 9-10. There is here no 
further discussion of the especial opposition of the vegetarians to the eaters 
of meat, but much more general admonitions and wishes in relation to the 
restoration, through mutual concessions, of unity among all the Church mem- 
bers—a unity which showed itself also in worship. This duty holds good 
for the antagonism which obtained among the Roman Christians, mentioned 
in chap, xiv., moreover, also, for many other existing differences, and not 
least for the opposition of the Jewish to the Gentile born members of the 
Church, to the discussion of which the general sentences, xv. 1-3, form the 
transition. The δυνατοί among whom the Jewish Paul classes himself, ver. 1, 
are naturally not the Gentile Christians ; they are also, however, not identical 
with the anti-vegetarians in chap. xiv., who there are just as little called 
δυνατοί a8 the vegetarians ἀδύνατοι, and with whom Paul in chap. xiv. not 
once identifies himself by a we. The strong are rather those whom God, who 
has the power to do it, has stablished, according to Paul’s gospel and Jesus’ 
preaching (xvi. 25, cf. Tit. i. 9; 2 Cor. xii. 10; Phil. iv. 13), and who, like 
Paul, have risen above all such oppositions (ef. 1 Cor. ix. 19-23). Hofmann, 
who, following Griesbach, contended for the position of xvi. 25-27 after xiv. 
23 as the original one (iii. 577), tried to make it out that the sentence begun 
with τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ, and resumed in μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ, xvi. 27, finds its regular 
continuation in xv. 1. No one could object to the construction of ὀφείλω 
with dative and following infin., ef. vili. 12, xiii.8; and perhaps even the δέ, 
xv. 1, which is undoubtedly genuine, could be justified grammatically. But 
stylistically considered, the result is a monstrous form of sentence. A more 
probable explanation, and one much more in keeping with Paul’s peculiar 
style, is that the sentence as he originally intended to construct it became 
weighted down by parenthetic remarks and, though he made an effort to 
carry the construction consistently through by taking up again the emphatic 
dative object, the doxology with its solemn “amen” forcing its way in afresh, 
drove the purpose from his mind. 

13. (Pp. 383, 384.) After the prayer, xvi. 20a, all witnesses except DG (dg) 
and perhaps also Sedulius have ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ ned’ ὑμῶν (with- 
out ἀμήν). But the second benediction also, ἡ x. τ. x. nu. I. Xp. μετὰ πάντων 
ὑμῶν (with or without ἀμήν) is quite overwhelmingly attested ; only it is 
written sometimes after xvi. 23 (as ver. 24; so DG, the Antioch recension [L, 
the majority of min., the Antioch commentators]; among versions the Goth. 
and $%, and many Vulg. MSS.), sometimes after xvi. 27 (so P,a few mim, 
$1, Armen., Ambrosiaster, and the true Pelagius, see above, p. 401, ἢ. 4). 
It is wanting altogether in SABC, a few min., Copt., and important Vulg. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 409 


MSS., also probably in Origen’s text. On the strength of this, Tischendorf 
and Westcott and Hort have stricken it out as a doublet of xvi. 90, But 
(1) according to the great mass of evidence it differs from ver. 20 in giving 
a fuller designation of Christ and in inserting πάντων ; (2) the double 
form of the benediction (xvi. 20, 24), is vouched for by such manifold 
testimony, belonging to most widely differing portions of the Church, that it 
must go back to high antiquity ; (8) Paul would be departing from a settled 
custom if he closed a letter with greetings to or from individuals without a 
formal benediction ; on the other hand, he never objects to a double bene- 
diction (see above, n. 10). These benedictions may be essentially similar and 
bound together like a double “farewell” (1 Cor. xvi. 23, 24; Eph. vi. 23, 
24; 2 Tim. iv. 22), or they may be separated by remarks of a different char- 
racter, 2 Thess. iii. 165, 18. In both 1 Cor. and Eph. he added a πάντων 
to the second and final benediction, exactly as in Rom. xvi. 24. Also in 
2 Tim. iv. 22 the two benedictions, standing side by side, are related one to 
the other as the particular to the universal. Although, where Paul joins 
the second benediction immediately to the first, or lets it follow soon after- 
wards, he prefers not to repeat the same words; yet an explanation is un- 
necessary when, on the other hand, in Rom. xvi. 20 and xvi. 24, where many 
small items intervene, he shows no hesitation in repeating the customary 
benediction in essentially the same words. (4) Upon the twofold presup- 
position that the doxology belongs to the end of the letter, and that xvi. 
24 is not genuine,—a presupposition which the textual critics whose views 
now prevail have not proved, but have simply laid down as axiomatic in 
discussing this question,—the transmission of the text of xvi. 20-27 remains 
inexplicable. Suppose that the need arose for a benediction at the end of 
the letter owing to the removal of the doxology from that point to an earlier 
„art of the letter, and that this need was met by making up xvi. 24 or by 
dlacing xvi. 20b after xvi. 23, how then are we to account for the fact that 
texts otherwise most various (DPS!, Arm., Ambrost., Pelag.) agree in 
having the doxology in chap. xvi. and right next to it, either before or after 
the benedietion, xvi. 24; and that most of them (all those named except D) 
retain xvi. 20b besides? (5) On the other hand, it is easy enough to explain 
the fact on the presupposition that the doxology stood originally after xiv. 23. 
When the doxology was moved to the close of the Epistle, sometimes it was 
simply added at the end (after xvi. 24, so D), sometimes it was inserted 
between xvi. 23 and xvi. 24, so as to retain the original ending (P, min. 
17, 80, S!, Arm., Ambrost., Pelag.). ‘A third method, followed by some 
apparently as early as Origen’s time, was to treat the doxology as a sufficient 
substitute for the original ending (cf. Jude 24f.; 2 Pet. iii. 18), and to strike 
out xvi, 24, which was the easier, since essentially the same benediction was 
to be found in xvi. 20. In this latter opinion they agreed with those in the 
West who, even before the doxology was moved to the end, had stricken out 
xvi. 20 as superfluous alongside of xvi. 24 (G and perhaps the exemplar of D, 
see beginning of this note). Moreover, this misplacement had a corrupting 
influence upon the text of the doxology itself. The witnesses for the position 
after xiv. 23 (Antioch recen.) all have the simpler form εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, 
without τῶν αἰώνων, and those which have the doxology in both places (AP) 
prove an essential connection between the form of the text and its position by 


410 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


giving the shorter form of the doxology after chap, xiv. and the longer (witk 
τῶν αἰώνων) after chap. xvi. In itself, the shorter form of the doxology is more 
likely to be the original one ; and this supposition is fully confirmed by such 
good witnesses as BC, which, in spite of the misplacement of the doxology, 
have retained its shorter form. The expansion of the doxology, then, which 
its position at the end of the letter invited, did not follow its misplacement 
immediately, or was not in all cases connected with this directly. But 
the group of witnesses which agree in giving the original teat of the doxology 
deserve, as in the discussion of its position also, the preference over that 
group the great majority of which give, together with the position at the 
close, the corrupted text. 

14. (P. 383.) Bengel, Appar. Crit. (ed. 2) 340: “ Videntur Graeci, ne lectio 
publica in severam sententiam (xiv. 23) desineret, hanc ei clausulam attexuisse, 
ef. var. Matt. iii.11.” He means the omission in Matt. iii. 11 of καὶ πυρί. But 
how can that be compared to removing a significant section from its original 
position? How much more natural, with such an aim in view, to have con- 
tinued the lection to xv. 4 or xv. 7, or, if transposition of the text were once 
allowed to enter, to have put here a prayerful wish such as that in xv. 13, 
which accords with xiv. 17 and with xiv. 23 also! (through ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν). 
Hort (in Lightf. Bibl. Ess. 342) assumed that in ancient times Rom. xvi. was 
not read in worship, and that therefore the edifying doxology was joined to.a 
neighbouring lection. Since this does not explain the removal of the doxology 
from the end of chap, xvi., but only how it came to be joined to an earlier 
passage, Hort arrived at the untenable hypothesis mentioned above, p. 405, 
n. 7. Further, the omission of xvi. 1-24 in the liturgy would not explain 
why the doxology was put after xiv. 23 and not rather after or before xv. 13 
or before xv. 33. That the prayerful wishes there would have been nc 
hindrance is seen from Phil. iv, 19 f, ; Heb. xiii. 20f.; 1 Pet. v.10. Thi 
explanation, then, could be considered only if it could be proved that chap 
xv. was also excluded from public reading in church. But the extant lec- 
tionaries give lections from chap. xv. (cf. Scrivener, Introd. i, 82) on the 
seventh Sunday after Pentecost, Rom. xv. 1-7; on the tenth Sabbath after 
Pentecost, Rom. xv. 30-33 ; also Rom. xv. 7-16 and xv. 8-12 on week-days, 
Zacagni, Coll. mon. 1. 587 ; ibid. p. 588, cf. p. 575 f., embracing the fifth lection 
of Euthalius, of which chaps. xviii., xix.= Rom. xv. 1-33. The lectionary in 
the Fuld., ed. Ranke, 165, includes Rom. xv. 8 ff. There may possibly have 
been before Origen’s time a lection system which excluded Rom. xv.-xvi.; 
but even so it certainly could not have had at that early date such a powerful 
influence upon the shaping of the text as to make the misplacement of the 
doxology, which it brought about, as is claimed, appear to Orig. the older 
form of the text. Also Riggenbach’s explanation, 603f, that the purpose 
was to make Rom. close with such a blessing as the other Epistles have, is 
unsatisfactory. This aim could have been attained much more simply by 
putting xvi. 24 after the doxology, or, if this verse did not then exist, after 
xvi. 20, just as in Phil. iv. 23 (cf. 20); Heb. xiii. 25 (cf. 21); 2 Tim, iv. 22 
(cf. 18); 1 Pet. v. 14 (cf. 11) the benediction follows hard upon the doxology, 
and some important witnesses (above, n. 13) actually do place the benedic- 
tion immediately after the doxology, xvi. 25-27 in Rom. 

15. (Pp. 383, 384.) As to the Peshito, back of which our search cannot go 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 411 


(above, n. 8), we must remember that even before its final redaction the Syriac 
N.T. received influences from Alexandria; cf. GK, i. 386, 406, ii. 560, 564. 
The West became acquainted with Alexandrian textual criticism at the be- 
ginning of the fourth century through Pierius, “the younger Origen” (Jerome, 
Vir. Til. \xxvi.). The spacial separation of the two passages, xiv. 23 and xvi. 24 
is much too great to be compared with transpositions like those in 1 Cor. xiv. 
33-40, xv. 26, which probably arose in a merely mechanical way. More com- 
parable is the varying position of John vii. 53-viii. 11. But, firstly, this is a 
pericope which did not force its way into the N.T. until the fifth century. 
Secondly, it is indubitable that the scribe who first connected it with the 
Fourth Gospel put it where the Textus Receptus and the oldest MSS. have it, 
and that only later critical suspicions caused it to be placed after John xxi., 
or also after Luke xxi. In respect of age, even such changes as the insertion 
of ev ᾿Εφέσῳ, Eph. i. 1, cannot be compared, but rather the changing of the 
original text of Rom. i. 7 mentioned above, p. 394 f. The transposing of the 
doxology from its original position after xiv. 23 to the close of the letter was 
no longer new at the time of Origen; it goes back into the second century, 
to the time when the effort was made in various ways to frame a fitting close 
to the unfinished Gospel of Mark, when Tatian compiled his Diatessaron, 
and also handled Paul’s Epistles in bold fashion (Kus. H, E. iv. 29. 6), 

16. (P. 384.) In order to explain the variant position of the doxology, and 
at the same time the alleged multiplicity of endings (xvi, 25-27, xv. 33, xvi. 20, 
xvi. 24), Griesbach, loc. cit., assumed that Paul, after finishing the letter proper, 
chaps. i.-xiv.—since the writing material for the purpose was used up—wrote 
(1) on a separate sheet the sentences intended for the close, xvi. 25-27, perhaps 
with xvi. 24; (2) again, on another sheet xvi. 21-23 or xvi. 21-24; then (3) on 
a third sheet chap. xv. as a postscript to i.-xiv.+xvi. 25-27, the need for which 
came to him as an afterthought; finally (4), again on a separate sheet xvi. 
1-20. The sheets then, when copies were made of the Epistle, were arranged 
in various orders. Eichhorn, Einl. iii. 32, appropriated the essentials of this 
hypothesis ; so also Laurent, Ntl. Stud. S. 31, with the needful modification, 
however, of substituting “strips of papyrus” for “leaves of parchment” (cf. 
2 John 12, χάρτης ; Birt, Buchwesen, S. 61f.). But opposed to this and every 
such hypothesis is the following :—(1) All the texts of Rom. as we know it in 
literature go back to just two archetypes, one of which placed the doxology after 
chap. xiv., the other after chap. xvi. But on this hypothesis either all the MSS. 
go back toa single orderly edited exemplar, the variant position of the doxology 
then remaining unexplained, or the “disjecta membra epistule” remained 
in the archive of the Roman Church unarranged, and copies were made of 
them as the need arose. In this case we must have met in the MSS. many 
different arrangements of chaps. xv., xvi., instead of just two, (2) It is hardly 
thinkable that Paul or his amanuensis Tertius (xvi. 22) should have failed. to 
take care, by gluing the papyrus leaves together, that the letter came to the 
readers in the form intended. Renan (St. Paul, 1869, pp. lxiii-lxxv) explained 
Rom. as a circular letter, which Paul himself had prepared in four copies— 
(1) For the Romans, chaps. i.-xi. 15 ; (2) for the Ephesians, chaps. i.-xiv.+ 
xvi. 1-20 (with some changes in chap. i.) ; (3) for the Thessalonians, chaps, 
i-Xiv.+xvi. 21-24 ; (4) for an unknown Church, chaps. i.-xiv.+xvi. 25-27, 
It is plain that even with some changes in chap. 1. (omission of ἐν Ῥώμῃ in 


412 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


i. 7, 15, perhaps), Rom. i.-xi. is still far from being suited to the Ephesians 
and Thessalonians. There is hardly a sentence in i. 1-16 which is not affected 
in form and content by the reference to Rome and to Paul’s peculiar relation 
to the Christians there. Not to speak of the opening greeting (above, p. 352 f.), 
imagine i. 8-16a addressed to Macedonia, where shortly before writing Rom. 
Paul had spent weeks or months! But the thought of Rome suggests also 
the theme i. 17 f. and its whole development of this up to xi. 36. ΤῸ speak 
of the merest externals, what would the overwhelmingly Gentile Churches of 
Ephesus and Thessalonica think of chap. vii. 1-6, vill. 15, or even of vi. 16f, 
(above, p. 374f., n. 8)? But if the whole letter needed a complete recasting to 
adapt it to other Churches than that of Rome, where do we see traces of these 
various recensions from which our Rom. was compiled? Lightfoot (Bibl. Ess. 
287-320), though he sought to refute Renan’s hypothesis, advanced a similar 
one, and maintained it in essentials (bid. 352-374) against Hort’s criticism 
(ibid. 321-351); Paul himself in later time, perhaps during his Roman 
imprisonment, transformed the letter originally addressed to the Roman 
Church, which included chaps. i.-xiv., xv. 1-xvi. 23, into an Epistle suited to 
a wider circle, by writing ev ἀγάπῃ in i. 7 for ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς, by striking 
out (rots) ev Ρώμῃ in i. 15, and further by cutting off xv. 1-xvi. 23, instead of 
which he framed a new ending for the Epistle, xvi. 25-27. But (1) we should 
expect least of all from Paul himself such a partial and external procedure by 
which the Epistle’s local reference would be merely a little obscured, not 
removed altogether (see above, against Renan). (2) Why should he have 
found xv. 1-13 less adapted to a larger circle of readers than i. 8-16 or 
xiv. 1-23? The relation of particular to universal which subsists between 
that section and these is just the opposite of that which Lightfoot seems to 
have presupposed. (3) Since Paul elsewhere seems to have had no objection 
to having a letter addressed to one Church read by another (Col. iv. 16), no 
motive can be found for this literary labour of the apostle so strange in 
itself. (4) The supports which Lightfoot thought he found in the text as 
transmitted are most decidedly weak. Marcion, even aside from the fact that 
he had none of the doxology, but did have parts of chaps. xv., xvi., could 
give absolutely no support to such a hypothesis on account of his treatment 
of the text (above, p. 396f.). Just as little can Cod. G and all the witnesses 
for the position of the doxology after xiv. 23; for there is not a hint that 
they go back to a text without xv. 1-xvi. 23. Finally, as for the variants of 
Rom. i. 7 and i. 15, it has been shown to be (above, p. 394 f.) extremely prob- 
able, that in the first passage ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ was the original text, which was 
changed into ev Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ only after a considerable circulation of 
the Epistle in the Church, therefore certainly a long time after the death of 
Paul. It has also been shown that the omission of the apparently unneces- 
sary τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ, i. 15, was only an arbitrary act, appearing only in isolated 
instances, and favoured by the original text of i. 7. j 

17. (P. 386.) A particular chain of thought suggested before, in ii. 16, 
the statement that in Paul’s gospel the universality of God’s plan of salvation 
was manifested more clearly than before (ef. i. 16, iii. 29); but that this gospel 
of Paul is not his own peculiar teaching, but the one message of salvation in 
a particular historical form, is maintained in i. 1 by the designation of it as 
the gospel of God, and here by the co-ordination of it with the preaching of 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 413 


Jesus. In xvi. 26, as in iii. 21, x. 11, the reference is to the inner connectior 
of this gospel with the O.T. ; i. 2, however (cf. x. 15 ; Luke iv. 17 ff.)—a verse 
that verbally resembles xvi. 26 much more closely than do iii. 21, x. 11, 
which are essentially related passages—seems rather to express the thought 
that God had promised long before that He would send forth such a message of 
salvation. If the words eis ὑπακοὴν πίστεως eis πάντα τὰ ἔθνη echo i. 5 almost 
exactly, cf. vi. 17, x. 16, xv. 18, xvi. 19; 2 Thess. i. 8, we should also note the 
variation which is just what might be expected in a compiler. The στηρίζειν 
of the Romans, which Paul hoped to accomplish by his visit (i. 11), he must 
for the present leave to God, since he cannot come to Rome immediately 
(xv. 23-33). That a blessing certified before, indeed, but still veiled, has been 
made known in the gospel (iii. 21, πεφανέρωται-- φανερωθέντος, Xvi. 26), and 
repeatedly unveils itself to the believing hearer (i. 17, ἀποκαλύπτεται --- Κατὰ 
ἀποκάλυψιν, xvi. 25) was said before. But the correlate of these ideas is 
expressed not there, but only in xvi. 25 by μυστήριον, which only shows again 
that no pseudo-Paul is here copying the apostle. There the connection and the 
aim of the teaching involved the calling of this real blessing which is unveiled 
through the gospel, the righteousness of God. Here there was no occasion for 
it, and it sufficed to characterise the present as a time in which was revealed 
to all men what had been a dark secret tc former generations ; for in this 
past, which for many of the readers was not yet banished by the gospel, are 
rooted the wrongs and quarrels and the confused notions against which Paul 
had to fight in xiv. 1-23, xv. 1-13. We find μυστήριον not infrequently in 
the older and less disputed parts of Paul’s letters (Rom. xi. 25; 1 Cor, ii. 7, 
iv. 1, xiii, 2, xiv. 2, xv. 51; 2 Thess, ii. 7; cf, Phil. iv. 12); but its use as a 
formal designation of God’s plan of salvation is confined to the present passage 
and Eph. i. 9, iii. 4, 9, vi. 19; Col. i, 26f., ii. 2, iv. 3—very narrow limits, it 
must be admitted. Indeed, Eph. iii. 3-6 and Col. i, 26f., especially have a 
close resemblance to Rom. xvi. 25 f,, but there is nothing in this doxology 
which betrays borrowing from any of these passages. Besides, it requires no 
proof to see that, if Paul was indeed the author of Eph. and Col., the thought 
expressed in these Epistles, that the sharing of the Gentile world in salvation 
was long hidden or remained a secret, but was revealed in the gospel, could 
not have occurred to him for the first time some years after he wrote Romans. 
The expressions ἀπὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων (cf, πρὸ xp, ai., 2 Tim. i, 9; Tit, i, 2), 
kar ἐπιταγὴν... θεοῦ (cf. 1 Tim. i. 1; similarly Tit, i, 3), rod αἰωνίου θεοῦ 
(ef. 1 Tim, i. 17, τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων), have awakened suspicions from their 
similarity to passages in the Pastoral Epistles, But none of them is copied, 
least of all the last, and the individual elements have nothing peculiar about 
them. Paul employs αἰώνιος outside of the doxology and the Pastoral Epistles 
ten times; κατ᾽ emıraynv in 1 Cor. vii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 8 (ef. 1 Cor. vii. 
25), a common mode of speech, indeed, in such a connection (eg. κατ᾽ 
ἐπιταγὴν τῆς θεᾶς in a Phrygian inscription, JHSt. 1883, p. 388). These 
similarities can prove nothing alone ; and even if other evidence were forth- 
eoming, all that they could help to establish would be that Rom. xvi. 25-27 
and the Pastoral Epistles were written by the same person. The case is not 
changed if by that person we understand Paul. On the contrary, it is absurd 
to claim that the same pseudo-Paul who forged the Pastoral Epistles inter- 
polated Romans. 


414 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


18. (P. 388.) We find greetings from large groups of Christians to the 
collective body of readers in 1 Cor. xvi. 19f.; 2 Cor. xii. 12; ef. Tit. iii. 15; 
1 Pet. v. 13; Heb. xiii. 24; together with more particular greetings, Phil. 
iv. 22; Rom. xvi. 16. Gal., Eph., 2 Thess., and 1 Tim. have no greetings 
at the end; in 1 Thess. v. 26 is simply a request to greet one another in 
Paul’s name, οἵ. Rom. xvi. 16a. The only case where individuals are 
addressed in the course of the letter is Phil. iv. 2f. Apart from the letters 
addressed to places which Paul had not yet seen, Rom. and Col. (see above, 
p. 388), greetings to individuals and from individuals oceur besides only in 
the private letters, Philem. 23 f.; 2 Tim. iv. 19-21. Even in the case of brief 
personal intercourse with a Church, there would be no end of greetings if the 
writer sought thus to express all the connections formed at that time. This 
is illustrated by formulas such as those in Ign. Smyrn. xiii; ad Polye. viii 
ἀσπάζομαι πάντας κατ᾽ ὄνομα and ἐξ ὀνόματος, cf. 3 John 15; Berl. dgypt. Urk. 
27. 18, 93. 28, and often. For the same reason, Paul, in his letters to the 
Churches founded by him at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth, and in 
Galatia, avoids personal greetings at the close altogether. He would have 
done the same then probably in a letter to the Ephesians. 

19. (Pp. 385, 389.) Baur (i. 394): “xv, 1-13 contains nothing which the 
apostle might not have said better in xii. 1f.” Answer: Paul said nothing 
similar in xii. 1 f. ; in xv. 1-13, for the very first time in the whole Epistle, he 
touches on the difference between the Jewish and the Gentile elements within 
the Church as an opposition which endangers unity of faith and worship, 
and which he exhorts both sides to put away. That there were Gentile 
Christians in Rome was seen before in xi. 13 ; but only the Gentile Christians 
were admonished in xi. 16 ff., not both parties in the Church ; and these were 
exhorted to a proper attitude, not toward the Jewish Christians, but toward 
unbelieving Jews. According to Baur 394f., Lucht 174 ff., concessions are 
made to the Jewish Christians in xv. 8f. which Paul never offers. But the 
historical fact that the personal activity of Christ did limit itself to Israel 
(γεγενῆσθαι), could not be denied by even a fanatical anti-Semite, to say 
nothing of Paul, who laid stress upon these very things, namely, that all 
revelations, including the last and greatest, were entrusted to this people and 
had taken place in Israel (iii. 2, v. 20); that Jesus in the whole sphere of 
His life was under the law, in order that first of all He might redeem them 
that were under the law, 7.e. the Israelites (Gal. iv. 4f., iii. 13; Rom. 
vii. 4); and that only in consequence of His death and the unbelief of Israel 
did salvation turn to the Gentiles (Gal. iii. 14 ; Rom. xi. 11-xv. 30). The 
appearance of Christ in Israel is, indeed, made the proof of God’s faithfulness 
in fulfilling His promises made to the patriarchs ; but so far is this from exclud- 
“ing the idea of grace, that promise and grace are rather correlated (Rom. iv. 
13-16; Gal. iii. 17f.). Yet it is emphasised no less strongly in Rom. iii. 3, 
ix. 4-6, xi. 1 f., 27-29, that God in fulfilling His promises toward Israel has 
proved His faithfulness and will still prove it. Paul never taught that the 
Gentiles had an historical right to salvation similar to that of the Jews. It 
is therefore hard to see why he could not here, as in xi. 30, emphasise as 
characteristic of the Gentiles’ relation to salvation the fact that they owed 
this simply to the mercy of God. A concession to the Jewish Christians such 
as sets one thinking is to be found notin xv. 8f., but in xiv. 5; see 8 23, 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 415 


Ineredible as it may seem, Baur (396, 399) gathered that Paul presupposed in 
i. 11 a lack on the Romans’ part of the “essentials of the deeper knowledge,” 
namely, the “ pneumatic,” which accordingly he must needs impart to them, 
On this view, to be sure, the words of approbation in xv. 14, and the 
apologetic remark a little farther on about his writing the letter, appear like 
a contradiction, In reality he expressed himself much more modestly with 
reference to the result of his coming visit in i. 11—where, moreover, there is no 
mention of the letter—than in xv. 29 (above, pp. 355f., 369). It is unquestion- 
ably true that it was a venture to write to the Romans, for Paul, who considered 
himself above all a missionary to the Gentiles, had no immediate connection 
with the Roman Church by virtue of his calling. But the attentive reader 
does not see this for the first time in xv. 15, it appears in the opening greet- 
ing, so diplomatically worded, and in the tone of the whole Epistle. No- 
where the tone of a teacher to his pupils, no use of νουθετεῖν (1 Cor. iv. 14; 
Col. i. 28; 1 Thess. v. 12, 14; Acts xx. 31), though this is allowable even 
among equal brethren (Col. iii. 16; 2 Thess. iii. 15; Rom. xv. 14), or of 
παραγγέλλειν (1 Cor. vii. 10, xi. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 11; 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 10, 12) 
and διατάσσεσθαι (1 Cor. vii. 17, xi. 34, xvi. 1); but everywhere the most 
considerate tone of one who wishes to come to an understanding with equals, 
and who exhorts them asa brother. The principle proclaimed in xv. 20 of 
preaching the gospel only where Christ has not yet been named, is held to be 
un-Pauline, indeed, even incompatible with the writing of a letter to the 
Romans. But (1) Paul says merely that he prides himself upon such pioneer 
work, and by no means that he regards every continuation of work begun by 
others as sin or folly. (2) This declaration corresponds with his actual pro- 
cedure since the outset of the first missionary journey. As in Corinth 
(1 Cor. iii. 10), so everywhere he laid the foundations ; and he expresses him- 
self quite similarly in 2 Cor. x. 15f. (3) Writing Rom. is no edayyeXileodaı, 
and so cannot be inconsistent with this principle. (4) Paul spoke most 
modestly in i. 13-15 of his missionary work in Rome (above, pp. 355 f., 369, 371). 
Anyone can see from Paul’s actual practice why he did not wish to make 
Rome a centre for his missionary preaching. Wherever there was a thriving 
Chureh, whether founded by himself or by others, his tarrying was never 
long, and his εὐαγγελίζεσθαι not great. But it was natural surely for Paul, 
restless missionary as he was, to tell what was the aim of his journey to the 
West, since he did not intend to accomplish much in Rome. What we miss in 
i. 13-15 we find in xv. 22-29, Rome was his stopping-place on the way to 
Spain. That a pseudo-Paul regarded Rome and Italy as the province of 
another apostle is a thoroughly groundless insinuation of Baur’s (398). Τῦ is 
all the more strange when we hear that this man’s views agreed with those of 
the author of Acts (398, 408), which, as we know, closes with a terse but lively 
deseription of a two years’ preaching activity of Paul in Rome, and says 
nothing of another apostle there. Baur (401) considered the Spanish journey 
“the most incredible thing told about the apostle’s life.” He failed to see 
that the possible unhistoricity of this tradition does not affect in the least the 
question whether the real Paul expressed such a purpose of going thither, 
while it is an almost insuperable obstacle to supposing that a pseudo-Paul— 
especially if belonging to the first century, see above, p. 388 f.—would have put 
such an utterance into the mouth of the apostle. This holds also against Lipsius, 


416 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


HK, ii. 2, 86, 195 f., who rejected xv. 195, 205 (including ἀλλά, ver. 21), 23, 24 
as interpolations, and in ver. 28 preferred to read ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς instead 
of ἀπελεύσομαι---Σπανίαν, though retaining the rest of chap, 15 as genuine. 
That Paul should speak of preaching in Jerusalem agrees with Acts xxvi. 20, 
ix. 26-29, and is not inconsistent with Gal.i. 17-24. Gal. does not mention 
the place of his εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, about which the Churches in Judea heard at 
the time when he betook himself from Palestine to Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 
i. 21-24). But since this news, as the form of expression shows (ὁ διώκων 
ἡμᾶς more, ver. 23), spread from Jerusalem out into Palestine, the natural 
assumption is that during his fifteen days’ stay in the city he who before was 
known as a persecutor became known as a preacher of the gospel, cf. ZKom. 
Gal. 74f. Since his aim in Rom. xy. 19 is not to tell where he had preached 
first and where last, but to give the most widely separated regions of his 
activity hitherto, he does not mention Damascus, but Jerusalem and the 
borders of Illyricum. He does not say that he has preached in Illyricum ; 
for nothing compels us to understand μέχρι as inclusive rather than as ex- 
clusive, as, e.g. in Rom, v. 14; Phil. ii. 30. The Roman province of Illyricum 
bordered in the south on Macedonia and was separated from Achaia, to which 
also Epirus belonged, by a strip of land belonging to Macedonia (Marquardt, 
i, 297, 318f., 331). If Paul considered his task of preaching the gospel in 
Macedonia fulfilled when he had founded Churches in Philippi, Thessalonica, 
and Bercea, he had in so doing “fulfilled it as far as Illyricum.” This way 
of looking at it may seem extravagant, but it was the prevailing one in 
apostolic times, coming to light everywhere in the N.T., and lying at the 
basis of Paul’s missionary methods; cf. Skizzen, 76-82. Moreover, it is 
possible that immediately after writing 2 Cor. Paul may have set forth from 
Thessalonica or Bercea upon a short preaching tour, which brought him still 
nearer to the bounds of Illyrieum than he had come before... The vague ex- 
pression τὰ μέρη ἐκεῖνα, Acts xx. 2, allows freest play to our imagination. 
Also during the three months which he spent in Greece (Acts xx. 3), he may 
have made in connection with his visit to all the Churches “in the whole 
of Achaia” (2 Cor. i. 1, above, p. 264, n. 2), a preaching tour which led him 
beyond the border of Achaia, and near to the confines of Illyricum, perhaps 
to Apollonia or Dyrrhachium. The intention of making such a tour is 
possibly expressed in 2 Cor. x. 16. It would be after his return from this 
trip that he wrote Rom. in Corinth. If his fifteen days in Jerusalem (Gal. 
i, 18). seemed important enough to be mentioned here, his journey to the 
borders of Illyrieum need have lasted no longer. In short, the charge of 
historical improbability can be brought against Rom, xv. 19 only by those 
who regard the much abused Book of Acts as an exhaustive journal even 
when, as in xx. 1-2, it compresses the record of about ten months into four 
lines. And.whence did the alleged interpolator get the fact? 2 Tim. iv. 
10 gives instead of Illyrieum the equivalent name Dalmatia, and makes Titus 
go thither, not Paul. 

20. (Pp. 385, 389.) Semler, op. cit, 293, and Eichhorn, Hint.’ iii, 243, had 
expressed various doubts about Rome as the original destination of Rom, 
wvi.; but D. Schulz (ThStKr. 1829, S. 609-612) developed the arguments 
which have given great currency to the view that this chapter or great parts 
of it are fragments of a letter to the Chureb at Ephesus, Rom. xvi, 1-20 is 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 417 


claimed for Ephesus by Reuss, Lipsius, and others, following) D. Schulz ; 
xvi. 3-20 by Ewald (Sendschr. des Pl. 428), Mangold, and others; and 
xvi. 1-6, 17-20 by Lucht. The whole “list of names,” which, according to 
‚Lipsius, 86, should lead to this conclusion, reduces to 3 out of the 31 (6. 
if we count the names Aristobulus and Narcissus and. the larger groups in 
xvi. 5,10, 11, 14,15 as each a single person), namely, Aquila, Priscilla, and 
Epenetus. The first two, however, were at home in Pontus, Rome, and 
Corinth, as well as in Ephesus, see above, also p. 389f. Concerning 2:Tim. 
iv. 19, to which those at least who deny the genuineness of 2 Tim. cannot 
appeal, see §§ 33, 37. To hold that Paul knew personally all:those named or 
indicated in xvi. 3-15 would be a gratuitous assumption. He sends greetings 
to whole Churches which had never seen him and to individual members of 
them (Col, iv. 15, cf. ii. 1); and he directs greetings from himself or from 
his whole neighbourhood to the collective membership of Churches founded 
by him, without excepting those who had been added since his last stay, or 
who were personally unknown to the Christians of his neighbourhood (1 Cor. 
xvi. 19a, 20a; Phil. iv. 21 f. ; 1 Thess. v. 26). Consequently, also in Rom. 
xvi. 3-15 we can decide only from more particular statements whom of those 
greeted Paul knew personally. ‚This can be claimed more or less definitely 
only for the persons mentioned in, xvi. 3-9, 18. Those whom he knew had 
told him the names of these others whom he greets, and doubtless something 
about them also, With regard to particular ones, see below, nn. 21-24... Con- 
cerning xvi. 17-20, see § 23. 

21. (P. 389.) The Antioch reading ’Ayaias, xvi. 5, is wholly untrustworthy, 
being introduced from 1 Cor. xvi. 15, which a thoughtless comparison of Rom. 
xvi. 3-5 with 1 Cor. xvi. 19 easily suggested: According to Acts xx. 31, cf. 
xix. 8-10, xx. 18, the time during which Aquila lived in Ephesus without 
Paul (Acts xviii. 21-xix. 1), lasted about nine months. It would bea curious 
assumption that he and his wife restricted their evangelistic work to the 
teaching of Apollos (Acts xviii. 26). It is very possible that Epznetus, like 
Paul, found employment as a fellow-craftsman in Aquila’s trade, or even was 
bought as a slave by Aquila in Ephesus, and that thus his conversion ‘wag 
brought about. We can comprehend why it was that a congregation gathered 
immediately in Aquila’s house in Rome as it had done in Ephesus (1 Cor. 
xvi. 19); for they doubtless needed a large shop in which to carry on their 
trade. The workmen engaged there, probably slaves of Aquila, must have 
formed the nucleus of the congregation. Probably all the persons mentioned 
as far as xvi. 10a belonged to Aquila’s household when he was in Ephesus, 
and so were known to Paul. All those named as far as xvi, 13 being 
apparently members of the congregation in Aquila’s house (§ 23, n. 1), those 
mentioned in xvi. 10)-13 would constitute the circle outside of the immediate 
household (xvi. 3-10«). 

22. (P.391.) Taken by itself, συγγενής, xvi. 7, 11, 21, may indicate blood 
relationship (cf. Luke i. 36, 58, ii: 44, xiv. 12 ; John xviii, 26 ; Acts x. 24). But 
it is exceedingly improbable that’ Jason of Thessalonica, Sosipater of Beroa, cf. 
Acts xvii. 5-9, xx. 4, above, p. 209, and a certain Lucius (ver. 21), Macedonians 
sojourning in the neighbourhood of Paul at Corinth, also Herodion (ver. 11), 
Andronicus, and Junias (ver. 7), were all relatives of- Paul. Besides, the 
emphasising of the personal relationship would have no weight, the uniform 

VOL. I. 27 


418 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


lack of partieularity in deseribing the various ties of kinship (Col. iv. 10; 
Acts xxiii. 16) would be singular, and the separation of the names of these 
relatives living in Rome (xvi. 7, 11) would be incomprehensible. The 
conjecture of Semler (Paraphr. epist. ad Rom. 302 ; ef. Laurent, Ntl. Stud. 
33), that συγγεν εἷς means here fellow-countrymen of Paul from Cilicia or 
from the Synagogue of the Cilicians (Acts vi. 9) has still less to recommend it. 
It goes back rather, as in ix. 3, to yévos in the sense of nation (Gal. i. 14; 
2 Cor. xi. 26; Phil. iii. 5; Acts xiii. 26). 

23. (P. 391.) Rom. xvi. 7. Since Junius, Junia was an exceedingly 
common nomen in all grades of society (eg. €. I. L. vi. 20850-20919), it 
would be most natural to find here a woman, Junia. But since Junianus ‘is 
also not uncommon (C. 1. G. 4118; C. I. L. ii. 1359, iii. 4020, v. 3489 ; Orelli, 
4141, following De Vit, Onom.—also in a Christian inscription), there is almost 
nothing in the way of assuming a contracted form ᾿Ιουνεᾶς from this masculine 
name. While the other statements, perhaps, would fit a married couple, the 
designation συναιχμαλώτους pov would refer more naturally to two men. 
Since Paul is not at present lying in prison, and, moreover, is not in the same 
place with these two people, this designation points even more clearly than 
συνεργούς pov to a community of life belonging to the past. They must have 
once shared an imprisonment of Paul. This Paul calls a captivity, just as in 
Col. iv. 10; Philem. 23, since all Christians are soldiers of Christ (2 Tim. 
ii. 3 f.; 1 Tim. i. 18; 1 Cor. ix. 7; 2 Cor. x. 3), and therefore, whenever 
they are imprisoned, are prisoners of war. The frequent figurative use of 
στρατιώτης and συστρατιώτης (Phil. 11. 25; Philem. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 3) does not 
commend but forbids Hofmann’s view, iii. 617, iv. 2. 147, that συναιχμάλωτος, 
like συστρατιώτης, expresses simply the fellowship of the Christian ‘state. 
Besides, on this view, Paul’s language, if it is to be understood at all naturally, 
would imply that the persons in question were “ captured from the world by 
Christ” at the same time as he, which was true of none of them. Cf. the 
writer’s article on “Paganus,” NKZ, x. (1899) 5. 38f. and “Zur Lebens- 
geschichte des Paulus,” Ν ΚΖ, xv. (1904) 5. 32 ff. If Andronicus and Junias 
were converted before Paul, whose conversion followed hard on the death of 
Stephen and the first spread of Christianity beyond Jerusalem, they must 
have belonged to the Jerusalem Church before 35 A.D. Consequently we 
are to understand by ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις : “ famed, mentioned with 
honour in the circle of the apostles,” and hardly, “eminent apostles.” The 
latter sense would be, in view of all that the N.T. tells us of the missionaries 
of that time, extravagant, to say the least. Oi ἀπόστολοι alone means, in 
Paul’s mouth, the original apostles (Gal. i. 19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 7). Since Paul 
had not been imprisoned in Jerusalem before he wrote Romans, we may 
assume that Andronicus and Junias belonged to those fugitives who came 
from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts xi. 19), that they were active in the mission 
there, and that sometime during the years 43-50, when we know practically 
nothing about Paul, they were cast into prison along with him; οἵ, ὦ. Cor. 
xi. 23; Clem. 1 Cor. v. 6. Paul may have become acquainted with them as 
early as his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion (Gal. i. 18; Acts 
ix. 26), and it may have been in remembrance of experiences which he then 
had shared with these and others of that city now living in Rome that he 
mentioned Jerusalem instead of Damascus in xv. 19. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 419 


24. (Pp. 392, 393). Regarding the names in xvi. 8-15, cf. Lightfoot, Philip- 
pians, ed. 3, pp. 171-175; Riggenbach, 509 ff. (1) Ampliatus (ver. 8; Ὁ and 
the Antioch recension have the contracted form ᾿Αμπλιᾶν), a “nomen servile” 
De Vit, Onomast.), occurring also in higher circles perhaps by the third century 
(Cod. Justin. v. 56. 2). A connection with the gens Claudia is attested by 
C. 1. L. vi. 14918, 15509, ef. also Claudia, 2 Tim. iv. 21; Phil. iv. 22, and 
below, § 33, n. 2. Under Urbanus, Lightfoot, p. 174, cites an inscription 
of the year 115 (Gruter, p. 1070, 1=C. I. L. vi. 44), which, in a list of 
freedmen employed in the imperial mint, gives Urbanus, Ampliatus next to 
each other, as here, xvi. 8-9. In 1880 a vault was discovered in the Catacomb 
of Domitilla, over the entrance to which the builder and first owner is 
indicated by Ampliati, and in the interior of which an Aurel. Ampliatus, 
plainly a descendant of the founder, has put up a monument to his wife ; 
ef. de Rossi, Bull. di archeol. erist. 1880, p. 171; 1881, p. 57 (1883, p. 
121); 1886, p. 59 other Ampliati) ; Hasenclever, TofP TH. 1887, S. 499. If 
the grahiedlogists are right in assigning the bald of the vault and the 
inseription outside to the end of the first century, and the inseription inside 
to perhaps the middle of the second, it is probable that the builder of the 
tomb was the Ampliatus of Rom!’ xvi. 8 or a son of his. (2) Aristobulus 
(ver. 10). With regard to this man, mentioned in the text, p. 392, cf. Jos. Bell. 
li. 11.6; Ant. xviii. 5. 4, 8. 4, xx. 1.2. A mutilated Jewish inscription at 
Rome (Schürer, Gemeindeverf. der Juden in Rom. S. 17, 46, No: 36) probably 
refers to a Jew, Herodion (ver. 11) rather than to an otherwise unknown 
Synagogue of the Rhodians. (3) The Christians ex τῶν τοῦ Ναρκίσσου (ver. 11). 
Concerning the famous Narcissus, ef. Tac. Ann. xi. 29-38, xii. 1, xiii. 1; 
Suet. Claud. xxviii; Dio Cass. lx. 34. Inscriptions from Rome: C. I. L, vi. 
15640= Muratori 1150. 4 “ Claudia Veneria Ti. Claudio Sp. F. Ser. Nareissiano 
Filio”;. Muratori 902. 5 (Narcissus and Narcissianus, freedmen of the 
Flavian imperial house, both names also from Pannonia, ©. I. L. iii. 3973) ; 
Orelli, 4387 ; ©. I. G.6441b, BaAXia Ναρκισσιανή ; ©. I. L. vi. 22871, Narcissias. 
The name Nareissus is not uncommon outside of Rome also ; but this cannot 
impair the significance of the fact that from the time of the famed Narcissus 
there were numerous Narcissiani in Rome, or weaken the inference that it is 
an entire group of these which is mentioned in Rom. xvi. 11. The Acts of 
Peter, which makes Narcissus a Roman presbyter (above, p. 401, n. 4 at the 
end), does not draw from local tradition, but thoughtlessly selects two names, 
Narcissus, who is by no means presupposed as’ still living in Rom. xvi. 11, 
and Qiiartas (ver. 23), who was to be found really in Corinth, and Ἢ 
them in Rome, simply because they are mentioned in Romans (GK, 11. 858). 
(4) Tryphena is naturally not the “queen” of that name in Pisidian 
Antioch, whom the Acts of Thecla connects with Paul (GK, ii. 906 f.). Yet 
the eireumstance that this historical personage was related to the emperor 
Claudius suggests the conjecture that the Tryphzna of Rom. xvi. 12 was a 
servant in the court of Claudius and then of Nero, especially since Tryphsena 
as well as the next name here, Tryphosa, occurs among women in service 
at the Claudian court (©. I. L. vi. 15241, 15280, 15622-15626 : ef. Lishtfoot, 
174). Two ancient Christian inscriptions should also be mentioned, one 
from the Coemeterium of Priscilla’ (Bull. arch. crist. 1886, p. 48, No. 34, 
Tpvbo [v or woa] . . . Tpucbalırn]), the other from the Coemeterium of 


420 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Hermes (Bull. 1894, p. 17, ostensibly from the first half of the second century. 
“Tryphonillam ... Aurelia Tryphsna parentes”). (5) Regarding Rufus, 
ver. 13, see above, p. 393, and § 53, n. 5. Of itself this very common name 
would suggest no special relations. It is found also among Roman Jews 
(Schürer, S. 36, No. 16, 17). (6) Phlegon, ef. ©. I. L. vi. 15202, “ Ti. Claudi 
Phlegontis Ti. Claudi Juliani Lib.” Moreover, the writer Phlegon, a freed- 
man of Hadrian’s, lived and wrote in Rome. (7) Patrobas= Patrobius, οἵ. 
Tac. Hist. i. 49, ii. 95; Suet. Galba, xx; 0, 1. L. vi. 15189, “ Ti. Claudio 
Patrobio,” ef. Gruter, 610. 3.. (8) Concerning Hermas (ver. 14), Origen (iv. 
683) made the modest but worthless conjecture that he was identical with 
the Roman Christian Hermas, who, in the time of Clement; wrote the 
Shepherd ; cf. the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, 33. (9) Nereus and his sister 
(ver. 15). Nnpevs and Nnpeis, quite common names of slaves and manumitted 
persons, also of some in the service of the emperor, C. J. L. 111. 256, vi. 8598 
(Domitia Nereis, wife of a freedman and secretary of the emperor). Light- 
foot, 174, cites from Acc. di Archeol. xi. 376, a Claudia Aug. L. Nereis, who 
was closely related to a mother and daughter Tryphena (ibid. xi. 375). 
Among the earliest Roman martyrs belong Nereus and Achilleus, valets of 
the Christian lady Domitilla, according to the Greek legends, but praetorians 
rather, according to the eulogy of bishop Damasus; cf. Achelis, Texte w. 
Unters. xi, 2. 44. . These traditions cannot have sprung from Rom. xvi. 15 ; 
for in that case the sister of Nereus would not be wanting in the legend, 
nor would the names associated with Nereus be all different from those in 
Rom. xvi. 

25. (P. 394.) It is sufficient refutation of the involved interpolation 
hypothesis of Völter to have stated it in the light of its results (above, p. 164). 
On the presupposition that xvi. 3-20 was addressed to Ephesus, H. 
Sehultz (JbfDTh. 1876, S. 104-130) proposed ascribing xii. I-xv. 7 also to 
this letter, which he dated in, Paul’s later life. This supposed ‘ Eph.” had 
been welded upon the older Rom. (i. 1-xi, 36, xv. 7-xvi. 2, 24) by a 
redactor, slight changes being made at the points of juncture. Connecting 
with this theory, though denying that any parts of the letter were intended 
for Ephesus, Spitta (Z. Gesch. d. Urchrist. i, 16-30), and again with more 
detailed proof and many not unessential changes—“ Untersuchung über den 
Röm,,” op. cit. iii. 1 [1901] has sought to prove that Romans, as handed down 
to us, and already known to Marcion, was made out of two letters of Paul 
addressed to the Roman Church. The longer and earlier letter has been 
preserved essentially unchanged in i. 1-xi. 36, xv. 8-33, xvi. 21-27; and 
the shorter and later letter appears in xii. 1-xv. 7, xvi. 1-20, likewise com- 
plete, save for a salutation which had been omitted by the editor. It is 
supposed that this shorter letter was not written until after Paul’s release 
from his first Roman imprisonment and toward the end of his journey among 
the Eastern Churches,—a further activity attested by the Pastoral Epistles. 
This would date the letter probably in the beginning of 64 a.p. The longer 
letter, however, within the limits of which the shorter has been inserted, is a 
mixtum compositwm. Paul himself is supposed, to have worked over an 
earlier circular letter, which had been addressed soon after the apostolic 
council to the Jewish Christians, or to the mother Church. The original 
letter, which in i, 16b-xi. 10 is preserved in its essential content and word- 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 42) 


ing, was changed into a letter to the alleged Gentile Christian Church in 
Rome by prefixing i. 1-16a, by inserting iii. 1-8, vi. 12f., 15-23, xi. 11-36, 
and by adding xv. 8-33, xvi. 21-27. There were still other short sentences, 
which Spitta has culled out with more or less certainty, as additions of the 
editor or later readers, as eg. xi. 25 (iva μὴ---φρόνιμοι, cf. xii. 16), xiv. 5-60, 
xy. 7 (καθὼς θεοῦ); but these are inconvenient for the interpretation pre- 
supposed by him (S. 38 ff., 43, 50). Spitta also in his later and fuller treatise, 
which, to be sure, is not brief, has not given any adequate reason why an 
editor should have worked over two letters of Paul to the Romans into a 
single letter which must have been accomplished before the two original 
letters were circulated outside of Rome. By this theory the letters gain 
nothing in edification, and how much they lose in clearness and reasonable- 
ness would best be shown by Spitta’s argument for his hypothesis if it were 
tenable. Still worse must be the judgment which we would have to pass 
upon Paul if he worked over his alleged circular letter to the Jewish Chris- 
tians of Palestine into a letter to the Gentile Christians of Rome. Instead 
of sending the Romans a copy of the earlier letter, with a shorter note 
accompanying it, in which he would explain why he recommended them to 
read this communication, originally not intended for them, Paul sent them, 
without one word of explanation or excuse, a writing of motley patchwork, 
which in its essential content was entirely unsuited to the Roman Christians, 
whom, however, he is addressing (e.g. vii. 1-6). The other doubts concern- 
ing this, and the similar hypothesis (mentioned above, pp. 153f., 415 f.), are 
indeed not lessened but rather increased by the assertion (S. 6) that not one 
single letter of the N.T. “is preserved in its original form.” 


8.29. CONSTITUENCY AND ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN 
CHURCH. 


In xi. 13, xv. 5-12 it is clearly stated that among the 
Christians in Rome, to whom, as a body, the letter is 
addressed, there were Gentiles as well as Jews. On the 
other hand, if all the Christians in Rome had been Jews, 
Paul would not have expressly characterised certain 
individuals to whom he sends greetings as countrymen of 
his (n. 1). At the same time, it is undeniable that in 
addressing the readers’ as a body Paul assumes that, like 
himself, they had lived under the law prior to their con- 
version (vi. 1-6, vili. 15, also vi. 16 ; see above, prs74ify, 
n. 8). This does not involve contradiction any more than 
when Paul addresses the Churches at Corinth and Thessa- 
lonica and in Galatia uniformly as Gentile Christian 
Churches, though from the beginning their membership 


422 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


included a number of Jews and more’ proselytes (e.g 
7 Cor. xi, 2, Gal iv. 8-1 Dhess..1..9) Ihe come: 
inference is, rather, that in Rome the Gentile Christians 
constituted a comparatively small minority, just as did the 
Jewish Christians in the other Churches mentioned. This 
is proved by the passage where Paul turns directly to his 
Gentile readers, for the first time calling attention ex- 
pressly to his special commission as the apostle to. the 
Gentiles (xi. 13). The way in which this transition is 
made (above, p. 375 f., n. 9) shows that Paul thought of the 
Church, which to this point he had addressed without dis- 
tinguishing the separate elements within it, as a body of 
native Jewish Christians. This conclusion is confirmed by 
the way in which from xi. 11 on (notably in xi. 13-32) he 
speaks of the now unbelieving Israel. This differs alto- 
gether from the tone of ix. 1-xi. 10, in which he defends 
himself against the appearance or the charge of heartless m- 
difference toward his unbelieving and unfortunate country- 
men (ix. 1-5, x. 1f.). At the same time, by disavowing 
motives to which his solemn affirmation of sympathy for 
Israel might be attributed, he protests against a false grief 
for Israel, such as might imperil faith in the gospel and the 
preparatory revelation in the O.T., a grief such as only 
native Jews were liable to feel. The remnant of the saved, 
predicted by the prophets, the “seven thousand” of the 
present time (ix. 29, xi. 4), are not to allow themselves to 
be misled by the obstinacy and misfortune of the majority 
of their countrymen. On the other hand, from xi. 13 on the 
Gentile Christians in Rome are warned against an attitude 
of arrogant contempt toward the unbelieving Israel, and 
against failing to recognise this nation’s importance, which 
will one day be made manifest. Moreover, the manner in 
which Paul strives to give expression to his own patriotic 
feeling, even in the personal notices of chap. xvi., is intelli- 
gible only on the supposition that he is speaking to Jewish 
Christians (above, pp. 391, 417, n. 22). ‘The same is true 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 423 


with reference to what he says about the mutual exercise 
of love and gratitude between Jewish and Gentile Christians 
where his influence dominates (xv. 26-32, xvi. 3 f., above, 
pp. 368 ἢ, 391 ἢ). In the light of what is said in Gal. 
iv. 10, Col. ii. 16, if this were a Gentile Christian Church, 
Paul could not mention the observation of certain days as 
he does in Rom. xiv. 5 ἢ, as if the readers were perfectly 
justified in maintaining their customs without renouncing 
entirely principles tested by more than ten years of heated 
controversy. If, on the other hand, he is addressing a 
Church which is predominantly Jewish, in which the Gen- 
tile Christian minority is at least under the same obligation 
to submit themselves to the majority as the majority is 
under obligation to defer to them (οἴ, χν. 1-7), what is 
here said is only a statement of his view that of itself the 
Jewish manner of life is just as consistent with the Chris- 
tian faith as is that of the Gentiles (1 Cor. vii. 18-20, ix. 
20 f.; Gal. ü. 14, v. 6), something Paul never denied. 
Had the Church been so predominantly Gentile that Paul 
could have assumed that it felt itself to be one with the 
Churches in the East founded by himself, he would have 
referred at once to its Gentile origin, and to himself as, the 
apostle of the Gentiles (cf. Eph. iii. 1). Instead. of. this, 
however, from 1, 1 on we observe he is very careful to base 
his right to address the Roman Christians on the broad 
foundation of the general apostleship which he shares with 
the older apostles. He also guards carefully against the 
implication that his special call to the Gentiles (xi, 13; 
xv. 15 f.) and his gospel (ii. 16, xvi. 25) prevent him 
from being considered a legitimate preacher of the one 
gospel of God, promised in the O.T., and first preached by 
Jesus (above, p. 353). Finally, he asks especially that his 
message be received by all the Christians in Rome (n. 2). 
Even the theme developed in i. 18-v. 11, the implications 
of which are followed out in v. 12—viii, 39, was suggested 
by his realisation of the difference between his readers’ 


424 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


point of view and his own construction and presentatior 
of the gospel. Only on the theory that the letter was in- 
tended for Christians, who on account of their Jewish train- 
ing still found the complete recognition of this truth difficult, 
was it necessary to give such a fundamental development 
of the thought that the gospel is a power of God’ unto 
salvation for all men under the sole condition of faith. 
Nothing but the fact that his readers were Jews could 
have made it necessary for him to answer the objections 
that the gospel doctrine of justification was practical 
antinomianism (111. 31, compare vi. 1, 15), and broke the 
close connection between the Christian and the O.T. 
Church (iv. 1 ff., above, p. 359). Even leaving quite out 
of consideration the various passages where it is expressly 
stated that before their conversion the readers were dis- 
obedient servants (vi. 16 f.), filled with the spirit οὗ 
bondage (vil. 15), not becoming free from the bondage 
of the law until their conversion (vii. 1-6, above, p. 360 ἢ 
374 f.), such teaching regarding the’ law as is found in 
chaps. vi.j} wi. (ef. iii. 20,°1iv. 15, viii 3 fi; x4) was 
applicable only to native Jews who for some reason, 
either by their own reflection or by the influence of the 
slanderous assaults of their unbelieving countrymen 
(iii. 8), doubted whether such an entire severance of their 
religious and moral life from the Mosaic law, as taught 
by Paul, was possible. The exhortations to live at peace 
with their non-Christian neighbours, and to fulfil con- 
scientiously all obligations to the State (xii. 17—xiii. 7), 
are fuller and more strenuous than in any other of Paul’s 
letters, which goes to confirm our’ belief that Paul is here 
addressing the Christian part of that Jewish population, 
which some years before had been driven from Romie 
by the Emperor Claudius on account of their incessant 
rioting. 

Many thoughts regarding law, faith, and justification 
similar to those in this Epistle are found also in Galatians. 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 425 


But even a superficial comparison of Romans with this 
or any other of Paul’s Epistles addressed to Gentile 
Christians, in which he antagonises the destructive in- 
fluence of hostile teachers and of a false gospel, will show 
that no part of Romans was occasioned by like conditions 
in Rome. Not only is the teaching under which the 
Romans became Christians unconditionally approved (vi. 
17, xvi. 17), but also the faith of the Church at the time 
is recognised as normal (xv. 14, xvi. 19; ef. 1. 8, 12, 
xv. 24). This is not contradicted by the occasional 
reference which we find to the weakness of the flesh, 
we. an unripe condition of moral and religious life (vi. 
19, cf. 1 Cor. iii. 1f.), to individual weakness of faith 
(xiv. 1), and indirectly to the lack of close harmony 
between the Jewish majority and the Gentile minority 
in the Church (xv. 1-13). Throughout the entire doc- 
trinal discussion of the letter there is not the slightest 
hint of apostasy, nor of reversion to a Jewish or Gentile 
manner of life, nor of any actually threatening danger 
that the readers would be deceived into accepting a 
false gospel. Nor can the injunction at the end of the 
letter (xvi. 17 f.), that the Church be on its guard against 
persons who stir up dissensions and create occasions of 
stumbling, who do not, as they pretend, serve Christ, 
but their own bellies, and who by their fine speeches, 
which have a pious and friendly sound, deceive the 
innocent, be taken as indicating any such condition of 
things. That in thus exhorting the Church Paul did not 
have in mind persons who were actually working at the 
time in Rome with success, is proved by the fact that in 
this very connection he says to the readers, emphatically, 
that their obedience has become known to all men, and 
that he rejoices over them; something that he could not 
say of all Churches (n. 3). Therefore the desire which he 
hopes to see fulfilled by this warning, namely, that through 
their experience they may become constantly wiser in 


426 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


respect of the good, and remain free from the evil, has 
reference to the future. Accordingly, the statement: that 
God, who, desires peace in His Church, will quickly crush 
Satan under their feet, is made in view of the’ possibility 
that persons may come among them and disturb their 
peace, as had been done elsewhere (ef. 2 Cor. xi. 3). 
What led the apostle to insert in this peculiar place such 
an exhortation, designed to warn the readers against future 
dangers, is clear from xvi. 16. After greeting the differ- 
ent groups into which the Roman Church was divided 
without making any distinction among them, he enjoins 
them all to express their fellowship with one another by a 
holy kiss. That this fellowship, however, was wider than 
the bounds of the local Church, is proved by the addition 
of a greeting from all the Churches of Christ to the 
Roman Christians. Besides the Christians in Corinth and 
vicinity, among whom Paul was when he wrote (xvi. 1, 
23), he was surrounded at the time by representatives of 
the Macedonian Churches, probably also of other Churches 
(xvi. 21, cf. xv. 26, above, p. 209). During the preceding 
years Paul had had a great deal of trouble in the Asiatic 
Churches, but especially in Corinth, with persons who dis- 
turbed the peace of the Church in one way and another. 
In both localities the Churches themselves had not rejected 
such persons with enough decision. How natural, there- 
fore, at this point, where he conveys greetings from these 
Churches, to warn the Romans against such teachers! But 
he describes them in such general terms that it is neces- 
sary to conclude also from the passage that at the time the 
false teachers and disturbers of the peace had not as yet 
appeared in Rome. For if they had, Paul could not have 
failed,,to specify their particular character. The Church 
had not yet become, involved in the conflict that was 
being waged between Paul and the Judaisers. The, ex- 
tremely cautious way in which Paul speaks when en- 
deavouring to secure an understanding between himself 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 427 


and the Church, proves that while the majority were not 
hostile to him and his work, they did, nevertheless, feel 
him to be still a stranger, and regarded him not altogether 
without mistrust. This is explained, however, by the fact 
that the Church was made up largely of Jews, who were 
indebted for their Christianity neither to Paul nor to any 
of his helpers (n. 4). 

The Roman Church did not have a founder in the 
same sense as did the Church in Ephesus or Corinth 
(n. 5). If so, Paul could not have remained entirely 
silent regarding such a person when speaking of the 
teaching to which the readers owed their conversion (vi. 
17, xvi. 17). The first trace which we have of the pre- 
sence of Christianity in Rome is the vague statement of 
Suetonius regarding the banishment of the Jews from 
Rome by the emperor Claudius, which occurred probably in 
or shortly before the year 52 (n. 6). Since the Jews were 
banished by this decree only from Rome, not from Italy, 
many may have remained in the vicinity of the city. 
Others, like Aquila, left the country altogether, not, how- 
ever, before they had at least heard of Christ (above, p. 
265, n. 3). Soon after the death of Claudius (Oct. 54) 
the Jews returned again to Rome in large numbers, and 
under Nero regained their old rights. It may have been 
in consequence of these disturbances under Claudius, for 
which the Jews were in danger of being deprived also of 
their rights of citizenship, that the Christians among the 
Jews who came back, and those who now migrated to. Rome 
for the first time, refused probably from the very outset 
to share the worship and the congregational fellowship, of 
the synagogues. If some such relations as existed for at 
least some months between the synagogue and the 
preaching of the gospel in Ephesus and Corinth had ex- 
isted also in Rome, there would certainly be some trace of 
it. Moreover, in spite of all the confusion and error about 
the distinction between what was Christian and what was 


428 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Jewish in the year 64, the Christiana in Rome were 
known to the heathen population as a separate sect (Tae. 
Ann. xv. 44). ‘In’ Romans the Jewish slanderers are 
spoken of as outsiders under God’s condemnation (iii. 8), 
distinct from the ‘called of Jesus Christ” (i. 6). And 
although the majority of the latter were of Jewish birth, 
the Gentile minority in the Church did not feel that 
they were in any sense Jewish proselytes, for they needed 
to be warned against arrogantly despising the unbelieving 
Jew (xi. 13-32), and exhorted to accommodate them- 
selves to the Jewish Christians in a self-denying spirit 
(xv. 1-13). 

Among the Jews who during the three years prior to 
the composition of Romans returned to Rome or migrated 
thither were Christians from Palestine. Andronicus’ and 
Junias, Rufus and his mother, were not the only ones’ of 
this kind (above, pp. 392, 420, n. 24, No. 5). Paul nowhere 
says anything which implies that he is dealing with recent 
converts. Andronicus and Junias became Christians even 
before Paul (above, p. 418, n. 23); and in xiii. 11 it seems 
to be presupposed that the nucleus of the Church became 
believers at about the same time that Paul did, 1.6. in the 
early years of the Church’s growth. “However this may be, 
the fact that a considerable number of persons who earlier 
had been’ members of the Church in Palestine now 
belonged to the Church in Rome, explains the warmth of 
tone of xv. 25-32, which would have sounded strange ‘in 
& letter to a Church which had had no intimate relations 
either with the donors or with the receivers of the ¢ollee- 
tion here mentioned. From this point of view it is also 
very easy to understand why, in writing this letter, Paul 
should ‘have in mind and take notice of the Epistle of 
James, which was written some seven to ten years earlier 
to Christians in Palestine and adjacent regions (above, Ὁ. 
128 f.). With the vigorous communication that was kept 
up between the Jews in Rome and in the home-land (n. 7), 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 426 


it is not at all impossible that the gospel was introduced | 
in Rome, as it had been brought earlier to Antioch not 
with the aid of regular missionaries, but by Christians 
from Palestine who settled there, among whom, as among 
those who settled in Antioch, there were native Cyrenians 
(Acts xi. 20, xi. 1; Rom. xvi. 13; Mark xv. 21). Their 
Christian faith was proclaimed first to the Jewish popu- 
lation in Rome and gained here its first acceptance, with- 
out, however, involving the exclusion of proselytes and 
Gentiles from the Church thus formed. We may assume 
that after the complete separation of the Roman Christians 
from the synagogue, which at latest must have taken place 
at the time of the return of the Jews who had been 
expelled from the City, and at the time of the reconstrue- 
tion of the Christian Church about 54, the non-Jewish 
element began to increase in numbers and influence. 
Still, up to the time when Romans was written, the 
character of the Church had not yet essentially changed. 
It stood in closer relation to the Churches in Palestine 
than to those in Asia, Macedonia, and Greece. 


1. (P. 421.) Of all the persons Paul greets he designates only three as Jews 
(xvi. 7, 11); but certainly we cannot conclude from this that the rest were 
Gentiles. Other epithets also, like συνεργός (vv. 3, 9), ἀγαπητός (vv. 5, 12), 
δόκιμος (ver. 10), and ἐκλεκτός (ver. 13), are not meant to be confined to the 
persons so designated. Of those whose names follow, we either know or in- 
fer to be Jews, though the first three are not so designated : Aquila, Priscilla 
(ver. 3), Mary (ver. 6, because of her Hebrew name Μαριάμ, so NDGL, or 
according to ABCP Mapiav), Andronicus and Junias (ver, 7, above; p: 415, 
n. 23 f.), Herodion (ver. 11, above, pp. 393, 419, n. 24), Rufus and his mother 
(above, p. 392). There are thus eight in all. But since, as these very 
examples remind us, Jews at that time quite commonly. bore Greek and 
Latin names, the majority of those greeted may have been Jews. Along 
with six Latin names (Aquila, Prisca, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Rufus, Julia, 
xvi, 3, 8, 9, 18, 15) and one Hebrew (ver, 6), we find (including Aristo- 
bulus and Narcissus, who are not themselves greeted, and Junias, in 
consideration of its Greek termination, see above, p. 418, n. 23) nineteen 
Greek names. Suet. Claudius, xv: “ Peregrinze conditionis homines vetuit 
usurpare Romana nomina, dumtaxat gentilicia.” Hxempt from this rule, 
as well as from its appended restriction, were the freedmen, the many 
Flavii, Claudii, Julii, who had been slaves of some member of one of these 
clans, or else were descended from such, ef. Pauly, RE, v. 675. Julia (ver. 15), 
as well as the Roman Christian Claudia (2 Tim. iv. 21), must have belonged 


430 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to this class. The Church consisted for the most part of aliens, freedmen, 
or slaves of Greek and Oriental extraction, and especially of Jews. Twice, 
xvi. 14, 15, Paul strings together five names without repeating the ἀσπά- 
σασθε, aad associates with each group the other Christians especially con- 
nected. with them, though without naming individuals. Here, then, are two 
narrower circles within the Roman Church clearly distinguished, to which 
the congregation in Aquila’s house (ver. 5) should be added as a third ; cf. 
Hofmann, iii. 615. Like the Jews (n. 6), the Christians also assembled in 
various places in the capital, cf. Acta Justina, e. iii (Otto, ii. 270). Since 
Paul notices this grouping three times, and since we cannot think of Chris- 
tians quite isolated from their fellow-believers, the only natural assumption 
is that the persons mentioned in xvi. 5-13 all belonged to the congregation 
in Aquila’s house. This is probable, on independent grounds, in the case of 
the one first mentioned, Epznetus (above, pp. 389, 417, n. 21). .The two 
groups in xvi. 14, 15 are indicated merely by bare names ; all those to whom 
Paul is more closely bound, and whom he greets accordingly, belong to the 
congregation in the house of that pair who had been associated with him for 
so many years. Mary, too (ver. 6), must have come into closer touch with 
Paul previously somewhere in the Orient, if the reading ἡμᾶς instead of 
ὑμᾶς is right. In reality the former reading is to be commended not) only 
because of the position of Mary’s name among those of persons to whom Paul 
stood in close relationship, but also because eis ὑμᾶς or ἐν ὑμῖν would be so 
self-evident that it would have been left unwritten, as is twice the case in 
ver. 12. Cf. § 53, n. 5. 

2. (P. 423.). The repetitions of πάντες, i. 7, 8, xii. 3, xv. 33, xvi. 24, might 
perhaps of itself express the simple wish, in view of the Rade Gikueron and 
separation of the Christians in the city (see preceding note), that the letter might 
be made known to them all, cf. 1 Thess. v. 27. It is more natural to think of 
the distinction between those personally known to Paul and strangers to him. 
But neither motive explains why πάντες is present in xvi. 15, yet absent in 
xvi. 14. More probably, considering the tone in which the letter opens, 
Paul presupposes that the Roman Christians, the great mass of whom were 
personally unknown to him, might think that, in so far as they were Jews, 
the apostle to the Gentiles did not concern them. An address to one of 
these who proudly calls himself a Jew, breaks in suddenly at ii. 17 and leads 
up to the description of the true Jew, who is spiritually circumcised, 1.8. 
who believes in Christ, ii. 29. It is not Paul’s way to picture to himself a 
Jew taken at random from those beyond the reach of his voice, and then to 
address him thus. He must have assumed rather that most of his readers, 
being Jews by birth, needed correction upon this point. Of. the address in 
the singular, viii. 2, ix. 19, xi. 17 (there the circle is narrowed by xi. 18), 
xiv. 4, 15; 1 Cor. iv. 7, viii. 10. Rom. ii. 1 cannot be compared because of 
its connection with what precedes. 

3. (P. 425.) The forewarning, xvi. 17-20, has its counterpart in those 
which Paul gave the Galatians before he wrote Gal., and even before the 
Judaisers came to them, Gal. i. 9, v. 3, above, pp. 165, 179 f.; Phil. iti. 1 ff. is 
a like case. The opinion often expressed that xvi. 17-20 could have been 
addressed only to a Church very long known to Paul, whether at Ephesus 
or at Rome after Paul’s two years’ stay there, has the text against it. It is 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 431 


only because the readers’ obedience to the faith has become known every- 
where that Paul knows about it, and finds occasion to express his joy over 
it (xvi. 19, just like i. 8, cf. Col. i. 9; Eph. 1. 15). If Paul had had a 
knowledge of them at first hand, we should have found some trace of it in 
this or the other parts which Spitta (above, p. 420 f.) assigns to a later letter 
to the Romans (ef., per contra, Phil. i. 27, 30, ii. 12). Besides, Paul does 
not speak of obedience to himself or his teaching, but to God and the teach- 
ing which they had received from others than himself (xvi. 17, 19, essentially 
like vi. 17). 

4. (P. 427.) If the view of the composition and state of the Roman Church 
set forth above is as firmly grounded on the text of the Epistle as it seems to 
the present writer, opposing views need no detailed refutation. The so- 
called Ambrosiaster (circa 370) developed in his commentary (Ambrosius, Opp., 
ed. Bened. ii. Appendix, p. 25 in the Introduction, and upon i. 5, 8, 9, 
11-16, xiv. 1, 23, xvi. 17) the following view :—Certain Jews living in 
Rome, who had come to believe in Christ, no one knows how, have preached 
to the essentially Gentile population of Rome a Christianity altogether 
fettered by Jewish legalism, and that, too, with speedy success. The founders 
of the Church are just like the Judaisers in Galatia, false apostles, and the 
Church gathered by them consists of Gentiles who have allowed themselves 
to be brought under the law, but lack the true knowledge of Christ and the 
“spiritual gift” (Rom. i. 11), which Paul wishes to impart to them. by his 
letter and his subsequent visit. Some few Christians, indeed, of "ἃ more 
enlightened sort, have come to Rome, as may be gathered from chaps. xiv. 
and xvi.; but they have not been able to change the character of the Church 
essentially. Paul does not declaim here as in Gal. against the Judaistic 
Christianity of the readers; he even commends their faith; but the ex- 
planation of this is that the Romans, not having yet learned the true gospel, 
cannot have fallen away from it, and so deserve a measure at least of praise 
for receiving with faith even a Christianity so extremely defective. The 
confirmatio, which Paul wishes to bring them (Rom. i. 11), is conversion to 
the true gospel. A brief summary of Rom. (Cod. Amiat. 240; Fuld. 179 ; 
Card. Thomassius, Opp. i. 391) expresses this view in the words: “Hi 
preventi sunt a falsis apostolis et sub nomine d. n. Jesu Christi in legem 
et prophetas erant inducti. Hos revocat apostolus ad veram evangelicam 
fidem.” According to a second view (Jerome in Gal. v. 2, Vallarsi, vii. 478 ; 
Argument. solius epist. ad Rom. Amvat. 235 ; Fuld. 171; Thom. 1. 388, the 
second Prolog. ; cf. the late Catholic Passio: Petri et Pauli, chaps. 5-10, ed. 
Lipsius, 122-128, also 188-193), the Church was composed of perhaps equal 
parts of Jews and Gentiles, and had been torn by fierce strife between the 
two parties. The aim of the Epistle would be, according to this summary : 
“His taliter altercantibus apostolus se medium interponens ita partium 
dirimit queestiones, ut neutrum eorum sua justitia salute meruisse: con- 
firmet.” An echo of this opinion is found in Hug, Einl.? ii. 398 ; his further 
remark, however, that the letter was addressed primarily to the Jewish Chris- 
tians (399), does not convey a clear idea. When Jerome in the preface of his 
commentary on Galatians (Vall. vii. 371) compared Gal. with Rom., and 
pointed out as a characteristic of Gal. that the readers had not come out of 
Judaism into the faith, he evidently followed an old authority, which had 


432 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW. TESTAMENT 


more definitely recognized the Jewish Christian character of the Roman 
Church. Until Baur’s time, the commentators on Romans, whose number 
grew in the sixteenth century especially, considered its historical pre- 
suppositions hardly worth a thorough investigation ; and if in any. way 
they hinted at an opinion about the first readers of the Epistle, they 
started for the most part with the assumption that the apostle to the 
Gentiles was dealing with Gentiles in this letter likewise. But Baur 
(TZfTh. 1836, No. 3, S. 54; ThJb. xvi. 60, 184; Paulus,? i343) claimed 
that Rom., too, should be regarded as a letter occasioned “by special 
relations and needs”. and arising under the “imperative stress of eireum- 
stances” (Paulus, i. 349; cf. 346), and starting from chaps. ix.-xi. as the 
kernel of the whole, he arrived at this conclusion : “So fundamentally and 
radically has the apostle aimed to refute Jewish particularism, that it lies 
wholly uprooted before the consciousness of his time” (380). It is therefore 
after all not a letter of the missionary who has regard to the “special rela- 
tions and needs” of the Church addressed, but the systematic exposition of 
a writer who appeals to the consciousness of his time. Chaps. xv., xvi., which 
are peculiarly instructive as to “the special relations” under which the letter 
arose, are explained to be not genuine (393), and the opening greeting and 
the introduction, i. 8-16, where he constantly confounds the aimsiof the letter 
with those of the approaching visit to Rome, are dismissed with a few, re- 
marks, the exegetical worth of which is on a level with Ambrosiaster’s en- 
deavours ; cf.e.g. Baur, 396, 399 on Rom. i. 11 with Ambrosiaster, p. 29. Baur 
expressly appeals to Ambrosiaster as an ancient authority “for the Judaistic 
character of the Roman Church” (391). Baur concluded from the teaching of 
the Epistle that the Church was of this character, and inferred further on the 
same grounds that it consisted predominantly of those who were Jews by 
birth (869-372). Even after Mangold (Der Rm. und die Anfänge. der röm. 
Gemeinde, 1866, second enlarged ed. 1884) sought to prove by more careful 
exegetical and historical argument the overwhelming Jewish character of 
the Church, prominent exegetes have thought that they could still maintain 
that the Roman Church was for Paul “a Gentile Church like those of 
Thessalonica and Corinth, however many Jews might have belonged to it” 
(Hofmann, iii. 623). It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that those who 
are not exegetes, like Weizsäcker (408-424), should have returned to, this 
view, perhaps still combined with the hypothesis that Judaistic teachers were 
already busy trying to win the Church to their doctrine, and to cut off Paul’s 
approach by hatefully assailing his teaching (425). The leading proof of 
this, which Weizsäcker finds in iii. 8 (427), falls to the ground for the simple 
reason that Paul never indicates his single self by the plural (above, p. 209 f., 
n. 3, 316, n. 3). Cases like σροητιασάμεθα, 111. 9, and λογιζόμεθα, 111. 28, are 
not comparable; for in these he classes himself with the readers whose 
assent to his previous discussion he presupposes. But, since the connection 
of ideas in iii. 8 indicates a circle certainly no narrower, the ‘“‘ we” can be 
nothing less than the Christians whose theory and conduct are so slandered 
by the non-Christians,—plainly not by Gentiles, but. by Jews (as im rpoexo- 
μεθα, iii. 9 ; ef. iv. 1, 16, 24, v. 1-11, viii. 4-39). 

5. (P. 427.) Regarding the alleged labours of Peter in Rome before the 
time of Rom., see below, § 39. The Roman Jews and proselytes also, who 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 433 


became believers at Pentecost (Acts ii. 10f., 36-42), could not soon thereafter 
have become the first preachers of the gospel in Rome ; for they were not 
festival pilgrims, but persons who had settled in Jerusalem and belonged to 
the nucleus of the mother Church (see above, p. 61). We may more likely sift 
out as the kernel of fact in the romancing narrative in Clem. Recogn. i. 6-11, 
that Barnabas in very early times, perhaps shortly after his separation from 
Paul, had come as a preacher to Rome, where later we meet Mark his nephew, 
who had been his companion at that time (Col. iv. 10). To be sure, in the other 
recension of the same romance, Clem. Hom. i. 6-14, the first preacher in Rome is 
nameless, and Barnabas meets Clement for the first time in Alexandria. Itisa 
question, though, whether the rather widespread tradition of Barnabas’ sojourn 
in Rome, to which was added later the story of his preaching in Milan and 
other places in northern Italy, springs from the pseudo-Clementine fiction 
(so Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 2. 273), or whether the author of the Re- 
cognitions did not use an older tradition. The Cypriote monk Alexander, 
probably in the sixth century, who makes Barnabas go to Rome and then to 
Alexandria in the interval between Acts xi. 22 and xi. 25 (Encomium in 
Barn. chap. xx.; Acta SS. Jun. 11. 442), names as his general sources Clement 
of Alexandria and other old writings, chap. viii. p. 488), and for particulars 
appeals to traditions of the ancients (chap. xiii. p. 440, yépovres, marépes) ; 
nowhere does he appear to be dependent upon the Clement romance. Cf. 
Acta Petri, chap. iv. ; Acta Apost. Apocr., ed. Lipsius, i. 49. 9. 

6. (P. 427.) Suet. Claudius, 25: “Judeos impulsore Chresto assidue 
tumultuantes Roma expulit.” For the chronology see Part XI. vol. iii. Since 
Suetonius (Nero, xvi.) possessed a definite knowledge of the sect. of Christiani 
which was probably not less than that of Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44), it seems 
impossible that he should have understood by Chrestus the Founder of 
Christianity ; for in that case we must ascribe to him what is incredible 
enough, a belief that Christ was present in Rome in person. On the other 
hand, Xpyords and Χριστός then sounded alike as pronounced by many, and 
confusion between them and plays upon them were not lacking (Just. Ap. 
i.4; Theoph. ad Aut. i.1; Tert. Apol. iii; Lact. Inst. iv. 7.5); nor is it easy 
to see why a single disturber of the peace should be allowed to keep up his 
disturbance ; so that we may regard it as perhaps settled that tidings of 
Christ’s appearance in Palestine aroused fierce and long-continued quarrels 
among the Roman Jews, chaps. 1-lii. Suetonius did not understand the 
report that came to his ears. It is questionable whether the scholiast on 
Juven. Sat. iv. 115 (ed. Cramer, 145), refers to this expulsion of the Jews 
from the city: “Inter Judeos, qui ad Ariciam transierant, ex urbe missi.” 
According to Cicero, pro Flacco, xxviii, there must have been a considerable 
number of Jews in Italy even before his consulate (63 B.c.). At the time of 
this oration (59 B.c.) the Jews in Rome possessing citizenship were already 
a power in the popular assemblies. At all events, Philo, Leg. ad Cai. xxiii, 
speaks inexactly when he represents it as if the whole body of Jews in 
Rome consisted of prisoners of war who had been emancipated by the 
masters who had bought them, and thus had attained to citizenship. There 
is no stress to be laid upon the circumstance that Philo does not mention 
Pompey here (so A. Berliner, Gesch. der Juden in Rom. i. 6, τι. 1); for of 
what other Jewish captives could Philo have thought than those whom 

NOL, ἃ. 28 


434 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Pompey, after his conquest of Jerusalem (63 2.c.), brought with him te 
Rome on the occasion of his triumphal procession (61 B.c.). His statement, 
inexact in any case, must be reduced to this, that the body of Jews 
in Rome received an important addition (61 B.c.) in the shape of captives. 
Under Augustus they dwelt for the most part on the right bank of the 
Tiber (Philo, loc. cit.). Later, we find them settled in other parts of the 
city also, with various synagogues, and with cemeteries outside the gates, cf. 
Schiirer, iii. 35, 44 (Eng. trans. 11. ii. 240, 247); Berliner, i. 105. Since of the 
synagogues in Rome, the existence of which has been established thus far 
by inscriptions, one was called the synagogue of the Hebrews (above, pp. 
47 f., 67, n. 14), we may assume that those who belonged to the others be- 
came Hellenised early. In 4 Α.Ὁ. more than 8000 Jews in Rome attached 
themselves to a deputation from Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. xvii. 11. 1; Bell. ii. 
6. 1); so that, reckoning all these as men, the Jewish population of Rome 
at that time amounted certainly to more than 30,000. A still larger figure 
can be inferred from the fact that Tiberius was able to draft 4000 men for 
military service from among the Jews in Rome (Jos. Ant. xvili. 3:5; Tae. 
Ann. ii. 85; Suet. Tiberius, xxxvi ; cf. Philo, Leg. ad Cavum, xxiv; Euseb. Chron. 
ann. Abr, 2050). There is something strange in the assertion of Porphyry; 
or of the heathen writers who cite him, about the lew Judeorum (occurring 
in August. Epist. cii. 8, ed. Goldbacher, p. 552. 2): “ Postea vero prorepsit 
etiam in fines Italos, sed post Casarem Gaium aut certe ipso imperante.” 
In spite of the express differentiation of the Christian and the Jewish re- 
ligion, is there confusion here as to the time when each found entrance into 
Italy ? 

7. (P. 428.) Cicero, pro Flacco, xxviii; Philo, Leg. xxiii, p. 568; Jos. 
Vita, 3; Acts xxviii. 21; Berliner, 1. 30#f.). 


§ 24. THE OCCASION OF THE LETTER. 


Paul was on the eve of the collection journey which 
he made in the spring of the year 58 from Corinth, by 
way of Macedonia to Jerusalem (xv. 25 ; cf. Acts xx. 3-6). 
The elaborate plan of the letter and its quiet tone pre- 
suppose that at the time when Paul wrote he was enjoy- 
ing comparative rest both of body and of mind. The 
excitement which, in spite of all his preparations, he 
had not been able to allay before his arrival in Corinth 
sometime in December of 57 (above, p. 338 ff), must 
have been already overcome. We may assume that 
the letter was written in Corinth, but not until toward 
the close of the three winter months that he spent in 
Greece, mostly at Corinth, 1.6. not before the beginning 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 435 


of March 58. This season of the year, when navigation 
was beginning to open up, and this place—Corinth—are 
suggested by the commendation of Phoebe, a deaconess 
in the Church at Cenchrea, the port of Corinth, who 
was about to start on a journey to Rome (xvi. 1). The 
hospitable Gaius, with whom Paul was lodging when he 
wrote Rom. (xvi. 23), we look for and find in Corinth 
(1 Cor. i. 14). 

After the re-establishing of harmony in the Corinthian 
Church and the completing of the collection, Paul was in 
a position where, feeling that his work in the East was 
done, he could turn his thoughts to future undertakings, 
particularly to the preaching journey in the West which 
he had planned a number of years before (above, pp. 367 f., 
377,n. 11). That this Epistle was written in connection 
with this plan would be manifest from the very fact that 
the bulk of its contents is placed between discussions of 
these plans (i. 8-16, xv. 15-32). But besides this proof, 
we have the fact that in the one passage where the com- 
position of the letter is referred to expressly, Paul says in 
so many words that he wrote it because of his calling as 
the apostle to the Gentiles and in the interest of the same 
(n. 1). It is not directly the function of an apostle to the 
Gentiles, especially as this function is described in xv. 
16-21, to write letters at all, to say nothing of letters to 
Churches predominantly Jewish. As a missionary in 
general, and in particular a missionary to the Gentiles, 
even if he comes to Rome, he cannot carry on his specially 
commissioned work in the Roman Church which is already 
organised. In fact, it never occurred to him to express 
any such intentions (above, p. 355f.). Nevertheless, the 
reason for the composition of this letter was Paul’s calling, 
which made him a debtor to all unconverted Gentiles. 
To him, as a missionary planning now to leave the East 
in order to engage in work in the West, the existence of 
a Church in Rome which had been organised without his 


436 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


help was a matter of the utmost significance (1. 9). For 
in the first place, his honour as an apostle commissioned 
to all peoples forbade him passing by the capital of the 
empire without exercising his office there, at least to some 
extent. Not only might such action make it appear as if 
he had no real confidence in the cause that he represented 
(i. 14-16); it would lower his own sense of the scope of 
his calling. In the second place, the geographical situation 
of the Roman Church made it the natural starting-point 
and centre of support for all further missionary work 
around the western end of the Mediterranean. Rome was 
destined to be the metropolis of the coming Church of the 
West (n. 2). The person who, like Paul, intended to do 
missionary work in Rome itself, even though only for a 
time, and who purposed to accomplish the organisation of 
Churches in Spain, Gaul, or Africa (1. 13-15, xv. 24, 28), 
had necessarily to be in entire harmony with the Roman 
Church. The material aid obviously suggested in xv. 24 
(n. 3) was of small consequence compared with the moral 
support of the Roman Church, which was indispensable 
to the apostle of the West. Accompanied by their intelli- 
gent interest and upborne by their prayers, he desires now 
to go to Jerusalem (xv. 30) and later to Rome, and from 
Rome to Spain. 

Had the Roman Church been organised by Paul or by 
one of his helpers, and had it not subsequently become 
estranged from him, a brief notice of his forthcoming visit 
would have sufficed, particularly since Aquila and Priscilla 
had gone to Rome some time before (above, p. 389 f.). But, 
in view of the origin and character of the Roman Church, 
of which Paul had learned through the reports of his 
friends there, it seemed to him necessary to make himself 
perfectly understood by stating comprehensively his view 
of the gospel, thereby allaying the prejudices felt by most 
native Jewish Christians toward him and his missionary 
work, and guarding against future troubles. The pre- 


4“ 


THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 437 


dominantly Jewish character of the Church, its close 
connection with the Church in Palestine, and its loca- 
tion at the centre of the world’s travel, made it just 
as easy for it to become a centre of the Judaistic pro- 
paganda, by which the apostle had been everywhere 
followed, as it was for it to become the centre of support 
for missionary work in the West, as Paul intended it 
should. 

To what extent the apostle by his letter succeeded in 
warding off this danger and in accomplishing his own 
purpose, we learn in part from later letters of his. In 
more than one respect the future turned out differently 
from what Paul desired, hoped, and expected at the time 
when he wrote Romans. He was, to be sure, delivered 
from the hands of “unbelievers in Judea” (xv. 31; Acts 
xxi. 32). He also came to Rome, and with joy (xv. 32; 
Acts xxvii. 15), and possibly went even to Spain. But 
his rescue at Pentecost 58 by the Roman guard from the 
fanaticism of the Jews in the temple was the beginning of 
a five years imprisonment. The appeal to Cesar, which 
he made before the procurator Festus in the summer of 
60 at Czesarea, occasioned his transfer to Rome. Here he 
arrived in the spring of 61, remaining, according to Acts 
xxvill. 30, for two whole years, or until early summer of 
63, before there was any change in his condition. Letters, 
in which Paul speaks of himself as a prisoner, must be 
considered from this point of view, whether he had written 
them in Cesarea or Rome, or in an entirely different 
period of imprisonment. 

1. (P. 435.) Hofmann, iii. 623, appealing to i. 5, xv. 15f., remarks that 
Paul wrote this letter “in his capacity as Apostle to the Gentile world.” But 
i. 5 offers no grounds for this (above, p. 370, τι. 2), and the very essential distine- 
tion between διὰ τὴν χάριν, xv. 15, and διὰ τῆς χάριτος, Rom. xii. 3, or κατὰ τὴν 
χάριν, 1 Cor. iii. 10, Eph. iii. 7, is blurred by his ambiguous expression here, 
and is even quite disowned in his rendering, 613, “by virtue of which calling.” 
No more correct is Lightfoot’s translation, Bibl. Ess. 297, “by the grace.” As 


so often elsewhere, διά, c. acc., denotes that in consideration of which, and 
with a view to which something is done, whether this end be a thing (1 Cor. 


438 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ix. 23; Matt.xv.3)or a person (Rom. iv.24; 1 Cor. iv.6; Mark ii. 27 ; Matt. 
xxiv. 22). Only in the sense in which one could speak of Paul as an Apostle 
to the Gentiles in connection with the collection journey to Jerusalem (Rom. 
xv. 25-32), or in connection with his earlier journey to the Couneil of the 
Apostles (ii. 1-5), can it be said that Paul wrote Rom. in his capacity as 
Apostle to the Gentiles. 

2. (P. 436.) Th. Schott (Der Römerbrief nach Endzweck und Gedankengang, 
1858) opposed not only the unhistorical treatment of the Epistle by most of 
the commentators, but also that of Baur, which is historical only in appear- 
ance, and sought energetically to explain the peculiarity of the letter as due 
to the state of Paul’s missionary labour at the time of its composition. Not 
to speak of the superficial or quite mistaken explanations of individual 
passages bearing strongly upon the question of the composition of the Church 
(i. 5f. 5. 50, vi. 16f. 5. 263, vii. 1-6 S. 266-271, xv. 1-13 S. 313, nothing at 
all about πάλιν, vill. 15, or ὑμῖν δὲ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, xi. 13), the success could not 
be great, since Schott (60, 99, 101-117), without support in the letter or the 
other known historical circumstances, maintained that there was an essential 
difference between the mission in the East and that in the West, only the 
latter being a purely Gentile mission. 

3. (Ὁ. 436.) Regarding προπεμφθῆναι, xv. 24, cf. 1 Cor. xvi.6, 11; 2 Cor. 
i. 16; but especially Tit. iii. 13f.; 3 John 6. As to the act itself, cf. also 
Ign. Smyrn. x. How essential it was for Paul as he pressed forward in his 
missionary work to leave the Churches behind him in good condition, is shown 
by 2 Cor. x. 15, 


v1. 


THE LETTERS OF THE FIRST ROMAN 
IMPRISONMENT. 


§ 25. TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF 
THE EPISTLES TO PHILEMON, THE COLOSSIANS, 
AND “THE EPHESIANS.” 


Ir these letters were written by Paul, they were all 
despatched by him at the same time. Practically 
identical reference is made in both Eph. vi. 21, 22 and 
Col. iv. 7, 8 to the oral reports concerning Paul’s con- 
dition which Tychicus was to deliver to the readers of 
both letters. Im other words, the sending of Tychicus 
to the place where the readers were was contemporaneous 
with the sending of both letters. _Tychicus was their 
bearer. In Colosse additional reports concerning the 
condition of affairs where Paul was were to be made 
by Onesimus, whom Paul sent ‚with Tychicus on the 
journey. ‘This is all that is said in Col. iv. 9; it is not 
said that Tychicus and Onesimus would arrive in Colossze 
at the same time. From the fact that Onesimus is not 
mentioned in Eph. vi. 21f., it may be inferred that he 
was not to stop in the place, or places, to which Ephesians 
was directed, or that he was not to go there at all. The 
slave Onesimus, who had run away from his master, had fled 
to the place where Paul was in prison, and had been con- 
verted to the Christian faith by him. Paul sends him back 
to his master Philemon bearing a letter pertaining exclu- 
sively to this personal matter (Philem. 10-17). There is 
439 


440 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


no indication that Onesimus had any other commission, 
The only reason why he had occasion to supplement the 
oral reports of Tychicus, or to inform the Christians in 
Colossee of Paul’s condition before Tychicus’ arrival, was 
the fact that Colossz, whither the latter was bound with 
a letter to the local Church, was Onesimus’ home, and 
thus the place where Philemon lived (n. 1). 

So far as notices are given relative to Paul’s condition 
and surroundings, they are the same in all three letters. 
The following persons were with him :—(1) Timothy (Col. 
i. 1; Philem. 1), who accompanied him on his journey to 
Jerusalem (Acts xx. 4), and who at the time of Philippians, 
which was certainly written in Rome, was there (i. 1, ii. 
19). (2) Luke (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24), who, presup- 
posing that Luke is the author of the account in Acts 
xx. 5-xxi. 17, xxvii. 1-xxvili. 16, accompanied him from 
Philippi to Jerusalem, and later from Czesarea to Rome. 
(3) According to Acts xx. 4, xxvil. 2, with Paul was also 
Aristarchus of Thessalonica (Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24), 
who appears to have been an earlier helper and companion 
of his, and who on the occasion of the insurrection of the 
silversmiths in Ephesus was deprived of his freedom, at 
least temporarily (Acts xix. 29). The designation which 
Paul uses in speaking of him, συναιχμάλωτος (Col. iv. 10), 
may have reference to these earlier experiences (above, 
p. 418, n. 23). Since Paul was never actually a prisoner 
of war, this expression, like συστρατιώτης (Phil. 11. 25; 
Philem. 2), must certainly be at least partially figurative, 
and its use may be explained by supposing that at the time 
when Colossians was written Aristarchus was voluntarily 
sharing the dwelling in which Paul was a prisoner; so 
that, since Paul was under military surveillance, his condi- 
tion, like the apostle’s, might be compared to that of an 
αἰχμάλωτος. The same would apply (4) to Epaphras 
(Philem. 23). A Colossian by birth (Col. iv. 12), he 
had laid the foundations of the local Churches (Col. 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 44! 


i. 6-8, iv. 12f.) in his native city, and apparently also in 
the neighbouring cities of Laodicea and Hierapolis, in the 
valley of the Lycus (n. 2). In so doing Epaphras had 
taken oceasion to inspire these Churches with a sense 
of reverence for Paul, and the main purpose of his 
journey to Paul in prison seems to have been to arouse 
the apostle’s active interest in the spiritual development 
of these Churches (Col. 1. 8f., iv. 12 f.). It appears that 
originally Epaphras had undertaken to preach the gospel 
in his native city either by Paul’s commission, or at least 
at his suggestion (n. 3), and it is probable that both 
Epaphras and his fellow-townsman Philemon became 
personally acquainted with Paul and Timothy during 
Paul’s three years’ residence in the province of Asia, and 
were converted by Paul in Ephesus. When Colossians was 
written, Epaphras does not appear to have contemplated 
an immediate return to his home. Instead of Epaphras, 
Paul seems to have sent back to Asia, and among other 
places to Colossee (Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7), (5) Tychieus, 
a native of the same province, who had accompanied Paul 
on his journey from Macedonia to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 4), 
who seems also to have acted as Paul’s messenger to 
Ephesus on a later occasion (2 Tim. iv. 12). (6) Demas, 
whose greeting is sent along with that of Luke, without 
either praise or blame (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24), was 
perhaps a Thessalonian (2 Tim. iv. 10; above, p- 213, 
n. 6). Greetings are also sent from (7) Mark (Col. iv. 10; 
Philem. 24) and (8) Jesus Justus (Col. iv. 11). From 
these greetings it is not to be inferred that those who 
sent them were personally known to the readers (cf. Rom. 
xvi. 165, 21-23). A local Church in which Paul had a 
deep interest (Col. 1. 8), and a household in this Church 
with which Paul stood in intimate relations, were also of 
interest to the helpers who were living more or less con- 
stantly in his companionship. To this circle Jesus Justus, 
who is not mentioned in Philem.: 24, does not seem to 


442 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


have belonged ; nor would Mark, who has not appeared 
in company with Paul since the separation between him 
and Barnabas (in the year 52), be mentioned in Col. 
iv. 10 and Philem. 24, were it not that he planned 
to go shortly to Colosse. News of his coming and 
instructions as to his reception had reached the Colossian 
Church earlier, though from whom and through whom we 
do not know. Now again, in case of his coming, Mark is 
commended to the kindly reception of the Church. For 
this reason Mark, who is mentioned prominently in Col. 
iv. 10 and in Philem. 24, is spoken of, on the one hand, 
as the cousin of Barnabas, who was widely known, and, on 
the other hand, as being at that time friendly toward Paul 
and his preaching work, the purpose in both cases mani- 
festly being to commend him to the readers (n. 4). In 
this regard Mark and Jesus Justus (and that is why he is 
mentioned here) were different from the other missionaries 
of the circumcision who were about Paul. From the fact 
that he praises Mark and Jesus Justus because they and 
they alone of the circumcision were fellow-workers with 
him on behalf of the kingdom of God, and as such were a 
source of comfort to him, it is to be inferred that there 
were a number of native Jewish missionaries at work 
where Paul was, and that their method of work was not 
a source of gratification to him. 

Paul is in prison on account of the fulfiment of his 
office as apostle to the Gentiles (Eph. iu. 1, 13, iv. 1, 
vi. 20 ;./Col. i. 24, iv. 83 Philem. 1,9, 10, 13, 23).0 He 
feels that in suffering thus he may expect the sympathy 
and the prayers of his readers (Col. iv. 18; Philem. 22). 
Once at least he expresses the hope that through the 
prayers of his friends in Colossee he may be set at liberty 
and be able to visit Colosse at no distant day (Philem. 
22, cf. Phil. i. 19). The prayer, however, which he most 
earnestly requests is not that he may be released, but that 
he may be able to preach the gospel where he is with 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 445 


fitting cheerfulness and with good results (Eph. vi. 19 f. ; 
Col. iv. 3£. ; ef. also Philem. 10). No external hindrances 
seem to stand in the way of this preaching, and Paul 
speaks as if he intended to carıy it on for a long time to 
come. 

The question whether these letters were written in 
Ceesarea (Pentecost 58 to late summer 60) or in Rome 
(spring 61 to 63) can be decided only by a comparison 
of the situation at the time when they were written— 
which has just been described—-with the meagre accounts 
which we have of these two periods of Paul’s captivity 
(n. 5). At Ceesarea Paul was kept in chains in Herod’s 
pretorium under military guard; he was not harshly 
treated; his friends were allowed to visit him, and to 
provide him with whatever he wanted (Acts xxiii, 35, 
xxiv. 23, 27, xxvi. 29, 31). Of preaching activity, how- 
ever, during this imprisonment there is no hint in Acts. 
It is also very unlikely that Paul would have felt at liberty 
to preach in a city of Palestine, especially if the division 
of their respective fields of labour, agreed upon by Paul 
and the older apostles a little more than six years before 
he was arrested, was primarily a geographical division 
(above, p. 265f.). The contemporaneous missionary work 
of Paul and his helpers, Timothy, Luke, Aristarchus, 
Epaphras, Demas, possibly also Tychicus, and of numer- 
ous missionaries of Jewish birth, who, with the exception 
of Jesus Justus and Mark, were hostile to Paul, presup- 
poses a large city, which Cxsarea was not (n. 6). »In 
Ceesarea dwelt the evangelist Philip, with whom Paul 
and his companions had lodged shortly before his arrest 
(Acts xxi. 8-14). How could Paul have forgotten this 
worthy preacher, or how could he silently imply that he 
was a missionary hostile to himself? Yet this is what he 
does if Col. iv. 11 was written in Ceesarea. 

We learn more concerning this evangelistic work 
earried on parallel with Paul’s ministry and in opposition 


444 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to himself—a work referred to in Col. iv. 11—in Philippians 
(i. 14-18), which was written in Rome. The origin and 
composition of the Roman Church (above, p. 421 ff.) offered 
an especially inviting field to the missionaries of the cir- 
cumcision. In Rome, Paul was not in prison, but lived 
in his own hired dwelling. He was under military guard, 
and carried a chain, but was otherwise so little restricted 
that for two whole years he received numerous visitors as 
he chose, and was able to carry on an important missionary 
work (n. 7). Moreover, what could have induced a run- 
away Colossian slave to go to Caesarea is not apparent. 
Since Onesimus was not a Christian at the time, and since, 
according to Philem. 11, 18, he had committed serious 
offences against his master, he is not likely to have gone 
for protection to Paul, a friend of his master’s. ‚ To 
Rome, however, streamed just such characters from all 
the provinces. In the metropolis, with its motley popula- 
tion, they were most secure. What brought Onesimus into 
contact with Paul in Rome we do not know (n. 8). Nor 
are we able from positive reports which we have from 
other sources to explain on what Paul based the hope, 
which is quite definitely expressed, of being set at liberty 
again (Philem. 22). The longer, however, the situation 
described in Acts xxviii. 30f. continued without the 
institution of a trial, the more probable it became that 
eventually he would be set at liberty for lack of evidence 
against him (Acts xxv. 25-27, xxvi. 31). In Caesarea, on 
the other hand, this was not to be thought of so long as 
Felix was in power, since Paul could not permit himself 
to offer the procurator a bribe (Acts xxiv. 16). Under 
Festus the use of this means was out of the question, and 
the appeal to Cesar cut off all prospect of an early release. 
But even in case of acquittal by Festus, for which possibly 
he might have hoped before he made his appeal, he could 
not very well have planned to make a journey to Phrygia. 
For a number of years he had been anxious to go to Rome 
(above, pp. 367f., 434 f.). According to Acts xxii. 11, 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 445 


a revelation by night had confirmed anew his conviction 
that in spite of his arrest Rome was to be his next objec- 
tive point. It was under the influence of this idea that he 
made his appeal to Ceesar, and the appeal proves that two 
years’ imprisonment had not quenched the desire to go to 
Rome (Acts xxv. 11, 25, xxvii. 24). If, then, he had been 
set at liberty in Caesarea, he would have had no motive to 
go to Colossee instead of to Rome as he had planned. 

To be sure, by his preaching in Rome the goal of his 
desire was not fully attained. But it was in part and to 
a degree that surpassed all expectation. Instead of doing 
missionary work for a few weeks on his way to Spain, he 
was able to preach for two entire years in the capital 
with zeal and good results. Judged by the standard of 
work during his earlier years, when these two years in 
Rome drew toward their close, he had completed another 
important period of his life history. Almost five years 
had passed since he had taken leave of the Church in Asia 
for a long period, if not for ever (Acts xx. 25). It is not, 
therefore, strange that Paul felt it necessary before 
extending his missionary work in the West to visit again 
his Churches in the East, also to become acquainted with 
the Eastern Churches that had been organised without his 
help (Col. ii. 1). Whether this intention was carried out 
this is not the place to inquire. But there is not much 
doubt that these three letters were written in Rome dur- 
ing the two years mentioned in Acts xxviii. 30. As to 
their more exact dating, all that can be said is that they 
could not have been written at the very beginning of the 
period. News must have reached the East that Paul was 
able to carry on his work in Rome before helpers 
journeyed from this region to Rome to support him. 
Nothing is said which would indicate that any one of 
these helpers had just come to Rome; and although we do 
not know all that Tychicus was instructed to report 
orally, we may infer from the manner in which Paul 


446 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


speaks of his imprisonment, his preaching activity, and his 
fellow-workers, that the readers had been for some time 
acquainted in a general way with the situation in which 
he was placed. Consequently, it is more probable that 
the letters were written in the second than in the first of 
the two years (n. 9). 


1. (P. 440.) Since it was not until after his flight that Onesimus was con- 
verted through Paul (Philem. 10), and thus was not a member of the Church 
at Colosse, Col. iv. 9 must simply mean that Colosse was his ordinary home, 
past as well as future (above, p. 371, n. 3). It would have been altogether 
too meaningless for Paul to refer in this fashion to the mere circumstance of 
his possible birth in Colossze had he come later into possession of a master 
resident elsewhere. We must seek Philemon’s house in Coloss& then, where 
even in the fifth century men believed that they could still point it out 
(Theodoret in the introduct. to Philem., ed. Noesselt, p. 711). The identity 
of the destination of Col. and of the letter to the congregation in Philemon’s 
house follows from the mention of Archippus in both letters. According to 
Philem. 2, he must have belonged to Philemon’s household ; and if, as was 
shown, Philemon’s house, from which Onesimus ran away, stood in Colosse, 
that city was the home of Archippus also. It was a bold assertion of Theodore 
of Mops. (ed. Swete, i. 311), that we can infer from the wording of Col. iv. 17 
that Archippus dwelt in Laodicea and performed some service in the Church 
there. Theodore in his exposition of Philem. does not mention the dwelling- 
place of that household at all, so that he probably held it to be Laodicea, in 
accordance with his remark upon Col. iv. 17; and Lightfoot (Colossians, ed. 
2, pp. 244, 309), though he recognised that Philemon and Onesimus belonged 
to Colosse, felt compelled to agree with this view of Col. iv. 17. Archippus 
would then be at the same time a member of the Church in Philemon’s house 
in Colosse, and a servant of the neighbouring Church in Laodicea ! In reality, 
after greetings are sent to the Christians in Laodicea, Col. iv. 15, and a com- 
mission is entrusted to the Colossians with reference to that neighbouring city; 
iv. 16a, we are brought back again to Colosse by the direction that the letter 
from Laodicea be read also in Colosse. It is there alone that we must seek 
Archippus, for whom there is, in close connection with what precedes (iv. 17, 
καί), a reminder to be given by the Church to which he belongs. _Theodoret 
was quite right in rejecting Theodore’s view of Col. iv. 17. Moreover, the 
more particular statement that Archippus was the first bishop of Laodicea 
(Const. Ap. vii. 46) is worth as little as the other statements we find 
there, eg. that Philemon was bishop of Coloss®, and Onesimus of Bercea. 
An Archippus from Hierapolis in the legend of the miracle at Chon 
(Coloss:e) can hardly have anything to do with our Archippus, as Batiffol, 
Stud. patr. i. 38, conjectures ; for even according to the narrator himself this 
Archippus was only ten years old ninety years after the building of a Michael 
Chapel, which itself was built many years after the death of the apostles John 
and Philip (Narratio de miraculo Chonis patrato, ed. Bonnet, 1890, pp. 3. 8, 
5. 6). Nor can we infer that Philemon dwelt elsewhere than in Colosse from 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 447 


the fact that Paul had long been intimately acquainted with him and his 
family ($ 26), while the rest of the Colossian Church were still unknown to 
him (Col. ii. 1; see below, n. 3). In that case we should have to put Phile- 
mon’s home in an altogether different region ; for Paul had not yet been in 
Laodicea or Hierapolis either. Rather was the case the same with these 
Churches as with the Church at Rome (above, p. 416, n. 20). Paul does 
not regard acquaintance with some of the present members of a Church as 
acquaintance with the Church as a whole. Philemon, apparently a well-to- 
do householder at Colosse ($ 26), can very easily have become acquainted with 
Paul and have been converted through his labours during the apostle’s residence 
of almost three years in Ephesus, or if not then in some other part of the 
province. Whether or not the same is true of Apphia and Archippus we can- 
not tell. From the position of these two names between that of Philemon 
and the Church in his house (Philem. 2; cf., per contra, Rom. xvi. 5, above, p. 417, 
n. 21) so much only is certain : that they were members of his family, Apphia 
his wife probably, and Archippus his son. Philemon is called the συνεργός 
of Paul and Timothy, but Archippus their συστρατιώτης. The latter expres- 
sion seems to indicate an activity requiring more pains and self-denial—one 
more like that of Paul and his tried helper, ef. Phil. ii. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 3; 
1 Cor. ix. 7; 1 Tim.i.18. We cannot gather with certainty from the con- 
nection in Col. iv. 17 that it belonged to Archippus’ office to read letters and 
other writings in the meetings at Coloss& (cf. 1 Tim. iv. 13%), or to serve as 
intermediary in the intercourse with other Churches (Herm. V%s. ii. 4. 3). 
But that it was a service which affected the whole local Church, is plain from 
the fact that the reminder about this is contained not in the letter to Phile- 
mon and the congregation in his house, but in that to the Church of Colosse. 
Ambrosiaster’s imagination is a trifle too lively when he writes of Archippus: 
“ Post enim Epaphram, qui illos imbuit, hic accepit regendam eorum ecclesiam,” 
and when in the prologue he represents the false doctrine as intruding “ post 
preedicationem Epaphre sive Archippi.” But Hitzig, Zur Kritik paul. Briefe, 
32, and Steck, JbfPTh. 1891, S. 564 ff., went much further astray when they 
found in Col. iv. 17 an “ insulting utterance,” a “sharp sting,” an “ unworthy 
insinuation,” which could not be believed of the apostle, the less so as he 
wrote Philem. 2 without chiding Archippus. According to this, all Paul’s 
exhortations which are not confirmed by a circumstantial statement of their 
occasion, would be insults. If such a one had occurred in Philem. 2, the 
eritics would have seen all the more in this a proof that Col. iv. 17 was 
falsely ascribed to Paul on the basis of Philem. 2. A conjecture like that 
of Hitzig, 32 (whom Steck follows), that a philosopher, Flavius Archippus, 
who was condemned to work in the mines by a proconsul Paulus (Plin. Ep. 
ad Traj. lviii-lx, Ixxx, Ixxxi), furnished occasion for the invention in Col. 
iv. 17, must be left to its fate. 

2. (P. 441.) For history and geography see LiGHTFooT (op. cit.), 1-72; 
HENLE, Kolossä und der Brief des Paulus an die Kol. 1887 ; Ramsay, Church 
in the Roman Empire, 2 ed. 1893, pp. 465-480, with detailed map; «bid. Cities 
and Bishoprics of Phrygia, i. 1 (1895), pp. 32-121 (Laodicea and Hierapolis), 
208-234 (Colosse) ; HUMANN, CICHORIUS, JUDEICH, and WINTER, Altertümer 
von Hierapolis, 1898. Κολοσσαί (so in the older writers, upon coins, and in the 
older MSS. of the N.T. ; Κολασσαί perhaps from the fifth century A.D. onwards) 


448 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


was in Persian times one of the largest and richest cities of Phrygia (Herod. 
vil. 30; Xen. Anab. i. 2. 6). The cities founded in the time of the Seleucidez. 
Apamea (Ἀπάμεια Κιβωτός, formerly Κελαιναί) eastward and Laodicea (Λαοδί- 
κεια ἡ πρὸς τῷ AUK@ OF ἐπὶ Avk@) about nine miles west of Colosse, together 
with Hierapolis which lay about six miles north, outstripped the ancient 
Colossee (Strabo, xii. 576). Yet Laodicea did not rise to prominence until just 
before the time of Christ (Strabo, xii. 578, ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων πατέρων), 
and in Strabo’s time (he wrote 18-19 a.p.) Colosse still shared the prosperity 
of the neighbouring towns (Strabo, 589, πόλισμα, 576, does not mean neces- 
sarily “small town”), and; when Pliny (H. N. v. 41) reckons it as one of the 
oppida celeberrima of Phrygia, we need not understand him as referring simply 
to historical renown. The great commercial highway which led from Ephesus 
through the valley of the Meander, then through that of the Lycus to 
Apamea, and finally through the Cilician Gates to Tarsus and Syria, passed 
through both Coloss® and Laodicea (Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 35 ff.). But Lao- 
dicea had the advantage of being at the junction of several roads leading in 
all directions (Ramsay, Cities and Bishop. i. 1. 12, n.1). The chief source of 
its riches, to which reference is made also in Rev. iii. 17, was the trade in the 
jet-black wool produced in the Lycus valley, which was preferred even to 
that of Miletus (Strabo, 578). In addition to this was the wool-dyeing in- 
dustry of Hierapolis, favoured by the nature of the water there, which rivalled 
the scarlet and purple dyeing of other places (Strabo, 630). Laodicea was 
also the chief city of the district (conventus) of Cibyra, which belonged to the 
province of Asia (Plin. H. N. v. 105; cf. Marquardt, R. Staatsverw.? i, 341). 
Theodoret on Col. (ed. Noesselt, 472) calls it the Metropolis of Colossz. The 
Church of Laodicea, as being the most important of the three mentioned in 
Col. iv. 13, is the only one included under the seven Churches of the province 
addressed in Rev. (i. 11, iii. 14); and even in Col. ii. 1, ef. iv. 13, Laodicea 
seems to stand for Hierapolis too. A synod occasioned by the Easter disputes 
met in Laodicea circa 165-170 (Eus. H. E. iv. 26. 3, v. 24.5; ef. Forsch. iv. 
266, v. 26). Yet Hierapolis itself remained famous in Church annals as the 
long-time home of the “apostle” or rather evangelist Philip and his daughters, 
and as the episcopal see of Papias and of Claudius Apollinaris (Hus. H. E. 
ii, 15. 2, iii, 31. 3-5, 36. 2, 39. 9, iv. 26. 1, v. 19. 2, 24. 2). On the other 
hand, Coloss& falls quite into the background in the tradition. The fortress 
Xévat, built probably under Justinian, about two miles south of Colosse, after- 
ward quite swallowed up that city (Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. 80, 135, 429 ; Church 
in R. ΗΠ. 478). While a bishop of Coloss& still signs with that title the decrees 
of the Trullan Council of 692 (Harduin, Cone. iii. 1710), there appears at the 
second Nicene Council of 787 a bishop Dositheus, or Theodosius, of Colosse 
or Chonee (op. cit. iv. 280, 449 ; cf. 32, 120, 468). Thereafter the name Colosse 
disappears. The tradition is handed down merely that Chonz is the ancient 
Colosse, e.g. in the historian Nicetes of Chone (ed. Bonn. p. 230) in the 
thirteenth century. One of the earthquakes frequent in this region (Strabo, 
xii. 578, 579) may have helped to obliterate Coloss&. Only we may not, with 
Lightfoot, 71, think of this as happening in the third century. Theodoret, in 
his hypothesis to Philem. p. 711, thinks he knows that Philemon’s house is 
still standing in Coloss& in his day, and the continued existence of a bishopric 
of Colossz without any other name affixed proves the existence of the town 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 449 


until 692 at least. Of the earthquakes about which we have information, only 
one could have any significance for the N.T. In 60 Α.Ὁ., according to Tacitus 
(Ann. xiv. 27, eodem anno; ef. chap. xx. Nerone IV. et Corn. Cosso coss., hence 
not, as we find it asserted more often, 61 A.D., to which the transition is not 
made until Ann. xiv. 29), Laodicea was severely damaged by an earthquake, 
but soon arose by its own resources and without government assistance, which 
probably had been rendered on a former occasion (Strabo, xii. 579). Un- 
questionably Eusebius has the same occurrence in mind when he states that 
in anno Abr. 2079 (63 A.D.), Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colosse were destroyed 
by an earthquake (Chron. ii. 154). For the Jewish Sibyllist, about 80 a.p., 
who knows the ground in Asia Minor, and. who speaks just like Tacitus 
of the destruction and rebuilding of Laodicea (Sib. iv. 107; cf. Z/KW, 
1886, S. 37), thus attests indirectly that no like misfortune has again befallen 
the city between 60 and 80 a.p. Of more importance for us is it that even 
from the days of Antiochus the Great (Jos. Ant. xii. 3. 4) many Jews had 
been settling in this region. From the statement of Cicero, pro Flacco, xxviii, 
that Flaccus, 62 B.c., confiscated in the district of Laodicea Jewish temple 
tribute to the amount of more than twenty pounds of gold, and in that of 
Apamea almost a hundred pounds, it has been estimated that in the former 
district there were over 11,000 free Jewish men, and in the latter 55,000 
(Lightfoot, 20; Henle, 53, A. 2). It is unknown, to be sure, how large these 
two districts were; cf. Ramsay, Cities and Bishop. i. 2. 667. In Hierapolis 
there was a well-organised Jewish community, οἵ. Altertiimer von Hier. 46, 96 
(No. 69), 138 (No. 212), 174 (No. 342). The connection with Jerusalem was 
fostered, cf. also Acts ii. 10, xxi. 27. Czesar’s decrees of tolerance, issued at the 
instance of the high priest and prince Hyrcanus 11., benefited also the Jews 
of Laodicea (Jos. Ant. xiv. 10.20; ef. Schiirer, i. 348 [Eng. trans. 1. i. 382 f.], 
iii. 67 f. [Eng. trans. 11. ii. 225 f.]. From Jews of this region the fable spread 
that the Ararat upon which Noah’s ark (κιβωτός) grounded was near Apamea 
Kibotos : Orae. Sib. i. 261-267 ; Jul. Afric. Chron. (Routh, Rel. 5.3. ii. 243), 
and coins of the third century A.D. to be found in Eckhel, iii. 132-139; ef. 
Schürer, iii. 14f. (new matter, not in Eng. trans.) ; Ramsay, op. cit. 669-672. 

3. (P. 441.) If in Col. i. 7 we read ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, which is very strongly 
attested (N*ABD*G, Ambrosiaster), and which has been subsequently 
altered in old MSS. like 8 and D into ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν as an easier reading, we 
are shut up to the conclusion that Epaphras is a servant of Christ among 
the Colossians for and in place of Paul and Timothy; cf. Philem. 13, 
ὑπὲρ σοῦ. The notion lying back of this is that properly Paul himself, as 
apostle of the Gentiles, and especially of the province (Acts xix. 10) to 
which Colosse belonged, would have been bound to preach in that city 
(Col. i. 25). It was a help to him and Timothy for Epaphras to undertake 
this work. It is not decisive against this interpretation that we have ἐστίν 
instead of ἐγένετο. Epaphras’ service of Christ in behalf of the Churches 
founded by him still continues; he prays for them constantly, actually 
toils for them (iv. 12f.), and has probably been begging Paul to interest 
himself in them, and to write them a letter of encouragement. Hence the 
present in i. 7 may be non-temporal, combining past and present. But the 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν seems natural only on the supposition that Epaphras preached in 
Colossz and its neighbourhood at the time when Paul and Timothy were 

VOL. I. 29 


450 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


working in Ephesus at what they believed to be their task, namely, bringing 
the gospel to the province of Asia, which included Colosse, Laodicea, and 
Hierapolis. The feeling of obligation to preach also in other cities of the 
province comes out, e.g. in 2 Cor. ii. 12f., and Acts xix. 10 does not exclude 
the supposition that Paul himself preached in other cities too; Acts xix. 26 
may even seem to favour it. At all events, several Churches beside that of 
Ephesus sprang up in the province at this time (1 Cor. xvi. 19). That 
even then the gospel had penetrated as far as the Lycus valley is probable, 
though it cannot be proved from Acts xix. 10, 26; for aside from the possi- 
bility that the expression is hyperbolic, Luke uses “ Asia” in a very narrow 
sense, excluding the whole of Phrygia, and hence the Phrygian cities Colossz, 
Laodicea, and Hierapolis, which belonged to the province of Asia (above, p. 
186). All that we can infer with complete certainty from Col. i. 4-9, ii. 1, is 
that Paul, whether on his second and third missionary journeys (above, pp. 
188 ff.) or during his three years in Ephesus, had never come to Colosss or 
to that Phrygian section of the province of Asia at all. Theodoret (pp. 472, 
483), differing from the older commentators (Ambrosiaster, Ephr. Syr., 
Chrys., Theod. Mops.), thought that Paul (11. 1) has joined with the Christians 
of Coloss® and Laodicea, whom he had seen, other Christians whom he had 
not seen. But the lack of all hint of a contrast (“not only—but also”) 
and the union without distinction in ii. 2 of the Churches indicated in ii. 1, 
are decisive against this view. Theodoret avoided the force of Col. i. 7 (ef. 
Eph. iv. 20) by assuming that the Colossians had heard from Epaphras simply 
of the progress of the gospel in the whole world (cf. i. θα). Perhaps also 
the Antiochian reading καθὼς καὶ ἐμάθετε, which Theodoret had before him, 
helped to weaken the sense of the sentence. 

4. (P. 442.) For particulars about Mark see Part 1x. The designation 
“nephew of Barnabas” hardly looks like a title for distinguishing him from 
some other Mark of whom we know nothing, and it is more natural to assume 
that he was then unknown in Colosse and the neighbouring towns. On the 
contrary, they had heard of Barnabas, the older and more famous missionary 
(cf. also 1 Cor. ix. 6) and joint-founder of the Church in Pisidian Antioch, 
which was not so very far east of Colosse. The bare name of the next man 
mentioned, Jesus, characterises him as a Jew; his surname also, Justus, was 
common among Jews; cf. Jos. Vita, 9; Acts i. 23 (Joseph Barsabas Justus, 
confused apparently in the Acts of Paul, ed. Lipsius, p. 108. 14, p. 116. 12, not 
only with Barnabas, but also with Jesus Justus, GA, ii. 889), and many other 
examples from literature and inscriptions adduced in Lightfoot, 238... With 
Hofmann, iv. 2. 148, we may take ἐκ περιτομῆς οὗτοι μόνοι as parenthetic, 
which is most natural; or, with Bleek, we may consider that οὗτοι μόνοι 
was added as an afterthought to sharpen the expression. In any event 
the information here given is not simply that the men just named were Jews, 
which would be quite needless in the case of the last two, nor is it that 
these two or three men were Paul’s only effective and agreeable fellow- 
workers, for Epaphras, Luke, and Demas are also called συνεργοί, and two 
of them are strongly commended (Col. i. 7, iv. 12, 14; Philem. 23f.). We 
are shut up to the meaning given above, which had been accepted even by 
commentators who, like Lightfoot, failed to see the grammatical grounds for 
their correct exegesis, because they clung to the heavy punctuation after 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 45) 


wepirouns used before Lachmann’s time, But it also follows that none of the 
other συνεργοί then with Paul were Jews. To except Luke from this number 
(so Hofmann, iv. 2. 151; Scriftbeweis, ii. 2. 99) is impossible, for he was 
staying with Paul not only as physician (Col. iv. 14), but also as συνεργός 
(Philem. 24), and hence must have been mentioned in Col. iv. 11 if he had 
been a Jew. It is, if possible, still more certain that Epaphras, who is men- 
tioned immediately after iv. 11, was a Gentile. The contrary opinion of 
Jerome (in Philem. 23, Vallarsi, vii. 762) is based on an unfortunate com- 
bination of the designation συναιχμάλωτος with the ancient tradition that 
Paul’s family were carried away captive by the Romans at the taking of 
Giseala (above, p. 681f.). All that is open to question is, whether οἱ dvres 

. παρηγορία refers to Aristarchus also, as most critics say, or only to Mark 
and Jesus, as Hofmann holds. Grammatically, we cannot decide how far 
back the reference of the οὗτοι extends (cf. Acts xx. 5). But since Aristarchus’ 
relation to Paul and his work has been already sufliciently indicated | by 
συναιχμάλωτός μου, it seems unnatural to refer ver. 11 also to him. | The 
same principle holds in the distribution of epithets in Philem. 23 and 24. 
Besides, it would be strange for Paul now to assert expressly of such a tried 
helper that he was not a hindrance to him like others, but a furtherer of his 
work, and had therefore proved a comfort to him in the trouble which these 
others had caused. In Philem. 24, Mark, indeed, who was to come to Colossze 
shortly, is mentioned, but not Jesus Justus. It is possible to suppose that 
an original ᾿Ιησοῦς, as indicating him, has disappeared in the Ἰησοῦ of ver. 23, 
if it has not suggested, indeed, the whole phrase ev Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, which is 
exceedingly rare in combination with συναιχμάλωτος, συστρατιώτης, συνεργός 
μου. 

5. (P. 443.) Among others, Reuss, Thiersch, and Weiss decide in favour 
of Cssarea as the place where Eph., Col., and Philem. were written; so, too, 
Hilgenfeld as far as regards Philem., the only one which he considers 
genuine. The ancient commentators, without exception, and most of the 
moderns, decide in favour of Rome. At all events, the disposition not to. let 
Paul rest altogether from letter-writing while in Cesarea is not pertinent 
here. Neither have we any letter dating from the three years which may lie 
between 2 Thess. and 1 Cor., and we know of just a single one, which Paul 
wrote toward the end of this time (1 Cor. v. 9). Paul may have written 
twenty letters in Cxesarea. One, of which we hear in 2 Pet. iii. 15, probably 
falls within this period. 

6. (P. 443.) According to Jos. Bell ii. 18. 1, vii. 8.7 (ef. vii. 8.7, 
Niese, 362, “with women and children”), the Jewish population of Caesarea 
numbered over 20,000. Though the Gentiles were in the majority there 
(Bell. iii. 9. 1), the Jewish minority was so large that, until the time of 
Festus, they could think of claiming the town as Jewish (Ant. xx. 8. 7,9; 
Bell. ii. 13. 7). Csesarea certainly had no more than 60,000 inhabitants. 

7. (P. 444.) Acts xxviii. 16, 20, 380. According to the ancient Acts of 
Paul, that apostle, though, to be sure, not until his arrival in Rome the 
second time, hired a barn outside the city (ed. Lipsius, 104. 4 ; ef. GK, ii. 889, 
and below, § 36, n. 10). At any rate, Acts xxviii. 16-31 implies no little attic 
chamber, but a roomy abode, cf. Acts xix. 9. 

8. (P. 444). Lightfoot, 312, mentions ‘as possible occasions for the ae- 


452 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


quaintance of Onesimus and Paul: a chance meeting with his fellow 
countryman Epaphras, destitution and hunger, remembrance of words of 
Paul which he had once heard in Philemon’s house, and pricks of conseience, 
He also cites Sallust, Catil. xxxvii, 5; Tac. Ann. xv. 44, to show that Rome 
was the great resort of the rabble. 

9. (P. 446.) If the statements of Tacitus and of Eusebius (above, p. 449, 
line 2 ff.) refer to the same event, and if, as Tacitus says, Laodicea (with the 
neighbouring towns) recovered straightway from the earthquake of 60 A.D., 
the lack of any reference to this in letters sent from Rome to this region 
between the spring of 61 and 68—perhaps not till the autumn of 62, or during 
the winter of 62-63—is not remarkable. If Eusebius has the right date 
(63 A.D.), all that we need to assume is that Col. was written before the 
earthquake, or at least before news of it reached Rome. -In no case is there 
any reason to deny that Tychicus and Onesimus journeyed from Rome to 
Asia Minor somewhere about the autumn of 62. Then Paul would have 
thought of the spring of 63 when he wrote Philem. 22. 


§ 26. THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. 


This is the only letter in the N.T. which gives us a 
glimpse into a Christian household of that time. The 
father, Philemon, was converted (ver. 19) through the 
influence of Paul, with whom he became acquainted prob- 
ably in Ephesus (above, p. 447). The wife and son were 
also Christians. While Archippus in some regular way 
served the Colossian Church (Col. iv. 17, p. 446 f, n. 1), 
his father, Philemon, appears to have assisted more 
generally in spreading the gospel in his vicinity, because 
of which service Paul calls him the fellow-worker of 
Timothy and himself (ver. 1). He must have been a 
well-to-do citizen of Coloss&, which was at that time a 
flourishing commercial city. His house served as the 
meeting-place for a part of the local Church (n. 1). He 
was in a position where he could show the loyalty of his 
love to his fellow-believers by a rather wide-reaching 
beneficence (ver. 5). Only recently he had offered new 
proof of this practical love to “the saints” (n. 2), of 
which Paul is able to think only with joyful gratitude. 

This liberality on the part of Philemon is emphasised 
so strongly because Paul is about to make a further 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 453 


demand upon his generosity. His request concerns 
Onesimus, who, in addition to being unprofitable to his 
master (ver. 11), had run away, apparently stealing the 
money necessary for the journey (ver. 18). Now, how- 
ever, he has been converted through Paul’s ministry in 
Rome, and the apostle seeks to restore him to his Master’s 
house. This made it natural for him to direct the letter 
to the wife and son and the other Christians accustomed 
to gather there as well as to Philemon himself (ver. 2 f.), 
although elsewhere throughout the letter he addresses 
only the head of the house, with whom the deeision of the 
matter rested (n. 3). All that Paul asks in the letter is 
that Philemon receive in a kindly spirit the penitent 
refugee who had now become a fellow-believer with him. 
He does not ask this in any authoritative way, although 
he had a right to do so, but in a brotherly spirit (vv. 
8-10), No question is raised as to Philemon’s right of 
possession in the future, recognition of which right pre- 
vented Paul from retaining Onesimus, to whom he had 
become attached, and who was peculiarly adapted to serve 
his personal needs (ver. 13 f.). This is a “ fleshly” bond 
which, far from being annulled by the fellowship “in the 
Lord” established by faith, is rather sanctified by it. 
This “fleshly” bond serves also to render their Christian 
fellowship more individual and hence more intimate (ver. 
16). At the most, Paul no- more than hints his desire 
that Philemon give Onesimus his freedom, when he ex- 
presses the expectation that Philemon will do more than 
Paul requests (ver. 21). This expectation, however, is 
one with his hope that the letter may fully accomplish its 
purpose. For Paul by no means thinks that at once and 
of his own accord Philemon will receive the guilty slave 
with kindness, but uses every means in his power so to 
dispose him. At the very beginning, where he: praises 
Philemon for his generous brotherly love, by which Paul 
is encouraged to prefer his request, he does not fail to 


454 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


intimate that he would like to see Philemon make still 
further progress in this direction (ver. 6, n. 2). The 
indignation which Philemon had felt at Onesimus’ conduct 
should be mitigated, among other things, by the con- 
sideration that now instead of a worthless he has a useful 
servant (vv. 11, 16). For the money which Philemon 
had lost through Onesimus’ unfaithfulness Paul makes 
himself personally responsible, this letter in his own hand 
being formal security for the debt (n. 4). Although, 
as the added remark indicates, Paul had no idea that 
Philemon would hold him strietly responsible for the 
payment of the sum in question, undoubtedly he did 
intend a humorous thrust at the weak side of this man, 
who possibly was liberal enough in large matters (vv. 
5-7), but inclined to reckon closely in small affairs. Paul 
continues the same humorous vein, when he adds, “ Yes, 
my brother, | should like to profit at your expense” (n. 5). 
Some of the salt with which he seasons his own words 
(Col. iv. 6) he takes for granted in his readers. We 
observe the same humorous spirit in the request which 
Paul makes of Philemon, now to make ready for him 
quarters in his house, when, as a matter of fact, he was 
anticipating a protracted continuance of his preaching in 
Rome (Col. iv. 3£. ; Eph. vi. 19 f.), and had said nothing 
about an immediate journey to Asia in the two contem- 
poraneous letters. The apostle gives himself an invitation 
to visit the stern householder. It is as if he had said, “I 
shall find out shortly whether Onesimus, my ‘child’ (ver. 
10), my ‘heart’ (ver. 12), my beloved brother, has been 
received by you in the way I requested.” 

The letter is a striking example of that unaffected art 
by which Paul was able to touch the heart so as to win 
to himself and his cause everyone not entirely devoid 
of feeling (n. 6). The humour of the letter does not 
lessen its earnestness, nor does its irony affect its warmth. 
It combines politeness and dignity, recognition of the 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 455 


hard rights of this world with defence of the highest 
demands for the fuller exercise of Christian love. 

The fact that this letter has been declared spurious 
notwithstanding its wealth of original material (n. 7), and 
in spite of the lack of all support from tradition and the 
impossibility of discovering any sufficient motive for its 
forgery, deserves only to be mentioned (n. 8). 


1. (P. 452.) The “congregation in Philemon’s house” (ver. 2) cannot be 
identical either with the ordinary household or with the local Church of 
Colosse. In the latter case the address of this letter and of Col. would be the 
same. Since Colossz at that time, though surpassed by Laodicea, was by no 
means decadent (above, p. 448), there is nothing improbable in the Christians’ 
meeting for worship in various houses, as was done in other still larger cities, 
Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19) and Rome (Rom. xvi. 5, above, p. 430, n. 1). This 
was the case also in the neighbouring city of Laodicea (Col. iv. 15). The 
reading αὐτῶν NACP, Copt. (see Lightfoot, 256) is thoughtlessly moulded 
after Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; the brethren in Laodicea must have had 
more than one house. The reading αὐτῆς, B, 67** presupposes that Νύμφαν, 
as Lachmann for this very reason wished to have it accented, indicates a 
woman. In the Coptic fragments of the old Acts of Paul (ed. C. Schmidt, 
p. 30. 19 ff., German trans. p. 54 ff.) a woman is called Nympha, who, together 
with her husband Hermocrates, had been baptized by Paul in Myrrha (Myra 
in Lycia). But Nympha is only a Doric form for νύμφη, and no more than 
this can it be shown elsewhere to be a personal name. Rather should we 
read Νυμφᾶν (=Nymphodorum, Nymphodotum, ete.), and then αὐτοῦ; with 
DG and the Antioch recension. The rarity of this masculine name ((. I. Att. 
iii. 1105, Nuvdas ; cf. C. I. G. 1290; Οἱ I. Lat. ii. 557, Nyphas?) occasioned 
the alteration. Likewise the σοῦ, in Philem. 2, which on other grounds 
seems peculiar, has been altered, now into αὐτῶν, to imitate Rom. xvi. 5, 
1 Cor. xvi. 19 ; now into αὐτοῦ, from stylistic considerations. 

2. (Pp. 452, 454.) In itself οἱ ἅγιοι, ver. 7 (ef. 1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 
1, 12), might mean the Jerusalem Christians (Hofmann) ; but this seems un- 
natural here so soon after πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι (ver. 5=all Christians). Besides, if 
Paul and Timothy had merely heard of a remittance of money to Jerusalem by 
Philemon, they would hardly have failed to say so (οἵ. ἀκούων, ver. 5 ; Eph. i. 15 ; 
Col. i. 4, 9 ; cf. per contra, Phil. iv. 10). The expression, as we have it here, 
gives the idea that Paul had himself recently perceived the love which Phile- 
mon had shown, and which was refreshing the saints. We might have had τῶν 
ἀδελφῶν here (1 Cor. xvi. 11, 12; 2 Cor. ix.3; 3 John 3). Philemon knew 
whom Paul meant. He may have aided with money Christians who were 
travelling from Asia to Rome, or he may have sent the money by them to 
help needy ones of his own land and faith in Rome ; see alson.3. According 
to the correct reading (ἀγάπην before πίστιν), ver. 5 treats of the love and 
faithfulness which Philemon shows with regard to the Lord Jesus (and) 
toward all saints. Consequently also the wish (ver. 6), which makes up the 
content of Paul’s prayers for Philemon (ver. 4), can only be that “ Philemon’s 


456 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


faithful disposition to impart may become effectual by virtue of a knowledge 
of all the good which it lies in the power of Christians generally (ev ἡμῖν) or 
of him and his house (ev ὑμῖν), to do toward Christ.” 

3. (P. 453.) Aside from the textually uncertain ὑμῖν, ver. 6, the plural 
address does not appear until ver. 22), and then again in ver. 25, which 
corresponds to the opening greeting, ver. 3. The reasons for its use are in 
all cases clear. The joint authorship of Timothy is revealed nowhere but in 
vv. 1, 2 (ἡμῶν) and again probably in ver. 7 (ἔσχομεν, D* Orig. iii. 889); 
Jerome vii. 754, from which the Antiochian ἔχομεν has arisen by assimilation 
to the present tenses before and after it, and ἔσχον by assimilation to the 
singulars around it. The aorist proves that a single experience of the most 
recent past is meant ; cf. Phil. iv. 10; 2 John 4; 3 John 3; Polye. ad Phil. 
i. 1, xi.,1; Forsch. iv. 250). In Col., too, Paul does not simply mention 
Timothy as one of those who send greetings, but makes him to a certain 
extent joint-author of the letter (Col. i. 1, 3, 9, hence ἐγὼ Παῦλος, 1. 23). But 
he has a particular reason for so doing in Philem., namely, Timothy’s personal 
acquaintance with Philemon—perhaps also the fact that the matter in question 
was of a somewhat legal nature. For signing a bond and for drawing up a 
recommendation for the runaway slave recourse was had to a second witness 
(2 Cor. xiii. 1). 

4. (P. 454.) Concerning autograph writing, see above, p. 172, n. 4. It 
might be possible, indeed, that ver. 19a was a remark written in Paul’s own 
hand on the margin after the letter had been all dictated. In this case ἵνα 
μὴ λέγω σοί would connect with ver. 18 even more easily than if with 
Hofmann we take ver. 19a as a parenthesis. At all events the σοί after λέγω 
eannot be a thoroughly superfluous enclitic dative, governed by the verb, but 
must emphatically express just what Paul could indeed say, but will not say 
directly (ef. 2 Cor. ix. 4, also 2 Cor. ii. 5). The antithesis required is not, 
however, to be found in ver. 19a, but simply in the ἐμοί, ver. 18. Paul says ; 
“Charge it (not to Onesimus, but) to me,” but adds that he could properly 
say that Philemon should charge it to his own account, and for this reason 
that he owed Paul not only such trifling sums of money, but also his own self 
besides, z.e. every personal sacrifice. This somewhat strange thought rests 
perhaps on the notion that in Philemon’s account-book there was no page at 
all on which Paul was represented as debtor, and that, therefore, it was more 
natural to enter a little debt of Paul to him upon the page on which his 
many debts to Paul were registered. He would then quickly see that the 
balance in favour of Paul was hardly diminished by this little sum. 

5. (P. 454.) In all likelihood the words in ver. 11, ἄχρηστος, εὔχρηστος, 
are suggested not so much by the vulgar pronunciation of Χριστός, Χριστιανός 
=xpnorös (Baur, Paulus, ii. 91), as by the meaning of the name ’Ovnotpos. 
Likewise it is hardly to be doubted that ὀναίμην, ver. 20, is a play upon the 
sound of the name. Cf. Ign. Eph.ii. 2, ὀναίμην ὑμῶν, at the end of an exhorta- 
tion to obey the bishop, whose name was Onesimus (bid. 1. 8, ii. 1). There are 
similar plays upon proper names in Theophilus, ad Autol. i. 1, Θεόφιλος---τὸ 
θεοφιλὲς ὄνομα rovro = Χριστιανός, Eusebius, H. E. iii. 27. 6, Ebion, the poor man; 
v. 24. 18, Irenzeus, the man of peace. Regarding Rev. iii. 1, see 8 73, n. 8. 
There are still other examples in Lightfoot, 340. Paul does not use the polished 
phrase in the usual sense, “May I have joy in thee,” but means it literally. 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 457 


To confirm the demand hinted at in ver. 195, he openly avows (vai), and saya 
to the strict householder or the carefully calculating merchant, that he on 
his part would like to make a profit in the transaction with Philemon, 
instead of letting Philemon get the better of the bargain, as was his wont. 

6. (P. 454.) Among the means which Paul uses to induce Philemon to 
comply with his request belongs also the way in which he refers to his present 
situation. Four times in this short letter he alludes to his imprisonment 
(vv. 1, 9, 10, 13), and in the very opening greeting he designates himself, in 
contrast with the other letters written at the same time, simply as Paul a 
prisoner of Christ Jesus. In ver. 9, to be sure, it would be unexceptionable 
grammatically to take τοιοῦτος---ὡς as correlatives—the view of the ancient 
Greek commentators (cf. Kühner-Gerth i. 413 A. 11 ; ii. 493. 4; πα Lightfoot). 
But in that case the present writer could see no reason for ὡς Παῦλος instead 
of οἷός εἰμι (cf. Acts xxvi. 29); for the name indicates no particular characteristic 
or situation. Moreover, τοιοῦτος requires no such correlative when all that is 
needed is to draw attention toa person’s character or situation which was known 
before (2 Cor. ii. 6 ; Hofmann, ad loc., compares appropriately, Odyssey, 16. 205). 
Philemon knows what sort of man Paul is and how eircumstanced, and as such 
Paul makes his plea for Onesimus. This τοιοῦτος, which thus points by im- 
plication to the character of the pleader in all its detail, is explained in the 
three appositives which follow ; for since πρεσβύτης has no article, it cannot 
be construed as in apposition simply to Παῦλος. He pleads, as Chrysostom 
(xi. 780) long ago rightly distinguished—(1) as Paul, the friend whom 
Philemon has known so long and so well; (2) as an old man; (3) as one 
who now also wears fetters for Christ’s sake. But neither the name, nor the 
great age, nor the imprisonment would show his right to command (ver. 8), 
in this matter at all events; they are rather intended to characterise the 
pleader as one whose plea cannot well be refused. Thus Paul here waives 
altogether his official dignity and the authority growing out of his services. 
Bentley’s conjecture (Crit. Sacra, ed. Ellies, p. 73), πρεσβευτής, which Hort, 
NT, Appendix, 136, adopted ; or Lightfoot’s proposal, in which Westcott, in 
distinction from his fellow-worker, acquiesced, to take πρεσβύτης, after all 
manner of doubtful analogies, in the sense of πρεσβευτής, sc. Χριστοῦ (cf. 
2 Cor. v. 20; Eph. vi. 20), introduces a foreign element which would have 
been in place only in ver. 8, and even there would have required much 
clearer expression. The πρεσβύτης as such, and especially when he pleads, 
has primarily something touching about him; cf. Clem. Quis Div. xli (the 
plea of the gray-haired John to the erring youth); Passio Perp. v, vi (the 
gray hair of the father and the helplessness of the child combine to produce 
an effect). We do not know the year of Paul’s birth. If, according to the 
conjecture expressed above, p. 69, his parents were carried away from Palestine 
in 4 B.c.,—Paul, however, not being born until after they settled at Tarsus,— 
still his birth may have taken place in 1-5 a.p. Considering the part which 
he played in 35 a.p. (Acts vii. 58-viii. 3, ix. 2), he probably was then not a 
“youth” of twenty, but a young man of about thirty. Consequently in 62 a.p. 
he must have been at all events near the sixties. His wearing life and long 
imprisonment may have made him old beyond his years. It was all the 
more natural, then, to represent himself to his friend expressly as πρεσβύτης. 

7. (P.455.) The circumstances and facts presupposed connect themselves in 


458 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


no way with such of Paul’s Epistles as are held by most critics to be genuine 
or with Acts. The names alone would arouse suspicions in every critic, 
Philemon and Apphia occur nowhere else in the N.T. Onesimus‘ and 
Archippus are mentioned in Col. iv. 9, 17. But what is said about them 
in the one letter touches at no point what is said in the other; it is thus 
impossible that one of these two Epistles was invented on the basis of the 
other, or that both were forged by the same man. Some of the names have 
a local colouring, however. The present writer is unable, indeed, to verify 
for Phrygia by inscriptions from the time of the Czsars the ancient names 
Philemon and Archippus, or the later Epaphras (e.g. C. I. @. 2284; C. I. L. iv. 
1384a, 1787, 1816, 1916, 1926, 1936, 2374, 2450, vi. 17174-17180, xv: 2542, 
contracted form for the very common Epaphroditus, which Ephr. Syr. p. 169 
inserts in place of it). Yetcf. Philemon and Baucis in Ovid. Metam. viii. 631; 
also Aristoph. The Birds, 763. The name Onesimus, which was used especially 
for slaves, is to be found as often perhaps in Rome (C. I. L. vi. 28459-23484) 
and Pompeii (C. I. L. iv. 222, 1330, 1332, 2477a, 2777, 3163) as in Phyrgia 
and the bordering regions (C. I. G. 2743, 2840, 2932, 2933, 38275, t. w., 3859 ; 
Sterrett, Wolfe Exp., No. 366, line 108, No. 376, lines 32, 39 ; ef. Ign. Eph. i; 
Melito quoted in Eus. H. E. iv. 26. 13). On the other hand, Apphia is a 
Phrygian name, and has nothing to do with Appius, Appia. The spelling 
varies between Ardıa (C. I. 6. 2775b, 2782, 2835, 2837b, 2950, 3432, 3446 ; 
Ramsay, Cities and Bishop. i. 391, 470, Nos. 254, 309), Abdıa (C. 1. α΄. 3814, 
4141; Le Bas-Waddington, iii. Nos: 799, 911; Ramsay, pp. 394, 473, 559, 662, 
Nos. 276, 324, 445, 624), and Acta (C. I. α΄. 2720, 3826; Wolfe Exp. Nos. 482). 
Likewise the diminutive form Ardıov (C. I. G. 2733, 2836; Ramsay, pp. 385, 
391, 520, 525, Nos. 228, 254, 257, 361, 369) or Adıov (Le Bas-Waddington, 
No. 832). Derived feminine forms are Adduas (C. I. 6. 3697, 3983) and 
Απῴιας (see below), like Appias (=Appua, Forsch. v. 95, according to which 
also ©. J. @. 9916 should be read without emendation). Of especial interest 
to us are CU. I. G. vol. iii. p. 1168, No. 4380, & 3, ’Arcıadı . . . γένει Kodoo- 
onvn, and Wolfe Exp. No. 482, ’Ovnounos ᾿Αφίᾳ γυναικί. A legend of Titus 
mentions an Apphia healed by Paul in Damascus (James, Apocrypha A necd. 
i. 55). Outside of Phrygia and the neighbouring regions the name seems to 
be rare, ef. ©. I. L. v. 5380 (Como), ix. 290 (Bari: Apphiadis). The con- 
clusion that Onesimus became a diaconus Jerome drew simply from Philem. 
13 (Epist. 1xxxii. 6, Vall. i. 516, ef. vii. 755, minister apostoli). The real Euthalius 
(Zacagni, Coll. mon. 528 ; ef. Ignatii Mart. MS. Vatic. chap. x. p. 314, 30 in 
the writer’s Ignatius von Antiochien) knew of a martyrdom of Onesimus, 
according to which he suffered death under an exarch Tertullus in Rome by 
having his legs broken. However, it does not pay to unravel the confused 
statements of martyrologies and legends (Acta SS. Febr. ii. 855-859, cf. Acta 
Xanthippe et Polyxene, cap. xxxviii, in James, Apocr. Anecd. i. 84). 

8. (P. 455.) Baur, Paulus, ii. 88-94, brought forward essentially nothing 
against the genuineness of this Epistle except its close relation to Eph., Col., 
and Phil. (S. 89), which he rejected on other grounds. He rested satisfied 
with the possibility that it was the “embryo of a Christian work of fiction,” 
just as the pseudo-Clementine Homilies are really a Christian romance (S. 93). 
Weizsäcker rejects it as a “ production designed to illustrate a new doctrine of 
Christian living, and betraying its allegorical character in the very name 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 459 


Onesimus,” as if the letter propounded a doetrine of the “usefulness” of a 
Christian slave, or of the “ profitableness” of running away. Concerning the 
names see nn. 5 and 7. Moreover, cf. Deissmann, Bibelst. 237 (Eng. trans. 44), 
“to a large extent doctrinaire want of taste.” Steck (Jb/PTh. 1891, 8. 571) 
takes offence, among other things, because this little note about a private 
matter has all the form of an epistle to a Church. He does not refute, or even 
consider the very simple explanations of the mention of Timothy, and of the 
household congregation (above, pp. 453, 456, n. 3). Moreover, without even 
reflecting that a knowledge of Latin literature was something very rare among 
the Greeks, Steck will have it (S. 576) that his pseudo-Paul drew in imitative 
fashion from Plin. Ep. ix. 21 (intercession for a freedman, cf. ix. 24), 
which Grotius, on Philem. 10 and 17, adduced as a parallel, and that he 
did this in the second quarter of the second century (ὃ. 582). Marcion 
forbids a later date for its composition ; for he “is believed to have known it” 
(S. 575), which is Steck’s incomparably delicate way of stating the fact that 
Marcion admitted it unchanged into his Apostolicum. Holtzmann (ZfWTh. 
1873, S. 428-441) extended his view of Col. (see below, § 29) to include 
Philem. also. A genuine letter to Philemon was interpolated by the same 
man who interpolated Col. and forged Eph. The difliculty of the con- 
struction in vv. 4-6 (above, p. 455 f., nn. 2, 3), which Holtzmann exaggerates 
without even attempting an explanation of his own, is due, he holds, to the 
fact that vv. 4-6 (=Eph. i. 15-17) were inserted later. This, at least, seems 
to be the meaning of the discussion, S. 433-435, though according to S. 
439, where it is remarked in favour of the genuineness of ver. 7, that that 
verse connects naturally with ver. 4, ver. 4 seems to pass for genuine. A 
motive for the interpolation, which certainly could not consist in making the 
text hard to understand, is not to be found ; nor is it explained what occa- 
sioned the remarkable position of ἀγάπη before πίστις (apparently no trace 
of this in Eph. i, 15), or the reference of ἐπίγνωσις to something altogether 
different from that in Eph. i. 17. The real parallel to this is to be found in 
Phil. 1. 91. Further, if the words, “ Timothy the brother,” and “ our fellow- 
worker,” and “ Archippus our fellow-soldier” were inserted in order to con- 
form Philem. to Col. (S. 437 f.), this very object needs a further object as a 
means to which it should serve. Now, according to Holtzmann, Col. iv. 
15-17 was inserted there by the same editor who enriched Philem. by these 
additions ; so that the whole figure of Archippus is a creation of this inter- 
polator’s. But who will admit that he is satisfied with the statement (S. 438) 
that Archippus was invented simply as “a sort of personal connection between 
the situations in the two Epistles”? And why should not the alleged in- 
terpolator have rather taken pérsons whom he found in the letters, Jesus 
Justus, Col. iv. 11,and Apphia, Philem. 2, and, by carrying them over from one 
letter to the other, have used them to link the two Epistles together? “Nemo 
tam otiosus fertur stilo, ut materias habens fingat” (Tert. adv. Valent. v). 


§ 27. THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 


Simultaneously with the letter to the portion of the 
Colossian Church accustomed to gather at the house of 


460 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Philemon, Paul despatches a communication to the Chureh 
as a whole. It is natural to assume that both letters 
reached their destination at the same time. This could 
have happened if this letter to the Church, like the letter 
to Philemon, was brought by Onesimus, who did not, like 
Tychicus, have commissions to carry out elsewhere, but 
was certainly directed by Paul to return to his master by 
the shortest route. 

Inasmuch as Paul directs the Church to see that this 
letter is read also in the Church at Laodicea (iv. 16), and 
since, moreover, in the passage where he passes from more 
general statements to the discussion of special conditions, 
Paul speaks of the Christians of Laodicea and Colosse 
together (ii. 1), the inference is natural that the letter was 
intended originally for both these neighbouring Churches. 
From the absence of a similar remark with reference to 
the Church in Hierapolis, which was in the same neigh- 
bourhood, and just as near as Laodicea and Colossee to 
the heart of Epaphras, the missionary of this region 
(iv. 13), it is supposable that. the special conditions and 
dangers which led Paul to send this letter to Colosse, and 
indirectly to Laodicea, were not yet present in Hierapolis, 

Paul was not personally acquainted with the Churches 
in the vicinity of Colosse any more than with the 
Colossian Church. itself. In fact, with the exception of 
individuals like Philemon and Epaphras, he was personally 
unknown to them all (i. 4, 8, 9, i. 1, 5). Nevertheless, 
he reckons them, as it were, in his apostolic diocese, for in 
organising them Epaphras had acted as his representative 
(i. v,"above, p, 449, n. 3). His vocation, and the suffer- 
ings which this vocation involves, are consequently on 
their behalf also (i. 24). They are objects of his thanks- 
giving and petition not merely in the sense in which all 
Christians are (i. 8, 9), but ‘he is solicitous for their 
welfare in the same way as Epaphras, their founder (i. 1 
v. 12), 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 461 


Since, now, he has been more definitely informed con- 
cerning these Churches by Epaphras, and had learned alse 
that they feel a “spiritual” love for him though he is 
personally unknown to them (i. 8), it would appear that 
the necessity for deepening this relation were sufficient 
occasion for a letter. Such an occasion might explain 
adequately the contents of Col. 1. 3, 4; but it does not 
explain’ why Paul did not address the letter to all the 
Christians in Coloss®, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, and 
perhaps also other cities in that region (ii. 1); or, if 
Colossze was the centre of this group of Churches, why he 
did not at least address the neighbourmg Churches and 
the principal Church together, using some such general 
expression in the salutation as that in 2 Cor. i. 1. And, 
as will be shown later, simultaneously with the letter to 
the local Church in Colossee and the letter to the Church 
in Philemon’s house, Paul despatched by Tychicus to 
this resion still a third Epistle, which was intended for 
more general circulation. There must have been special 
conditions, therefore, existing only in Colossee and to some 
extent also in Laodicea, which called for the writing of 
the Colossian letter. What these conditions were we 
learn in chap. i1., the special contents of which are led up 
to in various ways by chap. i. and echoed in chap. iii. 
In chap. i. Paul designated himself not only a διάκονος 
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (1. 23), 7.e. a missionary, but also a διάκονος 
τῆς ἐκκλησίας (i. 25), which is something quite different. 
When, in this connection, he speaks of the stewardship of 
God committed to him, he cannot mean his commission to 
preach the gospel, but only some calling that has refer- 
ence to the existing Church. More definitely stated, it is 
a commission to declare fully the word of God which the 
Church had received by faith, and, more specifically still, 
to declare fully the secret of God made known to the 
saints, and especially revealed in all its fulness to the 
Gentile Church (n. 1). This πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον, like the 


462 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


first λαλεῖν τὸν λόγον, 2.6. the missionary preaching, is a 
making known of Christ, who in His person is this 
μυστήριον of God (i. 26-29, cf. i. 2). Still this is not the 
preaching of an unknown person, but primarily the, un- 
folding of the forces and norms of the moral life contained 
in the gospel which has been believed, and such, in- 
struction in varied knowledge as will bring the Christian 
personality to a well-rounded perfection. In view of the 
fact that Paul declares with emphasis here, and three times 
elsewhere, in the letter that this commission affects every- 
one,—naturally every Christian, and more specifically, 
according to ver. 27, every Gentile Christian (1. 28),—and 
that he makes every effort in his power to fulfil it (1. 29), it 
is evident that here, at the very outset, he is answering the 
criticism that he is satisfied to leave the Churches in his 
field of labour with only an imperfect declaration of the 
divine word; that he is not careful enough to instruct 
new converts in the full richness of Christian knowledge, 
and to guide them in the development toward Christian 
perfection; that, in relation to at least many of the 
Churches for which he is responsible, he shows a lament- 
able lack of concern in this matter. 

What he meant by these apologetic remarks, and what 
his object was in making them, Paul states very clearly in 
ii. 1-5, which is intended to explain what precedes (n. 2). 
He will have the Christians in Colossze and vicinity know 
that he has always recognised the obligation of Christian 
nurture in relation to all the Churches within his sphere 
of labour, and that, as is evidenced by his zealous effort in 
general, he is now very much concerned for them, to the 
end that their hearts may be strengthened through loving 
instruction received, and by their introduction to the full 
richness of Christian understanding, namely, the full 
knowledge of the secret of God, which is Christ. The 
expression used (ἀγῶνα ἔχω, ii. 1 = κοπιῷ ἀγωνιζόμενος, 1. 29, 
ef, iv. 12,13; 1 Tim. iv. 10) cannot properly be limited 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 4653 


in meaning to prayer (i. 9). There are circumstances in 
which the person absent in body (ii. 5) cannot do much 
more than pray for the loved ones at a distance. But 
Paul has other means of showing that he is anxious 
to develop these far-distant Churches to the highest 
point of Christian knowledge and morality, e.g. by 
the present sending of Tychicus and the writing of 
the letters which Tychicus and Onesimus were to bring 
(iv. 8). From his remark in 11. 4 that he makes this 
statement in order that none of the Colossians may be 
deceived by persuasive words, we learn that effort had 
been made to induce the Church to believe that Paul did 
not concern himself about their Christian nurture. It 
does not require much imagination to conceive how the 
matter was put. There was no need to slander the apostle. 
All that was necessary was to point out how in the early 
years of his ministry he had no sooner founded a Church 
than he restlessly pressed forward to some new mission 
station, and how now for a number of years he had been 
in prison, first in Ceesarea, and now in the more distant 
Rome. We can see also how such remarks were well 
adapted to prepare the way for a doctrine which promised 
to lead beyond the crude beginnings of faith which had 
resulted from the preaching of Paul and of Paul’s disciple, 
Epaphras, to a deeper knowledge and a fuller sanctifica- 
tion. Paul opposes this teaching in ü. 8-23. 

The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from this 
series of warnings is that the false teachers, whose danger- 
ous influence Paul here opposes, had given the Colossian 
Christians regulations, more especially negative rules about 
food and drink, and commandments about the observa- 
tion of fasts, new moons, and Sabbaths (ii. 16, 20f.).. At 
the same time they criticised the Colossians for not 
having observed these regulations heretofore, declaring 
that if they persisted in their former way of living they 
could not attain blessedness nor indeed Christian per- 


464 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


fection (n. 8). In opposition to this derogatory judgment 
of the Colossians’ Christianity, Paul assures them that in 
Christ, as He has been preached to them and received by 
them through faith, they possess all essential blessings 
(ii. 10), and that this Christ is at once the source and the 
foundation of a life well pleasing to God (ii. 6£.). .ΑἹ- 
though they do need the prayers and the care of the 
apostle and of his helpers in order to attain the fullest 
Christian knowledge and the highest moral culture 
(i. 9-11, 28£., il. 1-5), there is, on the other hand, no 
necessity that they be brought to this state of full know- 
ledge and true morality through doctrines entirely new 
to them. 

The very mention of the Sabbath proves that the 
representatives of this doctrine belonged to Judaism. 
And only by assuming that he is speaking in opposition to 
such representatives of the circumcision, is it possible to 
explain why Paul reminds these Colossian Christians, who 
had been converted from heathenism, that in baptism 
they have received a circumcision which in comparison 
with that of the Jews is much more comprehensive and 
more fundamentally sanctifying (11. 11-13, ef. i. 21). 
Similarly, what he says in ii. 14 about the setting aside 
through the death of Christ of the law as evidence of our 
guilt and as an accusation against us, and in 11. 17 of the 
ordinances of the law as being only the foreshadowing 
of the real blessings which have appeared in Christ, is 
manifestly directed against a Judaism which held firmly 
to the law. That the representatives of this propaganda 
were at the same time Christians, or pretended to be, is 
self-evident, otherwise they could never have come to 
exert a dangerous influence in a Gentile Christian Church. 
This is clear also from ii. 19. For only one who acknow- 
ledged Christ to be the head of the Church (i. 18) could 
be criticised for not retaining his connection with this 
head. Similarly, the criticisms of Paul, and of the defec- 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 465 


tiveness of the Christianity of the Pauline Churches (above, 
p. 462 f.) to be inferred from ii. 1-5, presuppose the Chris- 
tian profession of the false teachers. They were Jewish 
Christians. But they did not teach simply the obligation 
of Gentile Christians to keep the Mosaic law. If, like the 
false teachers in Galatia, they had demanded of the 
Gentile Christians submission to the law, and the un- 
conditional acceptance of circumcision, it is certain that 
Paul would have fought this radical demand directly and 
fundamentally, instead of contenting himself as he does 
with the statement of certain incidental consequences of 
their principal demand, The emphasis which Paul lays 
upon the spiritual circumcision of the Gentile Christians 
(1. 11) is fully explained, and in its setting can only be 
explained on the assumption that the false teachers made 
the Gentile Christians feel the superiority of their Jewish 
training, religious and moral (Rom. ii. 17-29; 2 Cor. 
xl, 22)... Furthermore, the regulations which they laid 
upon the Gentile Christians and by which they criticised 
the manner in which the Gentile Christians had been 
living, were not simply the Mosaic commandments and 
restrictions (n. 4). The reference is rather to regulations 
which, though derived from the Mosaic law in their most 
essential parts, were less comprehensive than the law, 
while in other parts they were more elaborate. This was 
why Paul was able to call these δόγματα (ii. 20, Soypa- 
rigeode), commandments and teaching of men (ii. 22 after 
Isa. xxix. 13, cf. Matt. xv. 9), thereby distinguishing 
them from the δόγματα (ii. 14) of the revealed law, and in 
general to treat them with the contempt that he does in 
11. 20-23. 

The means by which this doctrine of men works its 
treacherous effects is declared in ii, 8 to be philosophy. 
In the same passage also it is said that the traditions of 
men, which those who would lead them astray establish 


as a norm, have as their standard not Christ, but the 
VOL. 1. 3° 


466 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


elements of the world (n. 5). Assuming in the light 
of i. 16-23 that by παράδοσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων In 111. 8 is 
meant a summary of moral-ascetic rules (ef. Mark 
Vil. 8-18» Matt. xvi?2=-6% 1 Cor xio2; 1 ΘΒ 3 Π|δ᾽ 
iii. 6), it follows that the false teachers must have 
based their demands for abstinence from certain foods 
and drinks upon some theory relative partly to the 
materials out of which they were composed, and by which 
their consisteney was maintained, and partly to the effects 
of these materials upon those who used them. Their 
regulations regarding abstinence they derived from their 
theory that even the life of the Christian was interwoven 
with that of nature, and that mental and spiritual life 
were dependent upon matter (il. 20). Only by asceti- 
eism, they argued, was it possible for the Christian to 
obtain the adequate freedom from matter and the forees 
by which matter is ruled. If these ascetic tendencies 
were like those common in antiquity, particularly if they 
resembled those with which Paul has to do in Rom. xiv., 
there can be little doubt that chief among the things for- 
bidden by the false teachers were meat and wine, the 
forms of nourishment which were the heartiest and which 
tended most to arouse the passions. A further element 
in their teaching is disclosed by the fact that, in the midst 
of his polemic against these teachers, Paul takes occasion 
to emphasise the truth that Christ is exalted above all 
spiritual powers (ii 10, ef. 1. 16), and by his ‘further 
statement that the God who has become manifest in 
Christ has stripped off from Himself the ruling spirits 
which hitherto had concealed Him from the gaze of men, 
and has openly shown as a conqueror would do in a 
triumphal procession that these spirits have been subdued 
and are subordinate to Him (ii. 15). It is evident that 
the false teachers claimed that the power of the spirit- 
princes, deified in the heathen world, continued to be 
exerted over Christians. Their harmful influence is not 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 467 


limited to idolatrous worship (1 Cor. x. 14-22; 2 Cor. vi. 
14f.), but the connection between them and matter in 
general, or the separate elements of matter, is so close that 
the Christian who lives in the world, particularly the 
Christian who lives in the unclean heathen world, is able to 
escape the destructive influence of these spirit-powers that 
rule over matter only by stern asceticism and merciless 
mortifying of the body (ii. 23). It was with this in view 
that Paul testified to the Colossians earlier in the letter 
(i. 12 f.) that through the call of the gospel, which they 
had accepted by faith, God had made them capable of 
sharing the heavenly inheritance of the Church, at the 
same time releasing them, as He did all Christians, from 
the dominion of the powers of darkness, and translating 
them into the kingdom of His beloved Son. Consequently 
what is said further with reference to Christ (i. 14-23) is 
not a speculative outburst, more or less relevant, but in 
every particular is determined by opposition to this un- 
wholesome teaching about sanctification and to the dual- 
istic view of the world underlying it, and is designed 
to remind the readers of the common principles of the 
Christian faith. Christians have no further need to 
redeem themselves, for in the forgiveness of sin bestowed 
upon them by Christ they have redemption (i. 14). Nor is 
there any world independent of Christ and of the God who 
finds His image in Christ, and who dwells in Him. The 
worlds of matter and of spirit alike are in Christ, the first- 
begotten of all creatures, and were created through Him 
and for Him (i, 15-17). True, this ideal relation estab- 
lished at creation is not yet entirely realised. But in the 
Chureh, which is the existing form of the kingdom of 
Christ, the risen Christ has now a body of which He is 
the sole head, and this is the hopeful beginning of the 
restoration of the world to harmony under His headship ' 
(i. 18). By the same death of Jesus on the cross through 
which the Gentiles, who once were strangers to God and 


468 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


hostile to Him, have been brousht into relations of peace 
with Him (i. 21), all discord in the world has been funda- 
mentally overcome (i. 20). Consequently, in order to be 
holy in the sight of Christ, blameless and unaccused, 
Christians only need to hold fast without wavering their 
faith in the gospel which offers the hope of a final con- 
summation of all things (i. 22 f.).. Thus the statements of 
i. 12-23 are seen to be in harmony with the picture of the 
false teachers who had come among the Colossians, which 
we get from the clearer statements of chap. 11.; whereas to 
admit that the old interpretation is correct, according to 
which these teachers are represented in 11. 18 as worship- 
ping angels, would be to introduce into the picture an in- 
congruous element (n. 6). In the first place, it is hardly 
conceivable that Paul should have merely mentioned 
incidentally what to him and to every orthodox Jew and 
Christian of the apostolic age must have seemed a form of 
idolatry as being simply a hobby of these false teachers, 
instead of warning the Colossians against such idolatry. 
It is hard to see, moreover, how the charge of angel- 
worship could be associated with the charge of groundless 
vanity and worldly arrogance, without, at least, a hint that 
there was no connection between the two. Equally difh- 
cult to explain is the fact that when he comes to speak of 
this θρησκεία a second time (11. 23) the angels are not 
mentioned at all, but this supposed cult is simply charged 
with arbitrariness. Finally, in both passages θρησκεία. is 
very closely connected with ταπεινοφροσύνη, being depen- 
dent upon the same preposition. Naturally the meaning 
here cannot be that feeling of humility so highly praised by 
Paul (Col. iii. 12; Eph. iv. 2;:Phil. ü. 3; cf. Acts xx,19; 
Phil. ii. 8; Matt. xi. 29), but only an outward demeanour 
which could be associated with the worldly haughtiness of 
which these same persons are accused. The word is not 
used by Paul in this sense, and if taken by him from the 
sayings of the false teachers (n. 7), we should naturally 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 469 


expect it to be qualified in some way, especially where he 
uses it for the first time, 1.6. we should expect τῶν ἀγγέλων 
to go with ταπεινοφροσύνῃ as well as with θρησκείᾳ, This 
is the most natural construction grammatically, for other- 
wise the ev would be repeated before θρησκείᾳ. Therefore 
the genitive τῶν ἀγγέλων stands in the same relation to 
both conceptions. But now if by ταπεινοφροσύνη τῶν 
ἀγγέλων can be meant such a demeanour as is adapted 
to or possible for angels, and for this reason is not 
adapted to men who have bodies, the same is true 
also of θρησκεία τῶν ἀγγέλων. The former denotes self- 
mortification, the latter a form of devotion, a manner 
of living in which men endeavour as far as possible 
to imitate spirits, which neither eat nor drink (n. 7). 
Whoever undertakes to do this certainly attempts a 
dangerous feat and betrays an unreasonable vanity, 
because he undertakes what in the nature of man and the 
conditions of his life is impossible. Although these 
ascetic practices are supposed to honour God, as a matter 
of fact they honour no one; they simply serve to gratify 
that worldly pride in which they have their source (ii. 28, 
cf. 18). Jewish pride, heightened by an ascetic austerity, 
by means of manifold judgments, verdicts, prescriptions, 
and instructions, had made a moral impression upon the 
uncircumcised Christians in Colossee from which Paul 
endeavours to free them. 

It has already been shown that this purpose not only do- 
minates the discussions of chap. 11., but also determines the 
progress of thought in chap. i. in many ways, also the choice 
of language. It also dominates entirely the exhortations 
of iii, 1-17. In contrast with the misleading instructions 
regarding sanctification, against which the Church was 
warned in chap. ii., Paul now sets forth wherein genuine 
Christian sanctification consists. It is based not upon 
speculative investigation and arbitrary distinctions be- 
tween the material elements and forces in the world, but 


470 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


upon fellowship with the Christ who has been raised from 
the deadand exalted to share with God dominion over the 
world (iti. 1-4). Inthe Christian life the significant thing 
is not the distinction between circumcised Jews and un- 
circumcised Greeks or barbarians, but a second birth or 
new creation constantly appropriated anew (111. 9-11). The 
readers must not permit themselves to be disturbed by out- 
side criticisms (ii. 16, 18), but are to let the peace-which 
comes from Christ have exclusive rule in their hearts, where 
He dwells, and allow all questions to be decided under its 
influence (iii. 15). If they give the word which comes from 
Christ: proper chance to unfold in all its richness, they will 
not need to be instructed from outside by worldly wisdom 
(ii. 8), but will be able adequately to instruct and to correct 
one another (iii. 16). And the consciousness of the ‘grace 
which they have experienced will produce not only proper 
feelings for the government of their intercourse among 
themselves (iii. 12-14), but also a sense of gratitude to 
God which will find joyful expression in inward thanks- 
giving and in all that they say and do’ (iii. 156, 160, 17). 
That in the exhortations which follow relative to mutual 
obligations within the home, by far the most space should 
be given to the discussion of the relation between slaves 
and their masters (iii. 22-iv. 1), is natural in view of the 
contents of the letter to Philemon which was sent simul- 
taneously with that to Colosse. But, taking the section 
(iii. 18-iv. 6) as a whole in its exhortation against all bit- 
terness, especially against everything that might cause 
bitterness (iii. 19, 21, iv. 1), its further reminder of the 
necessity of thanksgiving which is to be a part of every 
prayer (iv. 2), and its exhortation to the use of polite 
language in their intercourse with their non-Christian 
neighbours (iv. 6), there is presented the attractive picture 
of a joyful Christian life lived in the midst of an evil 
world, which contrasts favourably with the gloomy ascetic- 
ism which Paul has been combating in the earlier sections 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 471 


of the letter. Between the tendency opposed in chap. ii, 
indeed throughout this entire Epistle,—and the Judaisers 
who once disturbed the Churches in the adjacent province 
of Galatia, or the followers of Peter who carried on their 
work in Corinth, there is no discoverable relation. There 
is nothing to indicate that the teachers who caused con- 
fusion in Colosse came from abroad. It is altogether 
improbable that members of the Jewish monastic order of 
the Essenes, who were settled in Palestine, would have 
come to Colossee (n. 8). False ascetic movements, such 
as Paul combats in Col. 11.,—movements quite independent 
of these orders,—are to be found among the Jewish Chris- 
tians in Rome (above, p. 366 f., 376) and the readers of 
Hebrews. Of the large Jewish population in the district 
of Laodicea (above, p. 448, n. 2), there were probably some 
who became members of the Christian Church in Colossz, 
and among these there may have been those who were 
ascetic in their tendencies, who had some philosophic 
training, and who were dissatisfied with the simple gospel 
preached by Epaphras, and with the resultant type of life 
among the Gentile Christians. Possibly there was an 
individual of some importance (n. 9) who started the 
whole movement that caused Epaphras so much trouble, 
and that it was this that influenced Paul to send a special 
letter to Coloss&, at the same time he despatched a cir- 
eular letter of a more general character to the larger 
group of Churches, of which this Church was one. 


1, (P. 461.) The metaphor of οἰκονομία, οἰκονόμος is applied in 1 Cor. 
ix. 17 to the calling of the missionary preacher; on the contrary, it refers 
here, as in Tit. i. 7 (cf. 1 Tim. i. 4, 111. 4f., 15; Luke xii, 42; Matt. xvi. 
19, xxv. 45) toa service to the Church. The two ideas are not distinguished 
in 1 Cor. iv. 1; Eph. iii. 2-9. The expression πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, 
i, 25, finds its analogy, so far as form is concerned, in Rom. xv. 19; 2 Tim. 
iv. 17. But there the fulness of the gospel or of the preaching which is 
attained, or is to be attained, refers to the extent of territory in which the 
gospel is to be preached. Here the matter in hand is not missionary 
preaching to the unconverted at all, but the word of God, as the “servant of 
the Church” should offer it to the members of the Church, and as these 
should constantly appropriate it (ef. iii, 16; Jas. i, 21; 1 Pet. ii. 2; 2 Pet. ii, 


472 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


12; 1 Cor. ii. 6, xii. 8; 2 Tim. 11. 15, iv. 2). The antithesis to the ineom- 
pleteness which πληρῶσαι indicates is expressed also by the διδάσκειν ἐν 
πάσῃ σοφίᾳ, i. 28 (cf. ii. 2, iii. 16), and the moral aim of this complete intro- 
duction to the knowledge of Christianity was expressed before, 1..9 ἢ. 

2. (P. 462.) Since Paul is not sending a treatise to the Colossian Church, 
but is writing them a letter, the present writer takes it as self-evident that 
the general statements in i. 25-29 are there for the sake of the particular 
statements In il. 1-5, and not vice versa. Naturally the connection! by 
means of γάρ does not hinder this interpretation, and the phrase θέλω ὑμᾶς 
εἰδέναι (1 Cor, xi. 3; Phil. 1. 12)=o00 θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν (Rom. 1. 13, xi. 25; 
1 Cor. x. 1, xii. 1; 1 Thess. iv. 13), gives to the statement thus introduced 
a peculiar weight. ‘In ver. 2 συμβιβασθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ cannot mean “knit 
together in love” (cf. ii. 19; Eph. iv. 16); for (1) it would have to be 
taken at best as a result of the encouragement, which, however, is not 
permitted by the syntax of the sentence; (2) the conception of a loving 
union of the members of the Church is entirely foreign to the thought 
in the context; (3) we should not know what to do with the following 
καί, the genuineness of which is undoubted. Here, then, συμβιβάζειν with 
a personal object has no essentially different meaning from the common one, 
“to teach, advise” (Ex. iv. 12-15; Lev. x. 11; Isa. xl. 18, 14; ef. 1 Cor. 
ii. 16), and so “to induce” to a particular act or motion (Acts xix. 33). At 
the same time, the basic meaning of βιβάζειν, “to cause to go,” is brought 
out, so that συμβιβάζειν means “so to set one in motion that he shall choose 
and keep to a definite way, without turning to right or left” (cf. Ps. xxxii. 8). 
Hence also a goal may be mentioned (eis πᾶν πλοῦτος) to which one is 
directed, or a region into which he is led. καί must mean “also,” cf. 
Hofmann, iv. 2. 51. Since the mere assurance that all the treasures of 
wisdom and knowledge were hidden in Christ, guards in no way against the 
danger of being misled by a speculation which ignored Christ, and since 
this misleading is not discussed at all until ver. 8, ver. 4 cannot refer to the 
subordinate clause in ver. 3, but to the main sentence, vv. 1, 2. In no other 
way can the progression in ver. 5 be explained. 

3. (P. 464.) The reading in ii. 16, presupposed probably by the ancient 
Syrians (51, Ephr. Comm. in Epist. Pauli, Lat. ed. Mechith. p. 175), kıpvaro 
instead of κρινέτω, which Lagarde, Proph. Chaldaice, p. li, recommended, has 
against it not only the analogy of Rom. xiv. 3,4, 10, 13, but also the con- 
struction ev βρώσει instead οἵ περὶ βρώσεως κτλ. Moreover, karaßpaßeveıv, 
ver. 18, is also a sort of κρίνειν. It indicates originally, at any rate, like 
βραβεύειν (Col. iii. 15) and mapaßpaßeveıw (Plutarch, Mor. 535 C, the unfair 
decision of an umpire; Polyb. xxiv. 1.12, of any judge), an action of the 
Bpaßevs, Bpaßevrns, or ἀγωνοθέτης, and that, too, of a character unfavourable 
to the contestant. This word, which occurs very seldom in literature 
(Demosth. c. Midiam, p. 544; Eusthat. Schol. in Il. i. 402f., p. 98, ὡς οἱ 
παλαιοὶ λέγουσιν ; ibid. De Thessal. Capta, ed. Tafel, 277), and which Jerome 
wrongly considered a Cilician provincialism (Epist. exxi, Vall. i. 879), may 
have been used to denote various other relationships without much regard 
for its original meaning ; but we have no cause for assuming that such was 
the case here ; for Paul elsewhere, in using figures taken from the games, 
shows what a lively conception of these he had (1 Cor. ix. 24-27 ; Phil. iii 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 473 


14; 2 Tim. ii. 5, iv. 7f.). Taking this word alone, we might conclude, quite 
consistently with this view, that Paul was here exhorting members of the 
Church not to allow themselves to be actually robbed of the blessedness 
set before them, for which as a prize they were wrestling or running (cf. Rev. 
iii. 11); for the umpire’s judgment decides whether or not the prize shall be 
received. But this interpretation is here excluded by the connection and by 
the nature of the question. In the spiritual contest God or Christ alone in 
reality confers the βραβεῖον (1 Cor. ix. 24; Phil. iii. 14), the στέφανος (1 Cor. 
ix. 25; 2 Tim. iv. 8; Jas. i. 12; Rev. ii. 10). Men who arrogate to them- 
selves the κρίνειν, βραβεύειν, καταβραβεύειν, and δογματίζειν, can, by pre- 
suming thus to deprive a contestant of his prize, render him in the highest 
degree discouraged, fearful—in general, confused. The Colossians should let 
no one treat them thus. 

4. (P. 465.) The priests must abstain from wine and other intoxicants 
before serving in the sanctuary (Lev. x. 9), likewise the Nazarites as long as 
their vow lasted (Num. vi. 2-4) ; cf. Lukei. 15, and above, p. 376 on Rom. xiv. ; 
though general restrictions as to drink are not given in the Law. 

5. (P. 466.) Although ra στοιχεῖα frequently denotes heavenly bodies, 
especially planets (cf. Valesius on Eus. H. H. iii. 31. 3; perhaps 2 Pet. iii. 10, 
certainly Just. Apol. ii. 5, ra οὐράνια στ. ; Dial. xxiii; Theoph. ad Autol. i. 4, 
5, 6, 11. 15; Clem. Hom. x. 25), it cannot denote these in ii. 8,20; Gal. iv. 
3, 9, because of the added τοῦ κόσμου. Further, it is not the observance of 
festivals, which, it is true, depends upon the course of the heavenly bodies, 
but the abstinence from certain kinds of food, a custom having nothing 
whatever to do with sun, moon, and stars, which is designated in ii. 20f. as 
incompatible with awedavere ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τ. x.,ii. 20f. : Paul under- 
stands by τὰ στοιχεῖα τ. «., nothing else but the κόσμος itself, and this as 
composed of manifold material elements. This is shown by the exchange of 
the one expression for the other in ii. 20 (ef. iii. 2), and confirmed by a 
comparison of this passage with Gal. vi. 14. Latterly the view has been 
constantly gaining ground that Paul means here and in Gal. iv. 3, 9 the 
elemental spirits, or particularly the spirits animating the heavenly. bodies 
(Klöpper, Kol. 360-389 ; Spitta, Zw. Petr. 260-270 ; Eveling, Paul. Angelol- 
ogte, 65-74, 92-96. Whom also Diels unfortunately followed in his otherwise 
so instructive writing, Elementum, 1899). But this meets an insuperable 
obstacle in the expression itself ; for while it is quite conceivable that “sub- 
stances, elements,” came to mean “bodies, heavenly bodies,” it is incredible 
that it should serve to indicate its opposite, the spirits animating the sub- 
stances or ruling the bodies. The confused late Christian Testament. of 
Solomon (Fabric. Cod. pseudep. vet. Test. 1047, cf. Eveling, 70 ; Schiirer, iii. 
304 (Eng. trans. 11. iii. 154]), in which the evil spirits call themselves ra 
λεγόμενα στοιχεῖα (Col. ii. 8), οἱ κοσμοκράτοῥες τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (Eph. vi. 
12), and also στοιχεῖα τοῦ κοσμοκράτορος τοῦ σκότους, is palpably, dependent 
upon misconstrued passages of the N.T., and for this reason alone cannot 
attest a usage which Paul may have followed. Cf. ZKom. Gal. 195 ff;, 208 f. 
From Col. ii. 15 and the other passages in which Paul speaksj,of (good or 
evil) spiritual powers (i. 13, 16, 20, ii. 10), it follows: simply that the false 
teachers ascribed to these a power to which Christians also were subject 
as inhabitants of the material world, in spite of their redemption through 


474 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Christ. Since these false teachers were Jews, it becomes certain that-they 
regarded material nature as the spirits’ special province, and that therefore 
they viewed asceticism as a means of emancipation, not only from matter, 
but also from the power.of the spirits who ruled in it. The exegetical 
difficulties of ii. 10-15, which Hofmann was the first to handle, on the whole 
happily, can be touched upon here only lightly. The “better commentators,” 
(Klöpper, 422), among whom none of the Greeks from Origen down are 
reckoned, nor Lightfoot and. Hofmann—at whose head rather Ambrosiaster 
and Jerome are placed—are of the opinion that ἀπεκδύεσθαι, ii. 15; contrary 
to all usage (Col. iii. 9, 11. 11, ef. iii, 10-and ἐκδύεσθαι, ἐνδύεσθαι, δύεσθαι 
everywhere else), means here to strip from another his clothing or armour, 
to disarm him. This opinion, beyond all others, seems to the present writer 
an inexcusable caprice. God did not rob the spiritual powers of their clothing 
or their weapons, but stripped from Himself these spirits who were en- 
veloping Him as a garment or a mist, and were hiding Him from the sight 
of men. It was not, however, to Israel, but: to the Gentile world, that God 
was veiled by these spiritual powers, these λεγόμενοι. θεοί (1 Cor. viii. 5). 
It was in the Gentile world, then, that God put these away from Himself 
and. showed Himself in His true form to the Gentiles) who had been too 
blind to see Him, thus at the same time setting these sham. gods in’ their 
true light, while in Christ He celebrated a triumph over them, and bade 
them also march as captives behind Him. But this naturally did not 
happen at the crucifixion of Jesus; it came about through the preaching 
of the gospel among the Gentiles, attended as it was by signs and wonders 
(ef. e.g. Acts xvi. 16-18, xix. 11-20). Since Paul is seeking to guard a 
Gentile Church (cf. i. 21, 27, ii. 13a, 111. 5-7): against being led: astray, 
he begins and ends the exposition of the grace shown by God to mankind 
in and through Christ (ii. 11-15) with what has been experienced in 
the sphere of the Gentile world on the basis of the work of redemption 
accomplished in Israel. If in the midst of this he passes from the address 
to Gentile Christian readers to a statement about himself and those like 
him, which fits only Christians who have come out of Judaism, it is no 
digression. For the working of saving grace in the Gentile world depends 
upon what has happened in Israel. In fact, Paul says just this in ji. 14. 
He regards the law first as a bond or a bill of indictment testifying against 
the Jews, then as a wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. The law 
became the former, since Israel, on the one hand, by his solemn vow to keep 
the law (Ex. xxiv. 3; Deut. xxvi. 16-28, 69) had made it, as it were, a bond 
written or signed by his own hand (Luke xvi. 6; Philem. 19); but, on the 
other hand, Israel has not met the obligation thereby assumed, has not paid 
the sum of money thus recognised as due, and, moreover, has no prospect of 
ever being able to pay off the debt. This bond God has blotted out ; He has 
stricken out, as we would say, the statement of debit written thereon. But 
He has also taken the “ handwriting” itself out of the “midst” by nailing 
it to the cross. Paul distinguishes the bond itself from what stood written 
upon it and was blotted out by God, i.e. the law itself from the duties of 
Israel written in it, in so far as these, by being left undone, have come to 
indicate an equal number of debts of Israel. Quite separate from this 
significance of the law as a bond testifying against Israel, the law was in 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 4735 


itself a dividing barrier, a hedge between Israel and the Gentile peoples 
(Eph. ii. 14). From this position which the law occupied in the midst of 
mankind, as was well known (hence ἐκ rod μέσου with the article), and 
from the earth altogether, on which it formed a dividing wall of partition, 
God has removed the law, nailing it to the cross of Christ. Beneath the 
cross Jews and Gentiles who believe on the Crucified now join hands, the 
barrier of the law not being able to sunder them any more (Col. i. 20, iii. 
11; Eph. ii. 11-22). The division of the sentences causes difficulties. 
Probably Paul originally intended to say all that stands between ev 4, ii. 11, 
and ἐν αὐτῷ, ii. 15, in a single relative sentence. But on being developed 
this proved so rich that after συνηγέρθητε, ii. 12, three independent sen- 
tences arose (συνεζωοποίησεν --- prev — ἐδειγμάτισεν). The present‘ writer 
translates: “For in Him dwelleth the whole fulness of the Godhead in 
bodily fashion, and ye are filled (fully) in Him who is the head of all’ prin- 
eipality and power; in whom ye also were circumcised with a circumcision 
not performed by hand through the putting off of the fleshly body, through 
the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him im baptism, in which ye were 
also awakened with Him (shared in His resurrection). Through faith in the 
working of God, who awakened Him from the dead, hath He (God) made 
you also (Gentile Christians), who were dead by reason of your lapses and 
your fleshly uneireumeision, alive with Him (Christ). After He (God) in 
grace forgave us (Jewish Christians) all our lapses, by blotting out the bond 
(which testified) against us, which was opposed to us on account of the 
statutes, He took this itself (the bond) out of the midst, nailing it to the 
cross. After He (God) put away from Himself (as a garment) the lordships 
and authorities, He made an exhibition of them (set them before the gaze 
of all as that which they really are), while He led them in triumph openly 
in Him (in Christ).” 

6. (P. 468.) The usual conception of Col. ii. 18, together with an exag- 
geration of the thought in Gal. iv. 8-10, first meets us in the Knpvypa 
Πέτρου, written perhaps as early as 100 (cf. GK, i. 823, ii. 822-832). 
According to Clement, Strom. vi. 41, Peter preached in this production as 
follows :—pmde κατὰ Ἰουδαίους σέβεσθε" καὶ yap ἐκεῖνοι, μόνοι οἰόμενοι τὸν 
θεὸν γινώσκειν, οὐκ ἐπίστανται, λατρεύοντες ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀρχαγγέλοις, μηνὶ καὶ 
σελήνῃ. καὶ ἐὰν μὴ σελήνη φανῇ, σάββατον οὐκ ἄγουσι τὸ λεγόμενον πρῶτον 
οὐδὲ νεομηνίαν ἄγουσιν οὔτε ἄζυμα οὔτε ἑορτὴν οὔτε μεγάλην ἡμέραν. ΑΥἱβ- 
tides, who says something similar in Apol. xiv. 4, is plainly dependent upon 
the Preaching of Peter (GK, ii. 823; Seeberg in Forsch. v. 216, 393). The 
Gnostic Heracleon (quoted in Orig. in Jo. xiii. 17) cites the passage in the 
Preaching of Peter. Celsus (in Orig. c. Celswm, i. 26, v. 6) charges the Jews 
with praying to the angels and also to the heavens ; but this charge probably 
rests simply upon a superficial knowledge of Aristides’ Apology (cf. Seeberg, 
Forsch. v. 233-237). Origen could reject this as a slander against Judaism 
that betrayed its own ignorance, not only on the basis of the O.T., but also 
in virtue of his wide and varied acquaintance with the Judaism of his time. 
He was right with respect to orthodox Judaism; cf. Hamburger, Realene. 
i. 507, who only should not have adduced as an exception to the rule Tob. 
iii. 26 (iii. 16f.), in which he adopted a senseless reading (see Fritzsche, 
Libri Apocr. p. 116 in the Apparatus), After Jesus had unreservedly 


476 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


professed adherence to the strict monotheism of His people (Mark xii. 29 ; 
John xvii. 3; Matt. iv. 10), His true worshippers also, who had been brought 
up in Judaism, could but turn away from every act of adoration of the 
spirits subordinate to God (Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 8f.), and Paul in particular 
could not judge such worship otherwise than as idolatry (cf. Rom. i. 25 with 
Col. i. 16; further, 1 Cor. viii. 4-6). Even among the Essenes, who, on 
account of their alleged abstinence from flesh and wine (above, p. 376), have 
been cited so often to explain the tendency opposed in Col. ii., no such 
angel cultus can be proved to have existed. It may be, indeed, that their 
secrecy about angels’ names (Jos. Bell. ii. 8. 7) was connected with all sorts 
of speculation about the angels, and that their botanical and mineralogical 
investigations (Bell. ii. 8. 6). served speculative as well as medicinal ends. 
But how far this was from worship of the angels is seen from the fact that 
next to the name of God that of Moses was the most sacred (Bell. ii. 
8. 9, 10). The Jewish Christian sects also, which seem related to Essenism, 
held fast to the exclusive worship of the one God. To know the angels’ 
names (Clem. Hom. iii. 36) may be a valuable esoteric’ science (ef. even Ign. 
Trall. v). But if we infer angelolatry from the statement of the Book of the 
Elkesaites (Hippol. Refut. ix. 15 ; Epiph. xxx. 17), that. among other things 
“the angels of prayer” also should be invoked as witnesses of baptism, we 
should infer from the same ritual that salt and oil were worshipped. Who- 
ever concludes from Just. Apol. i. 6, or from the representations of angels in 
the Shepherd of Hermas, that there was angelolatry in the Church, proves too 
much, and therefore nothing at all. So long as we take θρησκεία τῶν 
dyyAov as a θρησκεία which has the angels for its object, we must under- 
stand by it simply a cult devoted to the angels, and not also a speculative 
pursuit of the doctrine of angels or a superstitious veneration of them. It 
was an arbitrary weakening of the conception (cf. n. 7) when Chrysostom 
(Montfaucon, xi. 323, 372; cf. Severianus in Cramer's Catene, vii. 325) 
thought of a mediation of our intercourse with God through the angels, or 
when Theodore (ed. Swete, ii. 294) understood: an indirect veneration of them 
through observance of the law given by angels and the fear of the wrath of 
angels who watched over the observance of the law. Ephrem came to a 
view related essentially to these in that he took τῶν ἀγγέλων. as subjective 
genitive, but, in accordance with Syrian tradition, understood by the angels 
the priests, and here the Jewish priests (Comm. in ep. Pauli, p. 175, “Ne 
quis . . . seducat vos neque transmutet in legem angelorum, in doctrinam 
nimirum sacerdotum”; cf. p. 57 on 1 Cor. vi. 3; Carm. Nisib. xlii, 10; 
Aphraates, Hom. xxii, p. 432, under.appeal to Mal. ii. 7). The Latins, plainly 
at variance with the context, understood by superstitio or religio or cultura 
angelorum a direct or indirect deification of nature, not by Jews, but by 
Gentiles (Ambrosiaster, in Col. ii: 18; Augustine, Bpist. exlix. 27, ad Paul- 
inum). These explanations and the silence of the ancient writers against 
heresies concerning angelolatry in heretical circles (Epiphanius alone gives 
any hint of it. He mentions, Her. lx., a party of ᾿Αγγελικοί, but knows 
nothing more of them than their name) show that circa 360-400 no angel 
cult carried on by Christians which could be related to the error refuted 
in Col. ii., was known in wider circles. Theodoret on Col. ii. 18, p. 290 
whom many moderns have followed (e.g. Lightfoot, 67, 71; Henle, 91), was 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 477 
the first to seek to re-establish an historical connection between that error of 
apostolic times and the canons of the Council of Laodicea, circa 360 (GK, ii. 
196). But certainly those decrees of this Couneil are not pertinent which 
forbid celebrating the Sabbath with Jews by resting from work (Can. 29), 
and receiving from Jews the presents which ‚they were accustomed to send 
during their feasts, in particular the mazzoth (Can. 37, 38). The question 
there was plainly not about an heretical tendency, a Judaistically coloured 
Christian doctrine or sect, but about real Jews. We see that the numerous 
Jews of that region (above, p. 448 f., n. 2) carried on intercourse with their 
Christian neighbours, and induced them to make concessions to Jewish 
customs, in very much the same way as they do it elsewhere in the 
twentieth century. The heretics, however, who are once classed with the 
Jews (Can. 37), but are elsewhere treated separately (Can. 6-10, 32-84), are 
anything but Judaists (Can. 7, 8). The command (Can. 35) not to forsake 
the regular church worship for meetings in places where angels are adored, 
which is condemned as “secret idolatry,’ concerns neither Jews nor 
heretics. Theodoret is probably right when he connects this command with 
the fact that in his time, about seventy to eighty years after the Synod of 
Laodicea, there existed in Phrygia and Pisidia, or particularly in Colosse and 
the neighbourhood, chapels of St. Michael. According to a legend (Narratio 
de miraculo Ohonis patrato, ed. M. Bonnet, 1890 ; Acta SS. Sept. viii. 41-48), 
the apostles John and Philip, on visiting this region, foretold future miracles 
by the archangel, which, according to this same legend, are said to have 
taken place there ; and, many years after their death, a heathen priest built a 
small chapel to Michael as a thank-offering for the healing of his daughter, 
which took place there. What was condemned as idolatry by the Council of 
Laodicea, and still later by Theodoret and Augustine (De Vera Relig. lv. 110 ; 
Conf. x. 42. 67), was soon appropriated, even by the Church. <A church built 
by Constantine not far from the Bosphorus was later named after St. Michael, 
on account of his appearances there in healing power (Sozom. H. EF. ii. 3). 
In Byzantine times especially, the archangel was honoured in the interior of 
Asia Minor (ef. Batiffol, Stud. patr. i. 33ff.; Ramsay, Church in the Roman 
Empire, 477, 480; Cities and Bishop. i, 541, 558, 741, Nos. 404, 441, 678). 
But what could this angel cult have to do with the Judaistic error of Paul’s 
time? The decree of Laodicea shows clearly enough that the matter in hand 
was a heathen superstition in Christian garb and a merely local cult, which 
arose long after the time of the Apostles. Also the legend mentioned above 
must be taken, in spite of the author’s intention, as confirming this view. 

7. (Pp. 468, 469.) The strong Hebraism θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ κτλ. (cf. 
Ps. exii. 1, exlvii, 10; 1 Sam. xviii. 22 ; 1 Chron. xxviii. 4 ; θέλειν, with infin., 
Mark xii. 38 = φιλεῖν, Matt. xxiii. 6), suggests the conjecture that Paul is here 
repeating expressions of the Judaists which Epaphras may have told him. 
This view is supported by the fact that ταπεινοφροσύνη, even if it is con- 
nected with τῶν ἀγγέλων (see above, p. 469), could not mean, according te 
Paul’s individual usage, anything reprehensible or any external conduct 
corresponding to θρησκεία. On the contrary, in Jewish phraseology ramet 
νοῦν τὴν ψυχήν, Lev. xvi. 29, 31, xxiii. 27, 29, 32; Isa. lviii. 3; Ps, xxxv, 
13, and ταπεινοῦσθαι, Ps, xxxv. 14; Ezra viii. 21; Sir. xviii. 20, xxxi 
26, mean “to mortify one’s self”=vnorevewv, which a scholion on Ley. xxiii 


478 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 

27 substitutes for it (Field, ‚Hexapla, i. 207); ταπείνωσις, Ezra ix. 5=nyn= 
νηστεία. The same meaning is attached to rarewodpoveiv, ταπεινοφροσύνη, 
ταπεινμοφρόνησις, in the earliest speech of the Church (Herm. Vis, iii. 10 
Θὲ, Sim.'v. 3. 7; 'Tert. Jejun. xii, xiii, xvi). To this expression so conceivec 
is joined Apnaxeia—a word used nowhere else by Paul—as a related idea; 
for this also indicates not a disposition, but an external religiosity, dis- 
played especially in particular customs and a peculiar manner of life (above, 
Ῥ.- 68, τι. 3). The originally intransitive concept (Herodotus, ii. 18, 37, 64, 
65) is used by later writers indeed transitively also, and then indicates the 
cult devoted to an object, essentially like λατρεία, λατρεύειν, with dat. (Wisd. 
of Sol. xi.15, xiv. 16; Herodian, i. 11,1, θρησκεύειν, with acc.). | θρησκεία τῶν 
ἀγγέλων could then indicate a cult devoted to the angels, just as εἰδώλων 
θρησκεία, Wisd. of Sol. xiv. 27, means εἰδωλολατρεία. But this meaning’ is 
here excluded on stylistic, exegetical, and historical grounds (above, p. 469). 
There is therefore nothing to prevent taking τῶν ἀγγέλων as subjective 
genitive, and to connect it with both concepts as their necessary qualifica- 
tion. The subject in question is an ἄσκησις ἀγγελική, as the severe manner 
of life:of the pious Archippus is called in the legend of the miracle ‘at 
Colosse (Bonnet, pp: 7.11, 8. 7). The ‘angels do not need to discipline 
themselves by abstaining from bodily enjoyments ; but this did not hinder 
Paul from speaking thus any more than the circumstance that God does not 
grow, or that Christ did not Himself experience the baptism and cireum- 
cision of heart instituted by Him, or that we know nothing of the angels’ 
speech, hindered him from speaking of γλῶσσαι τῶν ἀγγέλων (1 Cor. 
xiii. 1), or of περιτομὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Col. ii. 11), or of αὔξησις τοῦ ᾿θεοῦ (Col. 
ii. 19). The false teachers probably taught that the Christian should 
become, as far as possible, an irayyeXos (Luke xx. 36), a wrong striving after 
immateriality, which induced Paul elsewhere to call such doctrines διδασκαλίαι 
δαιμονίων (1 Tim. iv. 1). This interpretation finds its strongest support in 
ii. 23 ; for certainly after the analogy of similarly formed words e@cd\o8pnokeia 
cannot denote a cult which chooses its objects of worship arbitrarily ; in 
this case these previously chosen objects must also have been mentioned. It 
may not be reprehensible in all circumstances to be a θρησκός ; but he 
who makes it his aim to lead a peculiarly pious life beyond what God has 
commanded, 1.6. of his own volition without higher commission and calling, 
is for this very reason to be blamed (cf. Jas. i. 26). Probably the ἐθελο- 
bears logically also upon ταπεινοφροσύνη, here so closely connected with 
θρησκεία. This pair of concepts is defined more closely by ἀφειδίᾳ 
σώματος, the meaning then being just this; an apparently pious manner of 
life, consisting essentially in an unsparing treatment of the body, that is, 
if with a few good authorities we strike out καί before ἀφειδίᾳ. The obscure 
words also which in ii. 18 are joined to the same pair of ideas seem to 
contain similarly a closer definition. Perhaps the only thing certain about 
them is that μή is a subsequent insertion (among the Syrians also, for 
Ephrem, p. 175, knew nothing of it) and that ἃ ἑόρακεν ἐμβατεύων gives no 
sense. Translations like that of von Soden (IK, iii. 55), “flaunting about 
with things that he has seen,” are of course undeniably beautiful. The 
textual corruption which is surely here was found by so early a writer as 
Marcion, who read τῶν ἀγγέλων with this clause (@K, ii. 527). Among the 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 479 


various conjectures, that of C. Taylor, ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων, is the most prob- 
able (Westeott-Hort, Appendix, 127 ; Lightfoot, ad loc.). This could mean 
the bold flight of an unfounded speculation (aepoßareiv, Aristoph. The Clouds, 
225 ; Lucian, Twice accused, 33, or aidepoBareiv, Lucian, Philopatris, 25) quite 
as well as the vain effort by means of asceticism to break loose from. earth 
and soar into higher regions. Acta Andr. chap. xiii. (Lipsius-Bonnet, ii. 43. 
21): οὐ κενεμβάτησεν (sic cod.), ἀλλ᾽ οἶδεν ὃ εἶπεν. 

8. (P. 471.) Among the more recent commentators on Col., Lightfoot, 
pp. 73-113, who also added a valuable treatise on Essenism, 349-419, 
and Klöpper (1882), S. 58-119, have gone into special detail in trying to 
establish a closer connection between the errors combated here and 
Essenism. The chief reasons against this are :—(1) On comparing Col. ii. 
and Rom, xiv. we can hardly doubt that the false teachers in Coloss& forbade 
the use of flesh and wine; but the Essenes set them no such example (see 
above, p. 376). (2) The most characteristic features of Essene customs and 
morality, such as the ablutions, the abstinence from marriage (cf. in brief, 
Schiirer, ii. 568 [Eng. trans. 11. ii. 200]), the absolute community of goods, 
the abolition of all slavery, the use of only such food as was prepared by 
the priests of the order, and all that is peculiar to this sect as a monastic 
order, could not have failed to leave a trace in Col. ii. if any of them had 
appeared among the false teachers there. Since they are all wanting, there 
is no discernible connection with Essenism to be found. (3) Moreover, the 
alleged angelolatry is not Essene (above, p. 476). (4) Pride in circumcision 
(ii. 11) and observance of feast days (ii. 16) were common to all Jews. 

9. (P. 471.) Incomparison with the way in which reference is made to the 
Judaists in Gal. i. 7, iv. 17, v. 12, vi. 12 (along with the collective singular, 
v. 10), and to the Cephas party in 2 Cor. ii. 17-iii. 1, v. 12, xi. 12-23 (above, 
pp- 167, line 17 f., 306), it is worth noting that nothing in Col. ii. 8, 16-23 
points to a plurality of false teachers. Especially, the singulars μηδεὶς... 
θέλων, Eußareiwv, φυσιούμενος, κρατῶν, ii. 18 f., instead of which μηδεὶς. 
τῶν θελόντων «rr. could have been written (cf. 1 Tim. vi. 5), seem more 
natural if Paul had in mind a single influential person. 


§ 28. THE DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE 
EPHESIANS. 


In the same passage in which Paul charges the 
Colossian Church to see to it that the letter directed’ to 
them be read also to the congregation of the Church in 
Laodicea, he speaks of a “letter from Laodicea” which 
the Colossians were not to leave unread (Col. iv. 16, n. 1). 
Since Paul does not deem it necessary to say who wrote 
this letter, it is evident that, like Colossians, it was written 
by himself. Those who on the strength of this passage 
assumed that it refers to a letter directed by Paul to the 


480 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Laodiceans, and in the absence of such an Epistle eom- 
posed the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans (n. 2), 
failed to give due weight to. the, peculiar expression τὴν 
ἐκ Aaodıreias. Marcion made the same mistake when he 
identified the alleged letter to the Laodiceans with the 
canonical Hpistle to: the Ephesians, and. changed its title 
to πρὸς Aaodıreas (n. 3). If at the same time that he wrote 
Colossians, Paul directed a special letter to the Laodiceans, 
it is difficult to explain why he instructed the Colossians 
to convey greetings to the entire Laodicean Church to- 
gether with one of the household Churches in that place 
(iv. 15). The reference must be, rather, to a letter which 
he directed to be sent among other places to Laodicea 
and “from Laodicea” to be forwarded to Colosse, 1.6. it 
was a circular letter to the group of Churches to which 
Laodicea and Colossze belonged. That such a letter from 
the apostle should be read in all the Churches whither it 
was brought by Paul’s messenger, and read before the 
assembled congregations (iv. 16, ev τῇ Aaod. éxxr.; οἵ, 
1 Thess. v. 27), we can readily understand. But having 
received beforehand a private letter from Paul, the 
Colossian Church might have thought that this letter to 
the larger group of Churches of which they were one was 
of no special importance to them. In iv. 16 it was taken 
for granted that the Colossians would receive the letter 
directed to them before they received the one from Lao- 
dicea, otherwise the Colossians naturally would not have 
failed to read the circular letter directed to them with other 
Churches. Furthermore, if Paul, or Tychicus directed 
Onesimus, who was going directly to Colosse, to deliver 
Colossians as well as Philemon (above, p. 459 f.), Colossians 
would necessarily have reached Colossze before the circular 
letter which was to be read to the congregations of all 
the Churches to which it was directed. Of this circular 
letter Tychicus must have been the bearer, for otherwise 
he would not have had occasion to go to Colossze, and in 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 481 


all probability he would not have been mentioned at all 
in iv. 7£ Now, from Eph. vi. 21f. we learn that 
Tychicus was actually to visit on his jqurney other 
Christians besides those at Coloss&, to inform them con- 
cerning Paul, and to deliver to them the letter at the 
conclusion of which this notice stands. Putting together 
the inference from Col. iv. 7-1w. 16 and the clear state- 
ment of Eph. vi. 21f, the conclusion follows inevitably. 
Marcion’s explanation of Col. iv. 16 is not exactly cor- 
rect, but for having discovered in the verse the so-called 
Kpistle to the Ephesians he deserves the title, diligent- 
issumus explorator, which his opponent gives him, not 
without a touch of contempt. In taking this position 
Marcion broke with a tradition of the Church thoroughly 
established in his time and persistently held afterwards. 
Marcion’s criticism of the traditional title πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους, and 
his substitution of the title πρὸς Aaodırdas (or Aaodıeis) were 
not made on the ground of any tradition, but for critical 
reasons which may have been set forth in his Antitheses. 
Even Ignatius seems to have known the letter by its 
Ephesian title (GA, i. 819). In view of the unanimity on” 
this point of the tradition of the Church which can be 
traced back to the beginning of the second century, we are 
justified in assuming that the Epistle had this title when 
it was incorporated into the collection of Pauline letters 
which afterwards came into general circulation in the 
Church. At the same time, this title is not only without 
support from the original text of the Epistle, but stands 
in irreconcilable contradiction to the entire character of 
the letter. Neither Tertullian nor Marcion read the words 
ev ᾿Εφέσῳ in 1. 1, which would have disagreed with Mar- 
cion’s title, since Tertullian does not criticise Marcion 
for changing here the text of the Epistle as he did 
so many other passages, but only for altering the title 
of the letter on the basis of alleged careful investigations 


and against the authority of ecclesiastical tradition, re- 
VOL. I. 3! 


482 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


garded by Tertullian as trustworthy (n. 3). Neither did 
Origen, who never questioned in the least the Ephesian 
destination of the letter, read ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ in 1. 1, as is 
proved by his interpretation of this passage, and, indeed, 
he seems never to have heard of such a reading (n. 4). 
Jerome, whose commentary on Ephesians is little more 
than a free reproduction of a commentary by Origen with 
here and there a criticism (@K, ii. 427), thinks that Origen’s 
explanation of Eph. i. 1 is over-refined, and is inclined to 
accept the opinion of those who “ with more simplcity” 
think that the salutation ought not to be read “to those 
who are there,” but “to those in Ephesus who are saints 
and believers.” The latter reading Jerome, in 387 A.D., 
cites simply as the opinion of some scholars which seemed 
to clear up an exegetical difficulty. On the strength of 
Jerome's statement alone, we would not be justified in 
claiming that at that time the reading had found its way 
into Bible MSS. The MSS. which have come down to 
us from this time do not read ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ (n. 4); and Basil, 
who reproduces Origen’s interpretation, gives as authority 
for the text without ev ᾿Εφέσῳ, presupposed in Origen’s 
interpretation, not only the early theologians, but ancient 
MSS. in existence in his own time (n. 4). From this 
statement we infer that in 370 A.D. Greek MSS. of recent 
origin read ἐν ’E¢éow. By that time it had already been 
incorporated in the Latin text, perhaps also in the Egyptian 
and Syriac texts, and so had come to be widely circulated. 
In view of all this evidence, there can be no doubt that ἐν 
Ἐφέσῳ did not belong originally in the text. Further- 
more, the author of the Epistle would not have placed 
the words τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ in their present position, 
but would have put them either before ἁγίοις (Rom. 1. 7; 
Col. i. 2) or after Χριστῷ (Phil. i. 1). Such an unnatural 
order of the words can only be due to a corrector who 
found τοῖς οὖσιν in its present place and so was compelled 
to insert his addition at this point. For this same reason 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 483 


it is impossible to assume that the author left a space 
after τοῖς οὖσιν, which, as the several copies of his letter 
were made, was to be filled in with the names of different 
places, In this case we should expect also to find in the 
original, in the copies of which the destination of the 
letter to various local Churches was to be indicated for the 
first time, an ἐν after οὖσιν. Only by means of such a 
preposition, which requires something to be supplied, as 18 
to-day prefixed on our |German | postal cards and in simi- 
lar forms, could sufficient care be taken that the necessary 
addition should be inserted, and indeed in the right place. 
[Ὁ is a question whether our oldest MSS. preserve the 
original text intact (n. 4 end). This, however, may be 
regarded as certain, namely, that the late ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ in 
Eph. i. 1 did not give rise to the very old title πρὸς 
᾿Εφεσίους, but the reverse. 

This false title has not only had an injurious effeet 
upon the text of Eph. 1. 1, but has interfered seriously 
with the right understanding of the letter in its historical 
relations. Holding that the letter was meant for the 
Ephesian Church, we must conclude from Eph. i. 15£., 
ii, 1-4, that Paul wrote the Epistle before he went to 
Ephesus and became acquainted personally with the 
Church there. Then we must either claim, in direct con- 
tradiction to Acts, that John not Paul was the founder of 
the Church, or assume that Paul wrote the letter prior to 
the events described in Acts xviil, 18—xx. 38, which dis- 
agrees not only with Acts but with the letter itself (n. 5). 
When Paul first came to Ephesus (Acts xvii. 19), no 
Christian Church existed there. In the interval between 
the first arrival and the final settlement of Paul in 
Kphesus, Aquila taught exclusively in the synagogue, 
as did also the apostle himself for three months (Acts 
ΧΡῊ. 19-26, xix. 8). A small number of persons who 
confessed Jesus had to be instructed and baptized be- 
fore they could become members of an organised Church 


484 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(Acts xix. 1-7). The building up of an independent 
Church in Ephesus was the result of his two years of 
teaching in the lecture-room of Tyrannus (Acts xix. 9£.). 
Paul was thus able to claim as his own even the pre- 
liminary work of the year that preceded his coming, while 
he assumed the care of the new converts made during the 
two years and more of his residence in the region (Acts 
xx. 18,31). In view of these facts, it should always have 
been taken for granted as self-evident that Ephesians was 
not intended for this local Church. For Paul writes to 
the readers of this letter, just as he does to the Colossians 
(Col. i. 3-9), that ever since he heard of their faith and 
their love they had been the object of his thanksgiving 
and petitions (i. 15f.). Up to this time they had known, 
not from experience, but only from hearsay, that he had 
received a commission from God which authorised his 
ministry to them also (111. 2), and their first conception 
of his view of Christianity they derived from this letter 
(iii. 3£.). He speaks here of the preaching to which they 
owed their Christianity (1. 13, iv. 20f.), just as he does 
in Col. i. 5f. 23, 11. 6, as if he had no personal share in 
it. He does not, as in Col. i. 7, mention the missionary 
who had brought the gospel to the readers, the inference 
being that while Epaphras was with Paul and told him 
of his concern for the Colossians, no such personal bond 
existed between Paul and the readers of Ephesians. 
All is very clear if Ephesians was not intended for a 
single Church at all, but for a number of Churches, the 
origin of which was due to the preaching of different 
missionaries. And this assumption is favoured by the 
fact that not only in this one particular, but in every 
way, Ephesians is more general in character than any 
other of Paul’s Epistles, especially Colossians. There is 
nothing in Ephesians corresponding to the numerous 
personal notices of Col. iv. 10-18. The only point by 
which the readers seem to be distinguished from other 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 485 


Christians is their Gentile origin (ii. 1£., 11 ff., iii. 1-13, 
iv. 17-24, v. 8) The greeting and concluding bene- 
diction of the letter are general enough for a communi- 
cation addressed to the entire Gentile Church. This, 
however, is impossible, not merely because a journey 
which would have taken Tychicus to every place where 
there were Gentile Christians (vi. 21 f.) would have been 
out of the question, but mainly because what has been 
said above in arguing against the Ephesian destination of 
the letter would apply to all other Churches that were 
organised by Paul and had come into personal contact 
with him. Even a pseudo-Paul, who certainly would 
have known that the Churches in Galatia, Ephesus, Mace- 
donia, and Greece were founded by Paul’s personal preach- 
ing, would not have been so foolish as to make the great 
apostle to the Gentiles write a letter in which the entire 
Gentile Church is spoken of as if he had had no part in its 
organisation, The gifted disciple of Paul’s, to whom the 
authorship of the letter has also been attributed, assum- 
ing that such a person wrote it, makes very clear refer- 
ence to the contrast between Churches to which Paul was 
known and those to which he was a stranger, when he 
writes (vi. 21) that Paul sends Tychicus to them in order 
that he may bring them full reports about Paul and his 
surroundings, so that they also may learn the state of 
Paul’s affairs and how he is, they also, who up to this 
time have had no personal intercourse with Paul, they 
also, as well as the Churches which he had founded, and 
which since this organisation have had various communi- 
cations with him, either personally or through letters, 
or by messengers (n. 6). In short, the readers of this 
Epistle are not simply such persons as the Christians in 
Colossi, Laodicea, and Hierapolis who have “not yet seen 
Paul's face,” but they are made up of the entire group of 
Churches in which, according to Col. ii. 1, the two Churches 
of Colossee and Laodicea belonged. If, now, it be accepted 


486 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


as certain that Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, assum- 
ing their genuineness, were despatched simultaneously 
Gone p. 439), there can be no doubt that Ephesians 1 ig 
the circular letter which, according to Col. iv. 16, Paul 
directed to be sent from Laodicea to Colossz. The three 
concentric circles to which Paul despatched simultaneously 
these three letters were the Church in Philemon’s house, 
the local Church in Colossee, and all the Churches in the 
province of Asia to which up to this time he had remained 
unknown, 2.6. all the Churches of the province except 
Ephesus and Troas (Acts xx. 6-11; 2 Cor. ii. 12). 

The very subordinate question as to the order in 
which the Epistles were written neither Eph. vi. 21 nor 
Col. iv. 16 enables us to decide. In the former passage 
the reference is not to a letter of Paul’s (n. 6); in the 
latter, while two letters of Paul’s are spoken of, there is 
nothing to indicate whether, at the time when this state- 
ment was written, the letter which was to go “ from 
Laodicea” to Colosse was already composed, or whether 
its composition, despatching, and final arrival in Colossee 
were all to take place in the more or less remote future. 
All that can be inferred from Col. iv. 16 is that Paul 
expected Colossians to reach Coloss® before the circular 
letter. That this was actually the case, and how it hap- 
pened, has been shown above, p. 459 1. 

As soon as there came to be a collection of Paul's 
letters of any considerable size, the necessity arose at once 
of providing the several parts with brief titles indicating 
their destinations. In the case of the other Epistles this 
title was suggested at once by the geographical notice in 
the greeting. Thus naturally from ἐν Κορίνθῳ, 1 Cor. 1. 2, 
came πρὸς Κορινθίου. But, like other letters of this kind 
(James, 2 Pet., Jude), this communication, which Tychicus 
was to deliver to the Churches of the province of Asia 
lying inland from Ephesus, has in the greeting no 
geographical hint whatever as to its destination. The 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 487 


fact that, notwithstanding this eireumstance, it did receive 
a title like the other Pauling: letter and that the in- 
appropriate πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους was chosen, shows that those 
who made the collection did not have the aid of any clear 
and trustworthy tradition as to the letter’s destination. 
How the error that the letter was intended for the 
Church at Ephesus arose, and how it could be per- 
petuated, is not without explanation.  Ecclesiastically as 
well as politically, Ephesus was the metropolis of the 
province of Asia. Communications between the Asiatic 
Churches and the Churches of other countries were sent 
for the most part through Ephesus. So that from Ephesus 
this letter reached all the Churches which lay across the 
sea. If it was circulated as “a letter from Ephesus,” 
it was natural for it to be regarded as a letter to the 
Church in Ephesus, just as Marcion thought it self- 
evident that a “letter from Laodicea” must be a letter 
“to the Laodiceans.” 


1. (P. 479.) Doubt cannot be cast on the reading, Col. iv. 16, ἐκ Λαοδικείας 
(-ias) by a senseless ἐν Λαοδικίας (G), and by inexact translations like “eam que 
est Laodicensium” (Ambrosiaster, Priscillian, Pelagius, not corrected by Jerome). 
S! translates : “and that (letter) which was written from Laodicea (according 
to another vocalisation, ‘from the Laodiceans’) ye are to read.” The same 
explanation was given by Theodore (Swete, ii. 310) and Theodoret (Noesselt, 
501), with the qualification that it was a letter of the Laodiceans to Paul, 
about the contents of which, indeed, only vague conjectures were possible. 
Chrysostom also (xi. 413) mentions this view. Others thought that they had 
discovered 1 Tim. here; see GK, ii. 567f. It goes without saying that 
whoever considers Col. genuine but Eph. not, cannot recognise the latter in 
Col. iv. 16, especially if, like von Soden (HK, iii. 88), he holds, in spite of the 
mention of Tychicus (Eph. vi. 21f.), that Eph. was addressed to all Gentile 
Christendom (against this see above, p. 484 f.). The same critic, S. 87, thinks it 
an argument against identifying the letter from Laodicea with Eph., that this 
designation is confusing. But confusing for whom? Certainly not for the 
Colossians, who either received the circular letter at the same time as their 
own, or else by asking which letter was meant could find out from Tychicus 
or Onesimus that a circular letter was on the way, or, if it came to the worst, 
had simply to be patient until the letter so announced arrived “from 
Laodicea.” The further question why then Colosse was not included in the 
circle of Churches to which Eph. was addressed is idle, since Col. iv. 16 itself 
shows that Colossze was included from the start (above, p. 480). The question 
why a similar instruction as regards Col. was not given in the letter to the 


488 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Laodiceans is thus explained, that this was not a letter just to the Laodiceans, 
but to the Churches of Asiayand that. Col. was to be read not in all these 
Churches, but simply inaodicea.äf m 

2. (P. 480.) Concerning the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, cf. GK, 
i. 277-283, 11. 83f., 566-585. 

3. (Pp. 480, 482.) Tert. c. Marc. v.17, writes under the title, De epistula ad 
Laodicenos, which he took from Marcion’s Apostolicum: “ Ecclesive quidem 
veritate epistulam istam ‘ad Ephesios’ habemus emissam, non ‘ad Laodicenos’ 
sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto dili- 
gentissimus explorator. Nihil autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes 
apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam.” Before this, in v. 11, he says 
incidentally : “ Preetereo hic et de alia epistula, quam nos ad Ephesios 
prescriptam habemus, heeretici vero ad Laodicenos.” There is no occasion to 
think of other heretics than Marcion’s adherents. Cf. GK, i. 623 ff., ii. 416. 
By titulus in distinction from ipsum corpus of a writing (c. Mare. iv. 2; 
Oehler, ii. 162), Tertullian regularly understands the outside title of the book 
(GK, i. 624 A., cf. i. 83). That such is the case here is the more certain since 
the peculiarity of Marcion’s treatment of this letter is, according to Tertullian, 
the falsifying of its title. The salutations he had altered elsewhere also, e.g. 
Gal. i. 1-5, GK, ii. 495, but the outside title in this instance only. This 
“title,” in place of which no one but the Marcionites knew any other, is 
found in the literature first in Iren. v. 2. 3; Clem. Strom. iv. 65, p. 592; 
Can. Mur. 1. 51, ef. Iren. v. 8. 1, 14. 3 ; Clem. Ped. i. 18, p. 108. 

4. (Pp. 482, 483.) Catenw, ed. Cramer, vi. 102, ‘Qpryévns δέ φησιν; ἐπὶ μόνων 
τῶν ᾿Εφεσίων εὕρομεν κείμενον τὸ “τοῖς οὖσιν," καὶ ζητοῦμεν, εἰ μὴ παρέλκει 
προσκείμενον τὸ “τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν," τί δύναται σημαίνειν, ὅρα οὖν, εἰ μὴ 
ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ Ἐξόδῳ ὄνομά φησιν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ χρηματίζων Μωσεῖ τὸ “ dv” (Ex. 
iii. 14), οὕτως οἱ μετέχοντες τοῦ ὄντος γίνονται ὄντες, καλούμενοι οἱονεὶ ἐκ 
τοῦ μὴ εἶναι εἰς τὸ εἶνα. Then follows 1 Cor. 1. 28 as proof text. Not 
only the ev ᾿Εφέσῳ but also the salutation (ver. 2) is wanting in the Mt. 
Athos MS. (von der Goltz, 8, 75, see above, p. 396, n. 3). Origen presup- 
poses the address to be πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους, not only in the beginning of this 
scholion, but elsewhere also, eg. as quoted in Cramer, vi. 119; c. Celswm, 
ii. 20. Jerome in Eph. i. 1 (Vallarsi, vii. 544f.): “‘Sanctis omnibus 
qui sunt Ephesi.’ Quidam curiosius, quam necesse est putant ex eo, quod 
Moysi dictum sit ‘Hee dices filiis Israel: qui est, misit me,’ etiam eos qui 
Ephesi sunt sancti et fideles, essenti@ vocabulo nuncupatos, etc. Alii vero 
simpliciter, non ‘ad eos qui sint (al. sunt)’ sed “qui Ephesi sancti et fideles 
sint’ scriptum arbitrantur.” Jerome does not say “istam epistolam scriptam 
esse arbitrantur,” a phrase, indeed, quite inapplicable to Origen, who never 
doubted this; he says rather scriptwm arbitrantur, and hence must be 
speaking simply of the text with ἐν Ἐφέσῳ as contrasted with the text 
without it, over which Origen had puzzled; cf. Hofmann, iv. 1, 3. It is 
certainly strange if this is the only hint that Jerome gives of a textual 
variation, for Origen’s interpretation can be discussed only on the pre- 
supposition of his text (without ev Ἐφέσῳ) ; and we may conjecture with 
Vallarsi that Jerome himself prefaced his discussion by a text without 
Ephesi, and that it was only copyists who substituted the Vulgate text with 
omnibus and Ephesi, neither of which was known to Origen. Basil, c. Hunom. 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 489 


ii. 19 (Garnier, i. 254), reproduces Origen’s tho 
οὕτω yap οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν παραδεδώκασι καὶ ἡμεῖς οἷς παλαιοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων 
εὑρήκαμεν. Ambrosiaster and Vieto e abi temporary with Basil. 
From the former’s exposition we cannot tell whether or not he really found 
here “sanctis omnibus qui sunt Ephesi et fidelibus,” ete., as the text in his 
commentary now readsiVictorinus (Mai, Script. vet. n. Coll. iii. 2. 88, after a 
previous less exact citation, p. 87) read, “‘sanctis qui sunt Ephesi et fidelibus 
in Christo Jesu” (at all events without omnibus). The older Syriac text, on 
which Ephrem wrote a commentary, expressed, as it would appear, neither 
οὖσιν nor ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ (p. 141, “ Sanctis et fidelibus, baptizatis videlicet et cate- 
chumenis”). On the contrary, S! literally retranslated τοῖς οὖσιν Ev ᾿Εφέσῳ, 
ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς. The essential agreement of this text with the Greek text 
of Antioch proves that Lucian gave it this form. Could he have been its 
originator? The text of Eph. i. 1 is transmitted quite variously : (1) τοῖς 
ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν (οὖσι N) καὶ πιστοῖς ev Xpuor@'l. is found in N*B* and the 
scholiast of min. 67. Whether Marcion read just this in his exemplar, and 
Tertullian, Origen, and Ephrem in their N.T., cannot be established. (2) τοῖς 
ἁγίοις (without τοῖς) οὖσιν ev ᾿Εφέσῳ καὶ πιστοῖς κτλ., D, min. 46 ; (3) τοῖς 
ἁγίοις πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἔ. x. m., AP, corrector of δὲ, Cyrill. Al., 2 min., Copt., 
Ambrosiaster (?), Jerome in his commentary (?), Vulg. (sometimes omnibus 
before sanctis), Theod., Lat. as the text (Swete, i. 118?) ; (4) τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς 
οὖσιν ἐν ’E. καὶ π., GKL, Chrys. (probably Theodore), Theodoret, Victorinus 
(see above); (5) the same with τοῖς (instead of καὶ) πιστοῖς, pseudo-Ign. ad 
Eph. ix ; καί is thought to be lacking also in min. 37 and some MSS. of the 
Vulg. The reading (1) “to the saints who are also believers in Christ” is not 
quite satisfactory ; since, according to this, faith in Christ appears to be either 
a qualification of the sainthood in distinction from other saints who are such 
even without faith in Christ or an inference from this sainthood, neither of 
which meanings is very clear. The reading (2) after we expunge the ἐν 
Ἐφέσῳ, which is certainly not genuine, would be more likely. The origin 
of πᾶσιν in reading (3) is puzzling. Is it originally a variant competing 
with οὖσιν ἢ Or are both genuine (cf. 2 Cor. i. 1)? Or has a τῆς ᾿Ασίας 
been lost in the one or the other? Or, with P. Ewald, ZKom. Eph. 16, is τοῖς 
ἀγαπητοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς ev Xp. Ἰ.3 Cf. Rom. i. 7 above, p. 394 f. 

5. (P. 483.) The older commentators, being fettered by the title “To 
the Ephesians,” have not for the most part seriously faced the insoluble 
problem which thus arises. Victorinus can think of nothing to say on 
i. 15, iui. 1 ff. that might serve to adjust these passages to the traditional title, 
and asserts in the Introduction (Mai, Script. vet. nova coll. iii. 2. 87): 
“ Ephesii a pseudoapostolis depravati videbantur, judaismum jungere Chris- 
tianze doctrine.” Ambrosiaster remarks in the prologue at least: “ Ephesios 
apostolus non fundavit in fide, sed confirmavit,” without, however, grounding 
this more particularly on i. 15, iii. 1 ff., or reconciling it with Acts. So also 
writes the real Euthalius (Zacagni, i. 524), who classes the Ephesians with 
the Romans as Christians who were known to Paul only by hearsay. Chry- 
sostom in his Introduction (Montfaucon, xi. 1), and on i. 15, iii. 1 ff., avoids 
the historical question altogether. Ephrem, p. 140, with whom Severianus 
also (Cramer, Cat. vi. 97) seems to agree, represents the apostle John as 
founding the Church of Ephesus, and writing his Gospel there before Paul 


Εν ἘΝ text with the addition ; 


490 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


wrote Eph. This historica}ly impossible view is probably traceable to some 
version or other of the leg bout John. See especially the Syriac History 
of John the Son of Zeb i Acts of the Apostles, i. 1-65, also the 
writer’s Acta Joannis, xxxix., lvi., exxviii.). Theodore Mops. (Swete, i. 115 ff.) 
shows in opposition to this legendary view that John’s stay in Ephesus does 
not fall earlier than the time between the outbrew¥@of the Jewish war and 
Trajan’s reign ; but, on the other hand, he holds fast'to the conclusion drawn 
from exegesis, that Eph., just like Rom. and Col., is addressed to Christians 
whom Paul has not yet seen (pp. 112, 253). Naturally Theodore admits the 
truthfulness of the account in Acts xviii. 18-xx. 38, according to which Paul 
laboured several years in Ephesus long before his protracted imprisonment 
(p. 117). But the task of discovering a point in Paul’s life previous to Acts 
xviii. 18, when he could have written as a prisoner this letter to the Church 
of Ephesus, and the further task of making intelligible the origin of such a 
Shurch before Acts xviii. 18, and of bringing it into harmony with Acts, are 
avoided by the great commentator. To amend his text by conjecture, as the 
present writer sought to do in Acta Jo. xl., is needless pains in view of the 
complete Latin text of his commentary, then unknown to him. Theodoret 
(Noesselt, p. 398) certainly must have Theodore in mind when he mentions, 
along with earlier commentators who considered John the first teacher of the 
gospel in Ephesus (i.e. Ephrem and Severianus), others also who claimed, 
indeed, that Paul had not yet seen the Church at the time when he wrote to 
them, but at the same time asserted that certain nameless persons were the 
first preachers of the gospel in Ephesus. Both views would be easy to refute 
from Acts. All the more inadequate, then, seems that which Theodoret re- 
marks on i. 15, in order to make it conceivable that the letter is addressed 
to one of the Churches founded by Paul. In commenting on 111. 2 f. he is 
quite silent about this matter. 

6. (Pp. 485,486.) Hofmann, iv. 1. 266, thought that he could explain the 
καὶ ὑμεῖς, vi. 21, as an antithesis to the κἀγώ, i. 15. But what reader who has 
reached vi. 21 has still in mind a sentence from the opening of the letter? 
Still more inadmissible is. the common view that the contrast here is with 
the Colossians, to whom Paul at the same time sends news about himself by 
Tychicus (Col. iv. 8), or indeed with Col., which already lay before the writer 
(so Holtzmann, Kritik der Eph. und Kolosserbriefe, 1872, 8. 25). ‘The latter 
view is objectionable, if for no other reason, because Eph. vi. 21 f. does not 
treat of a letter or of several letters at all, but simply of the sending of 
Tychicus. Besides, Eph., if indeed it is meant at all in Col. iv..16, was 
originally intended for the Church at Colosse as well (above, p. 479). The 
Christians of Colossee belong to the multitude addressed throughout Eph., 
and hence to those addressed in Eph. vi. 21f. How then can they be con- 
ceived as forming a contrast to the “ye also” of Eph. vi. 21% Nor does 
Paul say that he is sending Tychicus also to the readers of Eph.; he says 
of this one mission of Tychieus, which will bring him to all the readers of 
Eph. (Eph. vi. 22), the Colossians among the rest (Col. iv. 7), that it should 
serve to inform these Churches also about his (Paul’s) situation. ‘The con- 
trast can be formed only by such Churches as do not belong to this cirele, 
Churches to which Tychicus is not now sent, or at least not with this aim, 
and which, as was well known, heard frequently from Paul ; ef. Klostermann, 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 491 


JbfDTh. 1870, 8. 161. Of. also in the matter Ewald, ZKom. Eph. Col. Philem 
263, but on the basis of the supposition that Eph. and Philem, were written 
and sent somewhat earlier than Col. (KZom. Eph. 20 ff.). 


$ 29. THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLES TO 
THE EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 


Among earlier critics many accepted the Pauline 
authorship of Colossians, but often questioned the genu- 
ineness of Ephesians, while only occasionally the opinion 
was expressed that Colossians was forged on the basis of 
Kphesians (n. 1). Later, Baur, dae with some diver- 
gencies by Hilgenfeld and Weizsd@€er, interpreted both 
Epistles as products of the second century (n. 2). Hitzig 
made the suggestion that Ephesians was copied from ἃ 
genuine Epistle to the Colossians, but that later Colossians 
itself was interpolated by the same author and in the same 
spirit. This suggestion was worked out by Holtzmann, 
who concluded that these changes were made either at the 
close of the first or the beginning of the secon¢ century 
(n. 3). 

When the fact is taken into consideration that those 
inclined to this hypothesis have tended more and mo 
to accept both the unity and genuineness of Colossfans, 
the favour of the critics seems to have been very unequally 
bestowed upon these two very closely connected letters, 
Indeed, the Epistle most attacked is supported by the 
better external evidence. Whereas, with the exception 
of a misinterpretation of Col. ii. 18 in the Preaching of 
Peter (above, p. 475, n. 6), there are no clear traces of Colos- 
sians before the time of Marcion, even as early as the time 
of Clement and Hermas we begin to have traces of the 
circulation of Ephesians in the Church, which become 
clearer in Ignatius and Polycarp (GK, i. 817 f, 825 f.). 
It is hard to believe that letters which were incorporated 
by Marcion in 145 into his Apostolicon as genuine letters 
of Paul were not written until shortly before 140 (Hil- 


492 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


genfeld, Einl. 680). Still less is it possible to suppose 
that the writer was influenced by Montanistic ideas (Baur, 
Paulus, τὶ. 25). 

Another definite point, which eannot be overlooked 
in the historical criticism of these letters, is the title πρὸς 
᾿Εφεσίους, which was known to Ignatius and correeted 
by Marcion. In its present form this title cannot be 
older than the incorporation of this Epistle into a collec- 
tion of Pauline letters. On the other hand, in view of 
its wide circulation and the fact that it is the only title 
by which the letter was known, it cannot be later than 
the formation of the*collection of Pauline letters which 
Marcion found circulating in the Church, and which was 
in Ignatius’ hands. In order to account for the historical 
inaccuracy of this title, an interval must be assumed 
between the letter’s composition and its incorporation 
in this collection sufficient for its original destination to 
have been forgotten. Now this interval is allowed for, 
and the*perpetuation of the error in the title easily ex- 
plained if Paul sent the Epistle in the year 62 by Tychicus 
by way of Ephesus to the inland cities of the province 
of Asia (ef. above, p. 480f.). When, some twenty or forty 
years later, the collection of Pauline letters in which this 
Epistle had the title πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους came into circulation 
in that region, no one had longer any interest in correcting 
the error. Because of its circular character, no single 
Church was in a position to claim the honour of having 
received the Epistle from Paul, and to contest its claim 
with that of the metropolis of the province. On the other 
hand, if it be assumed that the letter was forged in 
Paul’s name, the origin of the πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους is inexplicable: 
This error as to the letter’s destination could not have 
originated in Ephesus and the province of Asia. And 
even. if the letter was written in this region, the error 
could not have been circulated from this centre with the 
letter ; while, if it be assumed that the spurious letter 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 493 | 


was written and first circulated elsewhere, we have the 
still more difficult task of explaining the origin of the 
opinion that the letter was directed to Ephesus. © For 
there is absolutely nothing in the letter itself which would 
point to a Church that had been organised by Paul, and 
cared for by him during the early years of its growth. 
If someone had been influenced in selecting a definite title 
by his observation of the close resemblance between this 
letter and Colossians,—and this was not the usual manner 
in which mistakes originated in the early Church,—he 
would have been more likely to a, of Hierapolis or 
Laodicea (Col. ü. 1, iv. 13-16) than of Ephesus. More- 
over, it is to be wort in mind that up to the present 
time no one has shown with any degree of plausibility 
that this letter was forged during Paul’s lifetime, or shortly 
after his death. But if it had not been composed until 
the year 100 or shortly thereafter, there is no time for the 
rise and establishment of the error which had been asso- 
ciated with the Epistle ever since it began to have a wider 
circulation, indeed from the time when it was incorporated 
into a collection of Pauline letters. 

While in the case of Ephesians it is the strong external 
evidence which stands in the way of the assumption of 
spuriousness, in the case of Colossians it is the impression 
necessarily made by the contents of the letter. Even 
the choice by a forger of Colossee as the destination of 
his letter is inexplicable. In the entire literature of the 
ancient Church Colosse is not once mentioned, and it is 
hard to see why this Church should have been chosen 
rather than one of the more famous Churches mentioned 
in Rev. 1.-i1., or in Acts, or in the Epistles of Ignatius, 
or in the traditions about John and the daughters of 
Philip. The notices in chap. iv. would be a masterpiece 
without parallel in epistolary literature known to be 
spurious, comparable only to 2 Tim. iv. Assuming that 
Philemon is genuine, someone might have taken from ver. 


494 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


23 f. the five names of persons sending greetings which 
recur in Col. iv. But what would have influenced such a 
person to add to these five the name of Jesus Justus, who 
is not mentioned anywhere else in the ancient Christian 
literature that has come down to us? This character 
must have been invented; yet it is scarcely conceivable 
that a Christian of the post-apostolic age should have 
given to a character invented by himself the name 
“Jesus.” What is said and implied in Col. iv. 11. with 
reference to the activity of Jewish Christian missionaries 
in Paul’s vicinity, with whom Paul was not altogether 
satisfied, is confirmed™by Phil. 1. 15-17, but could not 
have been derived from the latter passage. For it is 
not said in the Philippian passage that the missionaries 
hostile to Paul were of Jewish origin, which is the point 
in Colossians; nor does the language in Colossians betray 
the slightest dependence upon Philippians. A pseudo- 
Paul might have taken the name Onesimus from Philemon, 
but he could not have inferred from this Epistle that 
Colossee was the home of the slave and of his master 
(Col. iv. 9). On the other hand, there is no trace in 
Colossians of any of the contents of Philemon, e.g. of 
Onesimus’ condition of slavery, of his flight, of his con- 
version by Paul and restoration to his master. No 
mention is made of Philemon nor of his wife. It is not 
the Church in the house of Philemon at Colossee which we 
find mentioned in Col. iv. 15, but the Church in the house 
of Nymphas at Laodicea, In Col. iv. 17 a ministry in 
the Church is ascribed to Archippus, of which there is 
no suggestion in Philem. 2. If Colossians is spurious, 
chap. iv. shows that the author is very anxious, by inserting 
numerous personal notices, to give his forgery the appear- 
ance of lifelikeness. How is it, then, that for this purpose 
he has not made use of Philemon, assuming that the letter 
is genuine? If he composed them both, how could he 
have avoided repeating himself in two letters which are 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 495 


represented to have been despatched simultaneously to 
the same destination? The organisation of the Colossian 
Church is not attributed to Paul’s distinguished helper 
Timothy, although the writer makes him share Paul’s 
apostolic calling, as this calling is related to this par- 
ticular Church (Col. 1 1, 7, above, p. 449, n. 8), and 
although from Philemon he must have known that Timothy 
as well as Paul was quite intimate with a prominent 
member of this Church. The place that we should 
expect to be occupied by Timothy is taken by Epaphras 
(Col. i. 7, iv. 12), who is not mentioned in the other 
sources, and from whose mention in Philem. 23 it could 
not be guessed that he had preached the gospel and 
organised Churches in these regions. In short, while 
the letters are entirely independent, their personal and 
historical notices are mutually supplementary, without 
being at any point in the slightest degree contradictory. 
That there is a resemblance between these two letters, 
as regards historical details, is not to be denied ; but it 
is not the resemblance that exists between two spurious 
letters, nor between one genuine and one spurious letter, 
but a resemblance such as ordinarily exists between two 
genuine documents, and such as in the nature of the case 
is possible. 

The objection that there is no sufficient occasion for 
the letter (Hilgenfeld, 663) ought not to have been made 
unless the critic was in a position to show a plausible 
reason for its forgery, or to prove that the letter was 
written from pure love of writing, without any special 
purpose, and especially unless he was ready to show that 
the urgent occasion for the letter which the author himself 
indicates (above, p. 461 ff.) was inherently improbable. 
Now it cannot be denied that Paul, in addition to the 
responsibility which he felt for preaching the gospel to the 
entire Gentile world still unconverted (Rom. i. 14), bore 
anxiously also upon his heart the Churches already in 


496 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


existence (2 Cor. xi. 28). If he devoted a lengthy letter 
to a Church like that in Rome, which did not properly 
belong within the sphere of his missionary labours, but 
simply lay upon the route of future journeys which 
were to be made in connection with his work, it is 
evident that he must have felt himself under obligation 
to watch over and to promote the development of the 
Churches in the province of Asia which through three 
years of labour he had founded, and which, moreover, had 
received the gospel from the Ephesian Church that he 
himself had organised. And he would have felt this 
obligation all the more when it was being rumoured in 
Colossee and Laodicea, as it was, that he was unable or 
not disposed to fulfil this obligation, when, moreover, the 
Christians in these two places were in danger of being led 
away by an unsound form of Christianity. 

The claim that Colossians was not written by Paul, or 
that the genuine Epistle was interpolated by a later hand, 
cannot be upheld, save by convincing proof that historical 
facts or conditions are referred to in the letter which did 
not exist until the post-apostolic age, or by evidence of 
thought and language which do not harmonise with the 
thought and style of Pauline letters admitted to be genuine. 
Neither has been shown to be true. In its practical aims 
the movement combated in chap. ü., opposition to which, 
as we have seen, influenced all the didactic statements of 
the Epistle, was very closely allied to the movement which 
Paul had opposed earlier in Rom. xiv. No traces of such 
a movement are to be found in the post-apostolic literature. 
Assuming that an angel cult is really referred to in Col. 
ii. 18, one might search the heresy histories of the second 
century in vain for another reference to it (above, p. 475 f.). 
But when this passage is rightly interpreted, it is found to 
have no connection with any heretical movement of the 
post-apostolie age, especially those which, according to 
existing accounts, were influential in Asia Minor. From 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 497 


the Nicolaitans of the Book of Revelation the Jewish ' 
Christian ascetics in Coloss® are the opposite extreme. 
According to trustworthy accounts, Cerinthus, the con- 
temporary of John, was anything but a Judaiser. He 
was made such only. by the ignorance of heresy writers 
after the close of the fourth century, and there is no 
trace in Colossians of Cerinthus’ real view of the person 
and history of Christ (n. 4). On his journey through the 
province of Asia, Ignatius met wandering teachers, who 
insisted that the Gentile Christians there should observe 
the Jewish law, e.g. the law of the Sabbath, and who at 
the same time held Docetic views regarding Christ, especi- 
ally regarding His sufferings. But there is nothing said 
by Ignatius about ascetic rules which were based upon 
certain theories of matter and the nature of angels, nor 
is there to be found in Colossians any suggestion of the 
fantastic Christology which Ignatius was especially anxious 
to refute. 

On the surface there would seem to be points of 
connection between Colossians and the so-called false 
teachers of the Pastoral Epistles. But the latter are to 
be dated in Paul’s lifetime (§ 37). 

Baur found in both Ephesians and Colossians a Gnostic 
theology and phraseology suggesting the speculation of 
Valentinus, but without any “trace of even an indirect 
polemic against Gnostic teachers,” so that, according to 
Baur, they must date from a time when Gnostic ideas were 
just beginning to appear, and seemed as yet to be harmless 
Christian speculations (Paulus, ii, 25). On the other 
hand, Hilgenfeld (Kinl. 660, 666 ff.) makes the writer 
attack Gnosticism, which is called by-him philosophy 
(11. 8). He thinks that what is said in 1. 19, it 9 ff., is 
directed against the Gnostic doctrine of the πλήρωμα, that 
1. 15 ff. is designed to oppose the doctrine of the creation 
of the material world by spirits greatly inferior to God, 
and that the presentation of Christianity as a mystery 

VOL. 1. 32 


-- 


498 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(i. 27, 1.2, iv. 2)oand gnosis: (i. 9,'10, ii. 2 Ἐ ΟΠ 9) lis 
intended to offset ‘the esoteric teaching of the Gnosties. 
A polemic of this sort, in which the error opposed is not 
so much as characterised; to say nothing of being logically 
refuted, would be manifestly childish. And that the error 
clearly, designated) by Paul, and really combated, has 
nothing to dovwith Gnosticism, with its doctrine of the 
pleroma and eons, is proved by the vain efforts which 
have been put forth either to prove that there are two 
different parties in Colossee which are combated, or that 
the writer confuses the alleged Jewish Christian Gnosticism 
of Cerinthus with movements of an entirely different 
character. That the words. πλήρωμα and αἰῶνες, the use 
of which in Colossians and Ephesians is mainly responsible 
for conjectures of this kind, were widely used in Gnostic 
circles before Valentinus, cannot be proved (n. 5). But 
the supposition :that the teaching of Valentinus himself 
is either combated or appropriated in Colossians’ and 
Ephesians is’ ruled out, because it is chronologically im- 
possible, in view of Marcion’s acceptance and revision of 
the latter Epistle. Indeed, the theory is refuted by the 
practice of the Valentinian school, all branches of which 
made special use of 1 Cor., Ephesians, and Colossians 
in constructing their doctrine, endeavouring to show 
that it was derived from the esoteric teaching of the 
apostles... While Valentinus and his followers certainly 
did not derive their ideas from Paul, they did use: his 
language for the expression of their thoughts, in order to 
render them) less objectionable to the ordinary reader. 
They make the same use of the conceptions ὁ λόγος τοῦ 
σταυροῦ, θεοῦ σοφίαν λαλοῦμεν ἐν μυστηρίῳ, mvevpaTiKos, 
ψυχικός (1: Cor, i. 18, i 7) 14£) that they αὐ. οἵ 
πλήρωμα, Col. 4.19) 1. 9; Eph. 1. 10, 23, is ob9pawo D3, 
and αἰῶνες, Eph, 111, 21. But since the caricatures of 
these Pauline conceptions constitute the basis of the 
Valentinian system, and are used in the technical lan- 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 499 


guage of all branches of the school, it is certain that 
Valentinus himself derived his doctrine, among other 
sources, from Ephesians and. Colossians, 

But if the genuineness of Colossians is unimpeach- 
able, the critical question with reference to«Hphesians 
is very much simplified; for if the latter is spurious, 
the numerous points of resemblance between! it and 
Colossians prove beyond question that it is based upon 
this Epistle. Moreover, since mention is» made’ in Col. 
iv. 16 of a contemporaneous Epistle of Paul’s which was 
to be read, among other places, in, Laodicea and Colossee, 
there is no doubt that it was this passage which led to 
the composition of Ephesians. The relation of Ephesians 
to Col. iv. 16 would be the same as that of the apocryphal 
correspondence of Paul with the Corinthians to 1 Cor. 
v. 9, vil. 1. Of this possible motive for the alleged forging 
of Ephesians, Hitzig and Holtzmann (op. cit.p. 167) 
deprive themselves, when they explain Col. iv. 15-17 as 
an interpolation made by the writer of Ephesians, with 
the intention of making iv. 16 refer to the circular letter 
which he had written. But why does he do this in such 
unintelligible language? The reference would be intel- 
ligible only to the Colossians, who knew beforehand or 
learned at the time that a letter was to be sent from 
Laodicea to Colossee, Only if Col. iv. 16 is genuine 
are there analogies from which to argue that Ephesians 
is a probable forgery. As a matter of fact, there was a 
letter forged in the second century on the strength of this 
passage (above, p. 488, n. 2). Although, compared with 
the richness of thought in Ephesians, this letter is a poor 
piece of patchwork, its title, ad Laodicenos, and its 
greeting, fratribus qui. sunt Laodicie, are much more 
sensible and intelligible than the greeting of Ephesians, 
if the latter Epistle be likewise a forgery made on the 
strength of this Colossian passage. Anyone who missed 
the letter mentioned in this passage, and on the strength 


500 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of its non-existence wrote a fictitious letter of his own, 
could not have left his readers to guess its destination, 
but, like the persons who wrote the apocryphal letters to 
the Corinthians and Laodiceans, he must have betrayed 
clearly the origin of his invention. 

In attempting to prove the spuriousness of Ephesians, 
a special point cannot be made of its close resemblance to 
Colossians, both in thought and language. For this is what 
we should expect if the two letters were despatched simul- 
taneously, possibly not more than a single night inter- 
vening between their composition, and if the Church in 
Colossee, to which a special letter is devoted on account 
of the danger threatening this Church and its nearest 
neighbour, was one of a larger sroup of Churches to which 
the other letter was directed. A literary man, concerned 
about the opinion of his critics and the judgement of 
posterity, in such a case might have taken special pains 
to secure variety of thought and language ; a great man, 
concerned mainly with his subject, does not take such 
pains (n. 6). Such a man was Paul. ‘Moreover, it is a 
peculiarity of Paul’s style, that having once employed a 
significant word he is apt soon to repeat it, or to make 
use of a related word (n. 7). ‘This is true even of words 
that do not oceur elsewhere in his writings. If, owing to 
the closeness of. their composition, the two letters may be 
regarded as being in this respect a unit, the occurrence in 
both of expressions more or less peculiar only serves to 
confirm this fact. It is also to be remembered’ that 
between the composition of Romans and these letters not 
less than four years had elapsed, during which time Paul, 
torn away from his accustomed missionary work, had been 
receiving the greatest variety of impressions, first’ in 
Cresarea, then for six months at sea, and finally in Rome. 
Under these conditions it would not be strange to find 
him influenced by ideas and using forms of expression 
with which we do not meet in the earlier Epistles. 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT τοὶ 


In order to prove that Ephesians is a forgery, based 
either entirely or for the most part on a genuine letter 
to the Colossians, conclusive evidence must be adduced 
to show that ideas and words in Colossians were misunder- 
stood or intentionally misinterpreted by the imitator, or 
clumsily copied and used in the wrong place. For these 
are the characteristics of all known forgeries of this sort, 
at least of all ancient forgeries. Consequently in handling 
a genuine Epistle of Paul’s, whose letters were so difficult 
for outsiders, and so especially difficult for later genera- 
tions to understand (2 Pet. iii. 16), a forger would certainly 
have betrayed himself in some way. Indeed, the details 
of Ephesians have been held to be so slavishly dependent 
upon Colossians as to render its composition by Paul im- 
possible (n. 8). But this view presupposes on the part of 
the alleged pseudo-Paul a degree of stupidity and a lack 
of thought which cannot be harmonised with the unques- 
tionable fact that the author of Ephesians was a man, of 
profound thought, breadth of view, and no little literary 
power. Furthermore, the contents and plan of Ephesians 
cannot be said to so strikingly resemble those of Colossians 
as to arouse suspicion. Paul begins Colossians with: the 
assurance that since the reception οὐ the news of the 
planting of Christianity in Colossee he and Timothy have 
not ceased to give thanks (ef. 1 Cor. 1, 4; 1 Thessoi. 2); 
in Eph. i. 3 he breaks at once into praise of God, with 
an emotional fervour without parallel in any other of Paul’s 
letters, not even excepting Rom. i. 8. In the Epistle in- 
tended for the group of Churches in the province of Asia 
the predominating tone is that of joy for the results of 
the gospel accomplished in his field of labour, though 
without his aid, which gives the Epistle throughout: a 
solemnly exalted, soaring, even exaggerated tone that 
frequently passes over into praise of God (i. 8, 12, 14, 
16, i. 14 ff., 20f., v. 20); the tone of Colossians, on the 
other hand, is influenced by the deep anxiety which both 


502 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the apostle and Epaphras felt on account of the special 
peril to which the Christians in Coloss® and Laodicea 
were exposed (il. 1, iv. 12f.),—an anxiety that accounts 
for the moderate joy of its thankseiving (i. 3), as well as 
for the preponderance and varied character of its petitions 
(i. 9, ef. 1. 23 with Eph. i. 16f.). The thanksgiving in 
Eph. 1. 3-14 is for the redemptive grace of God, eternally 
shown to the Church, primarily to the Jewish Christian 
Church, of which grace the Gentiles have now been made 
partakers (i. 18). Not until 1. 15f. do we have thanks- 
giving for the readers themselves, with which Colossians 
begins. The discussions of Col. 1. are entirely determined 
by opposition to the ethical error and confusion by which 
the Church was threatened, clearly characterised in Col. üi., 
whereas Eph. 1.--111. is concerned entirely with the contrast 
between the former limitation of salvation to Israel and 
its present extension to the Gentiles. The first main 
division of Ephesians concludes with a doxology ending in 
‘“amen’” (iii. 20f.), which resembles Rom. xvi. 25-27 (a 
resemblance all the more striking because of the ‘simi- 
larity in thought between the latter passage and Eph. 
ii. 8, 5), which may also be compared to Rom. xi. 36 and 
the benedictions in 1 Thess. iii. 11-13; 2 Thess. ii. 16 f. 
A transition is then made with παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, iv. 1, 
to a second hortatory section of the letter (cf. Rom. xii. 1). 
All this is wanting in Colossians. Although there is 
much similarity in the language of these hortatory sec- 
tions, the ethical discussion discloses a number of new 
points of view. There are enough independent thoughts 
in Ephesians to enable us to understand why Paul wanted 
this letter to be read by the Colossians, for whom it was 
intended, as well as for the other Churches (Col. iv. 16); 
on the other hand, it was so general in character that the 
apostle did not feel that it was suflicient to meet the needs 
of the Church in Colossze. 

The Jexical proof of the spuriousness of Ephesians, 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 503 


which has been thought possible, will not bear examination 
(n. 9). Passing by specifie defects in the argument, this 
general remark is to be made concerning it. There is 
error in every effort of this sort which proceeds on the 
hypothesis that in and of itself the occurrence of rare 
words, particularly words that are not to be found else- 
where in the N.T., or more specifically in the admittedly 
genuine Pauline letters, is sufficient reason for suspecting 
an Hpistle. Are we to suppose that boldness in the con- 
struction of words and independence of the vocabulary of 
the author whose writings he designs to multiply by his 
forgery are the characteristics of the forger?) So far as 
we are able to determine from the Latin version (GX, ii. 
584), in the Hpistle to the Laodiceans, there is not to be 
found a single word, scarcely a combination of words, not 
to be found in the genuine Epistles. Galatians, which is 
a little shorter than Ephesians, has just as many peculiar 
words (n. 10). It has been claimed that Ephesians does 
not show Paul’s dialectic and syllogistic style. With 
double force could this objection be made to 2 Cor., in 
which there occurs not a single one of those logical con- 
nectives characteristic of Romans and 1 Cor. (ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ; 
ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε ; τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; ἄρα οὖν), whereas in Eph. (e.g. ii. 
19) we do find an dpa οὖν. It has also been claimed that 
the thought is not Pauline. The real Paul, it is claimed, 
dealt only with individual Churches; this alleged Paul 
is dominated by the idea of the one Church. But it is 
not to be forgotten that from the beginning to the end of 
1 Cor. Paul reiterates the. truth that the individual 
Church cannot disregard its relation to the whole Church 
and still maintain its character as a Church of God 
(above, p. 281 f.). Not only does he speak of the whole 
body of Christian believers as worshippers of Jesus (1 Cor. 
i, 2; Rom. x. 12), as saints (Rom. xii. 13; 1 Cor. vi. 2; 
so also Eph. iv. 12), or all the saints (1 Thess. iii. 13; 
Philem. 5 ; Col. 1. 4; so also Eph. i. 15, iii. 8, vi. 18), or 


504 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of all the Churches (Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. iv. 17, vii. 17, 
xi. 16, xiv. 83), but he speaks of all the Churches together 
as one Church. « It is not the local Roman Church which 
in Rom. xii. 5 is called the body of Christ, but all the 
Christians upon earth; for he includes himself among 
them. , If possible, this is even clearer in 1 Cor. xii. 
12 ff. In 1 Cor. xii. 28, Col. i, 18, 24, probably also in 
1 Cor. x. 32 (above, p. 297, ἢ. 7, cf. also Gal. 1. 13, Phil. 
i. 6,1 Cor. xv. 9, with Gal. 1. 22 ff.), this entire organism 
is called ἡ ἐκκλησία. The fact that this word, which occurs 
only rarely elsewhere, is found nine times in Ephesians, 
would be critically significant only if the terms which 
Paul commonly uses elsewhere to designate the Church as 
a whole were wanting in Ephesians. This, as we have 
seen, is not the case. The idea that the conception of an 
organic Church occurred to Paul only in the process of a 
later development, or that the idea did not originate until 
after Paul’s time, is not only refuted by the use of ἐκκλησία 
in 1 Cor. xii. 28, but the notion itself arises from a misunder- 
standing of Paul’s position which is scarcely conceivable. 
Τὺ 15. self-evident that even the possibility of speaking of 
the Church in Corinth-as the temple of God and of Christ, 
and the only foundation of the work of God that had been 
laid in Corinth (1 Cor. iii. 10-17), and the possibility of 
calling this one Church the body of Christ (xi. 27), were 
conditioned upon their, being a microcosm of the whole 
Church, and upon Christ’s standing in the same relation 
to their communion as He did to the whole body of 
believers. Paul knew only one Christ who had died for 
all men, and only one gospel which was intended for the 
whole world. It is consequently self-evident that the 
idea of a Church founded upon this Christ and through 
this gospel could not have originated from a collective 
survey of the local Churches; on the contrary, this idea 
is the presupposition of all that he says regarding the 
individual Churches. The special prominence of this idea 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 505 


in Ephesians is due to the fact that in this letter, and in 
this letter alone, he is addressing a group of Churches 
which, unlike those in Galatia, had not been organised by 
his own effort, with whose special conditions he was un- 
acquainted, save as he had learned from Epaphras and 
Onesimus respecting the conditions in Colosse, and for 
which he was concerned as a group of Churches constitut- 
ing a large section of the Gentile Church of which he was 
the head. His obligation to these Gentile Christians—an 
obligation which he designs to fulfil by writing this letter 
—arises from his commission (111. 2, 7 f:),, which puts him 
under obligation to all the Gentiles. Because of a lack of 
personal relations to the Apostle of the Gentiles, they are 
not to feel that they are excluded from the Gentile Church 
for which he labours and is in bonds (iii. 1, 13). “ They 
also,” who heretofore have had no personal intercourse 
with him, are to learn more concerning him (vi. 21, above, 
p. 490, n. 6) than they had learned from rumours (ili. 2). 
His design is to protect them from the danger of becoming 
isolated and lost—a danger to which they were exposed 
quite as much as the Corinthians, though for other reasons 
—by making them realise more strongly that they are a 
part of the great Gentile Church ; and since this Gentile 
Chureh with the body of Jewish Christians, built upon the 
same foundation, constitutes the whole Church, that they 
are members also of the body of Christ, and parts in the 
building of God. 

The designation of apostles and prophets in iv. 11, as 
first among those who by reason of their special gifts are 
called to special service in this great organism, is exactly 
parallel to 1 Cor. xii. 28... Consequently there is nothing 
strange about the conjunction of these two offices in 11. 20, 
it. 5. Assuming as self-evident that in all three passages 
by prophets Christians are meant, it is hardly likely that 
prophet is only a second designation of the persons who 
are first called apostles, for the two are clearly distin- 


506 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


guished in iv. 11 (likewise in ii. 20, iii. 5). The use of a 
single article covering both the words simply indicates the 
closeness of their connection. And they naturally belong 
together, where the design is to describe the original 
organisation of the Church, especially the rise οὗ the 
knowledge regarding the entire equality of Gentiles and 
Jews in the Church. In certain instances’ prophetic 
revelation and the apostolic office might blend. It was 
not his consciousness of apostolic duty, but a revelation, 
which lay outside the sphere of his’ apostolic office, that 
influenced Peter to take the first decisive steps in this 
direction (Acts x. 10, 34, 46, xi. 15, xv. 7). The Magna 
Charta of the Gentile Church was issued not by the 
apostles alone, but with the co-operation of the mother 
Church and its head (Acts! xv. 22-ff); it was proposed 
by James, who was not an apostle, while the author of 
the decree is declared to be the Holy Spirit (Acts xv. 28). 
The prophets Judas and Silas, acting as the ambassadors 
of the mother Church, strengthened the impression made 
by the document which they brought through their own 
eloquent oral exposition of it (xv. 32), and one of these, 
working as a missionary in conjunction with Paul, had 
endeavoured to actualise his prophetic knowledge that the 
Gentiles were fellow-heirs with the Jews of redemption. 
The designation of the apostles and prophets as ἅγιοι (111. 5) 
certainly cannot be interpreted as self-exaltation, which 
would be out of place in one who called himself an 
apostle (i. 1); for, as is well known, Paul very frequently 
designates all Christians without distinction as οἱ ἅγιοι, 
not because of their piety or morality, which, in certain 
respects, were still very deficient, and to a large extent 
_unknown to the apostle, but simply to indicate that, by 
their reception into the Church, they had been separated 
from the world and dedicated to God. He uses the ex- 
pression also in a narrower sense with reference to the 
body of Jewish Christians in Palestine to indicate their 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT τοῦ 


special distinction as belonging to God’s holy people 
(Rom. xv. 25f.; 1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 4), a usage 
which is found also in Eph. 11. 19. And why should he 
not use the same word, not as a special designation of the 
apostles and prophets,—which, in fact, is not done here, 
nor in Col. i. 26, nor anywhere else, —but simply to indi- 
cate through the attribute ἅγιοι that these men were 
endowed beyond the majority of Christians with the 
knowledge of the universality of redemption, and com- 
missioned to be the representatives of this knowledge, 
especially in a sentence where as here he is striving for 
fulness of expression, as is indicated by the. superfluous 
ev πνεύματ. ΑΒ far as the criticism of the passage is 
concerned, it makes no difference whether Paul includes 
himself or, as in 1 Cor. xv. 7, Rom. xvi. 7, means by’ οἱ 
ἀπόστολοι the twelve apostles not including himself. The 
former is the more natural inference from iv. 11 (cf. 1. 1); 
the latter, from ii. 20, especially in view of the historical 
reference of the latter passage. The same is true of 11]. 5, 
since he has just spoken in ii. 3 of the personal revelation 
to him of the same mystery, since, moreover, in iii. 7 he 
speaks of himself as being only the chief personal agent 
through whom the knowledge revealed to the apostles and 
prophets has been practically realised, and'since, finally, in 
ili. 8 he speaks of himself as less than the least .of all 
Christians, not, as in 1 Cor. xv. 9, as the least of ‘the 
apostles, scarcely worthy of the name. The fact that he 
mentions in iv. 11, besides apostles and’ prophets, a third 
class, namely, evangelists, would be ground for suspicion 
only if in the post-apostolic age evayyeAiorıs was a common 
desienation of an office in the Church, which was not, 
however, the case. In Paul’s writings, εὐαγγέλιον always 
means missionary preaching (above, p. 171, n. 2). Hence 
by ‘evangelists he means those preachers who, without 
belonging to the apostolic body proper, are engaged in 
spreading the gospel among those’ who are still un- 


508 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


evangelised. When such persons happened to locate 
either temporarily or permanently in communities where 
Christian Churches were already in existence (Acts xxi. 8; 
2 Tim. iv. 5), their calling brought them, quite as little as 
did that of the apostles and prophets, into relation with 
existing Churches, or with the local; Church. This was 
the particular relation sustained by pastors (Acts xx. 28; 
1 Pet. v. 2) and teachers (1 Cor. xu. 28; Rom. miahig 
Acts xiii. 1; Jas. iii, 1), who for this reason are desig- 
nated as one class. From this it is not to be inferred 
that at the time when Ephesians was written the teaching 
office and the office of leadership in the Church ‚were 
regularly combined, any more than it is to be inferred 
from ii. 20, iii. 5 that apostles and. prophets were always 
the same persons. All that can be said is that the 
language used is more natural if frequently the head of 
the Church performed also the oflice of teacher (1 Tim. 
iii, 2, v. 17; Tit. i. 9; Heb. xiii. 7 ;0Acts xv. 22, 32). 
Only on the assumption that it is a characteristic of 
Paul, in season and out of season, always to say the same 
thing, can it be argued that Ephesians is spurious on the 
eround that there are new thoughts in this. Epistle.an 
addition to those which are emphasised by Paul elsewhere, 
such as the ideas of election and predestination (i. 4, 5, 
9, 11, iii. 9, 11) of the ἀπολύτρωσις through the blood of 
Christ (i. 7; cf. Rom. iii. 24 £.), of salvation not by works 
but by faith (ii. 8f.), of the reception of the Gentiles 
among God’s ancient people (ii. 11-19; cf. Rom. iv. 1-12, 
xi. 16-24), of the old and new, and of the inner man 
(ii. 15, iii, 16, iv. 22-24). The fact that Paul identifies 
himself with Jewish Christians and opposes himself to 
Gentile Christians certainly cannot be made an argument 
against the genuineness of the Epistle; for, im the first 
place, exegetes are not agreed in their interpretations of 
the interchange of “we” and “ye” in Eph. 1. 12, 18, 
ii, 2-10—in fact, the text is not altogether certain (11. 8); 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 505 


and, in the second place, quite apart from: these difficulties, 
Paul could never have so far forgotten his Jewish origin 
as to identify himself with the Gentile Christians in this 
one point which distinguished them (cf. Gal. ii. 15; Rom. 
vil. 5 f£, ix. 1 ff, xi. 1-7; ef. also the contrast between 
“we” in Gal. iii. 13, 23-25, iv. 3-5, and “the Gentiles” 
or “ye” in Gal. i. 14, 26-29, iv. 6-11). In view of 
what is said in Gal. ii. 20, Rom. viii. 35, 37, it seems 
quite unlikely that the idea that Christ loved us, v. 2, 25, 
should be interpreted as indicating a type of thought 
transitional between Paul and John, or that the same inter- 
pretation should be made of the idea of love to the Lord 
in v. 2, 25 (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 22; Philem. 5), or of the contrast 
of light and darkness (ef. Rom. xiii. 12; 2 Cor. vi. 14; 
1 Thess. v. 4 f.), and similar conceptions (ZK, iii. 99 f.). If 
it could be shown that the idea of the parousia has practic- 
ally disappeared from Ephesians, and that its place has 
been taken by the idea of a long continuance of the present 
order of things (HK, 94), it would prove that the Epistle 
is not Paul’s, but would at the same time take us beyond 
the post-apostolic age into the third or fourth century. 
If this is the thought expressed by τοῖς αἰῶσι τοῖς Errepxo- 
μένοις in 11. 7, then we have the same idea expressed in 
eis τοὺς αἰῶνας (Rom. 1. 25, ix. 5), certainly. in eis τοὺς 
αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (Gal. i. 5; cf. Eph. iii. 21); for, without 
any question from the point of view of the Christian who 
expresses praise in this language, these eons are future. 
When, moreover, it is expressly said in ii. 7 that these 
eons are yet to come, there is implied a contrast with the 
αἰὼν οὗτος (Rom. ΧΙ]. 2; 1 Cor. 11. 6; Eph. 1. 21), to be 
terminated by the day of redemption and of judgement, 1.6. 
the return of the Lord (Eph. iv. 30, v. 6). 

It has frequently been argued that Ephesians is spurious, 
because of the enlarged significance given to Christ by 
which he is made to include the whole creation, even the 
world of spirits (1. 10, 21, iii. 10),—an argument that 


510 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


certainly ought not to be advanced by those who admit 
the genuineness of Colossians, which contains even bolder 
statements of this kind (1. 16, 20, 11. 15). ‚From 1. Cor. 
vill. 6 we know that Paul held the universe to have been 
created and to be preserved through Christ. » Assuming 
that the δέ οὗ in the Corinthian passage is only a more exact 
definition of the δύ αὐτοῦ in Rom. xi. 36, which refers to 
God, τὸ 15 evident. that Christ is not. to be excluded from 
the eis αὐτόν of Rom. xi. 36. When Christ is described :as 
the second Adam (1 Cor. xv. 22, 45), the characterisation 
means, not only that He is the goal of humanity, but. of 
the universe, which was created for humanity’s sake, and 
is, in principle, subordinate to humanity. Since it was 
through ‘the sin of humanity that) death became a ruling 
power, and the general condition of the universe became 
one of bondage to that which is perishable (Rom. v. 12, 
viii. 18 ff.), it is evident that, with the removal of sin and 
of its consequencies not only will humanity be restored 
to its place of entire dominion in the person of the second 
Adam, but the whole disordered organism will be restored, 
and, finally, the dominion of death, wherever it has reigned, 
will. be destroyed (1 Cor. xv. 24-28; Rom. viii. 19,21). 
Even if it were not affirmed in so many words (1 Cor. 
vi 2f., xv. 24), yet, from the general biblical view of the 
relation sustained by angels to the natural world, it would 
be self-evident that the spirit-world was to have part in 
this general apocatastasis (Acts ill.’ 21). In accordance 
with this, the following statements contain no new thought. 
The universe, including the world of invisible spirits, was 
created not only in and through Christ, but also for Him 
(Col: i. 16). In, Him or under Him. as its head the 
universe was to be gathered into one (Eph. 1. 10}. The 
reconciliation to God of an estranged humanity, which 
had been accomplished by Christ’s death on the cross, 
involved the restoration of the relation between» the 
universe and Christ, which was ‘a law of creation, but had _ 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT κα! 


been disturbed by sin and its consequences (Col. i. 20). 
It involved also the restoration of harmony within the 
universe, a harmony likewise based upon Christ and dis- 
turbed by sin (Col. i. 20), just as it involved the restoration 
of the ties between different branches of the human race, 
which had been broken (Eph. ü. 14-16); in other words, 
the bringing together of the Gentiles, who had been separ- 
ated from God, and the people of His revelation to share 
the benefits of this revelation (Col. 1.21; Eph. ii. 12 f.). 
In the nature of the case, the world of spirits, which 
operated in the secret background of the world’s life, must 
have been aware of these influences emanating from Christ 
(Eph. iii. 10), and have been able to detect them before 
it was possible for men to do so, who must learn of 
them gradually, as they heard and accepted the gospel. 
For the exaggerations of these statements by a later age 
Paul is not responsible (n. 11). Similarly, the statement 
that by the victorious march of the gospel through the 
world God has stripped from Himself the spirit-powers 
which concealed Him from the Gentile world in order to 
reveal Himself in His true nature (Col. 11. 15, above, 
p. 473 f.), is only an original way of expressing the thought 
of 1 Cor. vii. 5 f. In view of the circumstances under which 
the two letters were written, what Paul says on these 
subjects in Ephesians and Colossians,—more emphatic- 
ally in Colossians than in Ephesians, as was natural in 
view of the false doctrine which he here opposes,—and the 
echoes in Ephesians of thoughts suggested by this contest 
in Colosse, are not unnatural. 

How impossible it is to accept the results of this 
negative criticism of Ephesians, is shown by the inability 
of this criticism to furnish a plausible’ motive for the 
forgery of the letter. » According to Baur (Paulus, ii. 
39 f.), the purpose of the two letters is not so much the 
theoretical purpose “to expound the higher conception 
of the person of Christ which they both contain,” as the 


5ı2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


practical purpose to prepare the way for adjustment: be- 
tween the Gentile Christian and Jewish Christian parties, 
and so to bring about the establishment of a single Chris- 
tian Church, and again and again the primary purpose, at 
least of Ephesians, is declared to be the complete union of 
Gentiles and those of Jewish birth within the Church m 
a firm fellowship (HK, iii. 84). Opposition and conflict 
between the two are presupposed by Holtzmann (Krit. 303, 
ef. 5. 208, 272) when he makes this Paulus redwvivus sound 
the note of triumph and of peace in the Churches founded 
by Paul. - But where is the evidence that with reference 
to the relation of Jews and Gentiles in the Church there 
was need for an exhortation to peace? While it is true 
that in ii, 11-22 mention is made of the hostility between 
Gentiles and Jews which existed prior to the advent of 
Christ and was removed by His death, there is no indica- 
tion that where the gospel was accepted within single 
Christian communities, which embraced both Jews and 
Gentiles, this hostility was revived, or continued to exist 
in a new form οὗ hostility between Jewish and Gentile 
Christians. Throughout the letter, like a dominant tone, 
one hears naught but the note of entire restoration of 
peace and of the continued equality and unity of those 
who had formerly been Gentiles and Jews. Nothing is 
said about events tending either to imperil or to promote 
harmony ‘between Jewish and Gentile Christians, as in 
Gal. ἢ. 1-14 or Acts xv., nor are there exhortations to 
mutual concessions on the part of Gentiles and Jews, as 
in Rom. xv. 1-13. The exhortation to harmony, because 
of their common interest’ in the benefits of redemption, 
and in view of the diversity of their gifts (iv. 1-16), con- 
cerns the mutual relations of the readers (iv. 2, 25, v. 21). 
But inasmuch as the readers are everywhere addressed 
collectively as native Gentiles (it) 11, ui. 1), with nothing 
to indicate that there were Jewish Christians in their 
circle or even in their vicinity, this exhortation can have 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT σ13 


nothing to do with hostility between Jews and Gentiles 
within the Church. As regards the relation of these 
Churches to the Church as a whole, nothing is said of 
the obligation of Gentile Christians to the mother 
Church, as in Rom. xv. 27; 2 Cor. vill.ix.; nor is it 
even mentioned that it was a matter of significance to 
the Churches in Asia to know that a portion of the 
Christians outside of Jerusalem were Jews by birth. 
Only two things are said: They are to love all the 
saints (i. 15; Col. i. 4; Philem. 5), and they are to 
pray for all the saints (vi. 18). Such a purpose as this 
cannot be rightly attributed to the forger of the letter. 
If so, then we must conclude that he used every means in 
his power to conceal his purpose and none to realise it. 
Neither could this pseudo-Paul have meant to express 
triumphant joy at the success which had crowned Paul’s 
life-work in spite of all the opposition that he had met; 
for if so, how came it that he addressed the letter to 
Churches with the organising of which Paul had nothing 
to do? As a matter of fact he does not praise Paul’s 
success in any special way; and had he wanted to do so, 
being without ideas of his own, he would have borrowed 
them from passages like 1 Thess. i. 2-10, 11, 19f., iv. 9; 
2 Thess. i. 3£.; Phil. i. 5, iv. 1, 15, which it must be 
assumed he had read. That Paul had heard of these 
Churches (i. 15), and that they had heard of him (iii. 2), 
is nothing significant; and that what they had heard had 
been mutually favourable, is nothing to be triumphantly 
proclaimed. In fact, where do we hear anything about a 
preceding confliet without which it would be impossible 
to speak of victory? The list of these groundless inven- 
tions is complete only when a third alleged purpose in the 
composition of the letter is added, namely, reproof and 
punishment (Holtzmann, 304). But where in Ephesians 
is there any indication that the moral and religious con- 
ditions in these Churches were unsatisfactory, or where 
VOL. I. 33 


514 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


do we discover a word of reproof? Their former heathen 
life and the conduct of the Gentiles among whom they 
were living are condemned (11. 1, iv. 17 f.); but the 
readers themselves are exhorted only in the most loving 
way to walk according to their calling, the teaching 
which they have received, and the love of Christ which 
they have experienced (iv. 1, 20f., 32, v. 1), involving 
naturally as it does the avoidance of sins inherited 
both by birth and training. What it meant to “re- 
prove and punish” a pseudo-Paul might have learned 
from Galatians or 2 Cor., or, better still, from the apoca- 
lyptic letters to which he is supposed to reply, if indeed 
he did not say to himself that it was unnecessary in 
his composition to say anything about heathen immorality 
in addition to what was to be found in the genuine 
apostolic writings expressed so trenchantly and so true 
to life. 


1. (P. 491.) For the history of the criticism applied to both Epistles, ef. 
Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe (sic), 1872, S. 2f,, 18f. In 
comparison with the objections raised against Eph. by Usteri, Paul. Lehrbegriff, 
1824, 8. 2f., de Wette (from his first edition of the Einl. 1826 on, more and 
more decided against its genuineness), and Schleiermacher (Einl., ed. Wolde, 
S. 163 ff., 166, “the whole situation of the Epistle doubtful. . . . All positive 
hypotheses lack foundation,” hence even his own conjecture in the first draft 
that Tychicus or some other disciple wrote it after the pattern of Col., and 
with Paul’s approval, cf. S. 172), Mayerhoff (Der br. an die Kol. mit 
vornehmlicher Berücksichtigung der Pastoralbriefe, 1838) sought with consider- 
able method to establish his hypothesis that Col. arose on the basis of Eph., 
which also was not written until after Paul’s time. 

2. (P. 491.) Baur, Paulus, ii. 3-49, and Weizsäcker, 541-545, without 
more precise dating ; Hilgenfeld, Einl. 680, shortly before 140 A.D. Regard- 
ing the arguments for the post-Pauline origin of the Epistles, drawn mostly 
from their theological content, see above in the text. Hilgenfeld, 663, finds it 
strange that Paul should have remained personally unknown to the Churches 
at Colosse and Laodicea, since he had twice travelled through Phrygia 
(Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23). But Paul seems to have touched this part of Phrygia 
on neither his second nor his third missionary journey ; above, pp. 188, 190, 
4491. Yet even had he done so, we should have to conclude from Eph, and 
Col. that he did not succeed either time in founding Churches in this part of 
Phrygia, but that these arose only after he was established in Ephesus. The 
placing of the Greek before the Jew, Col. iii. 11, which Mayerhoff (S. 15) had 
already adduced as a proof of ungenuineness, has no significance, since Pau! 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT κι 


here is stating this contrast in a sentence addressed to Gentile Christians. 
The precedence of the Greek here was just as natural as of the Jew in 
1 Cor. xii, 13, a sentence in which Paul the Jew classes himself with the 
Gentiles of Corinth. In the independent sentence, Gal. iii. 28, there was 
nothing to preseribe which should come first. 

3. (P. 491.) Hitzig, Zur Kritik pawlinischer Briefe, 1875, S. 22-33. 
Holtzmann (title in ἢ. 1) illustrates the criticism which he applies to Col, 
S. 325 ff., by printing the whole Epistle in two kinds of type to distinguish 
the genuine from the spurious. Aside from a few individual words, the 
interpolations are, according to him, i. 9)-12, 14-24, 26-28, ii. 2b-iii. 7a, 9-11, 
15, 17-19, 22 f., iii. 1, 2, 4-11, 14-16, 18-25, iv. 1, 9, 15-17. In the JbfPTh. 
1885, S. 320-368, von Soden held i. 15-20, ii. 10, 15, 18 to be interpola- 
tions by another than the author of Eph.; but in the HK, iii. 33, these 
suspected passages are reduced to i, 165, 17. As an analogy for Hitzig’s 
hypothesis is adduced the procedure of that obscurantist, who about 370 or 
400 interpolated the seven genuine letters of Ignatius and added six new 
ones of his own devising ; perhaps the same man who from the old Didascalia 
manufactured the Apostolic Constitutions. 

4. (P. 497.) Accounts of Cerinthus that are comparatively reliable, and 
that are not in themselves contradictory, are found in Iren. i. 26, 1, iii. 
3. 4 (ef. iii. 9. 3, 11. 7, 16. 5-6); Hippol. Refut. vii. 33, x. 21: pseudo- 
Tert. Her. x. Epiphanius, Her, xxviii. 1, 2, 5, and Philaster, Her, xxxvi., 
who is here dependent upon him, were the first to aseribe to Cerinthus a 
legalistic Judaism altogether incompatible with this representation, being 
misled by the way in which Irenzeus joined him to Ebion and Karpocrates 
(Iren. i. 26, 2, where, according to Hippolytus, sömiliter or consimiliter should 
be read instead of non similiter). This passage may have been repeated in 
Hippolytus’ Syntagma, reterring, however, only to the denial. of the virgin 
birth of Christ. The story of the sensual chiliasm of Cerinthus (CK, i. 230), 
started by the Alogi and spread abroad since the time of Caius of Rome, may 
remain unnoticed here. We come upon difficulties only in Iren. iii. 11. 1, 
which mentions as the false teachers, against whom John wrote his Gospel, 
not only the Cerinthians, but along with them the older Nicolaitans, who are 
designated as an ἀπόσπασμα τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, the oldest, Gnosticism. 
For this very reason we could not conclude that the incidental hints here of 
an zeon-doctrine (Pleromu, Monogenes, and the Logos, distinguished from 
this as its son), refer to Cerinthus also. Further, since the son-doctrine 
hinted at here presupposes the prologue of John (GK, i. 736 ff.), the assumption 
isa likely one that Irenzeus classed with the teachings of Cerinthus and the 
Nicolaitans, which were being propagated in John’s time and against which 
he wrote, other later doctrines, the weapons for opposing which John is said 
to have forged in advance (iii. 16. 5, previdens has blasphemas reyulas). 
Moreover, the passage which follows, iii. 11. 2, confirms this assumption ; 
cf. Hiimpel, De errore christol. in ep. Joannis impugnato, Erlangen, 1897. 

5. (P. 498.) We know from Iren. i, 11.1, 30. 15, ii. 13. 8, that Valentinus 
did not invent all his doctrines, but worked up the raw speculations of an 
older Gnosis into an ingenious system; the very concept πλήρωμα, how- 
ever, is peculiar to the phraseology of his school, so far as we know. "This 
seems to be true also of the peculiar designation αἰῶνες, for the individual 


516 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


beings to be distinguished in the Pleroma. It is the more certain that this 
arose from an allegorical interpretation of N.T. passages where measures of 
time, eons, years, or hours occurred (Iren. i. 1. 3, iii. 1-6); for its use cannot 
be explained at all from the nature of these intermediate beings as they were 
conceived by the Valentinians. Since Irenzus in his account of the Barbelo- 
Gnostics (following, to be sure, one of their own writings; cf. C. Schmidt, 
Berl. Akad. Sitzungsber. 1896, S. 842 f.), uses wonem quendam and magnum 
wona (i. 29. 1, 2, cf. xxx. 2), expressions which he avoids in his account of 
Simon, Menander, Cerinthus, Saturninus, and Basilides, we must conclude 
that this sect was not independent of Valentinus. Concerning Iren. iii. 11. 1, 
see above, n. 4. 

6. (P. 500.) On April 1, 1895, in Friedrichsruh, the present writer heard 
two speeches by Bismarck, separated only by a breakfast, the first addressed 
to twenty-one professors ; the second, in the presence of four or five thousand 
students. No one who heard the first could fail to see that the main 
thoughts, and many of the expressions, whole sentences indeed, were the 
same in both speeches ; but no one on that account listened with impatience 
to the second, for its tone was much warmer and was artlessly adapted to 
the changed audience. 

7. (P. 500). Examples of the characteristics of Paul’s style mentioned 
above, p. 500, are here cited ; an asterisk designates those which, outside the 
letter cited in any particular instance, do not occur in any of the letters 
pretty generally recognised as Pauline, or sometimes anywhere else in the 
whole N.T. outside of the letter quoted at the time: ὃ πρὸς καθαίρεσιν, 
2 Cor. x. 4; καθαιρεῖν, x. 5 ; eis καθαίρεσιν opposed to οἰκοδομήν, x. 8, xiii. 10.— 
* ἐν ἑτοίμῳ ἔχειν, 2 Cor. x. 6; ἑτοίμως ἔχειν, xii. 14 (nowhere else except Acts 
xxi. 13 [speech of Paul]; 1 Pet. iv. 5).—* oi ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι, 2 Cor. xi. 5, 
xii. 11.—* καταναρκεῖν, 2 Cor. xi. 9, xii. 13, 14.—Bapeiodaı, 2 Cor. i. 8, v. 4; 
emıßapeiv, ii. 5; βάρος, iv. 17; ἀβαρῆ ἑαυτὸν τηρεῖν, xi. 9; karaßapeiv, xii. 16 
(cf., besides, βάρος, Gal. vi. 2; only 1 Thess. ii. 6, ev βάρει εἶναι; 11. 9; 
2 Thess. iii. 8, ἐπιβαρῆσαὺ.--- ἐξαπορεῖσθαι, 2 Cor. i. 8, iv. 8.---λογίζομαι (not 
in the sense of “to impute,” as fourteen times in Rom. and in 1 Cor. 
xiii. 5; 2 Cor. v. 19; 2 Tim. iv. 16, but of the estimation of a person), 
2 Cor. x. 2, 7, 11, xi. 5, xii. 6 (in this sense only in 1 Cor. iv. 1; Phil. iii. 
13 besides).—qvovody six times, 1 Cor., elsewhere only Col. ii. 18.— συνίστημι, 
2 Cor. iii. 1 (here avorarırös also), iv. 2, v. 12, vi. 4, vil. 11, x. 12, x. 18 
(twice), xii. 11; in all other Epistles together only four times. —maoakakeiv 
seventeen times, παράκλησις eleven times in 2 Cor. ; the former three or four 
times in Rom., six times in 1 Cor., the latter three times in Rom., once in 
1 Cor.—Barıkeveıv, Rom. v. 14, v. 17 (twice), v. 21 (twice), vi. 12; this 
occurs elsewhere only in 1 Cor. iv. 8, xv. 25.—ov« οἴδατε, with or without 7 
preceding, 1 Cor. iii. 16, v. 6, vi. 2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19, ix. 13, 24; out of all the 
other Epistles, only in Rom. vi. 16, xi. 2, and the substitute for it 7 ἀγνοεῖτε, 
only in Rom. vi. 3, vii. 1.—* οὐδέν (μοι) διαφέρει, Gal. ii. 6, iv. 1.—* dvarideo Oa 
and προσανατίθεσθαι, Gal. i. 16, ii. 2, 6.—* ταράσσων, Gal. i. 7, v 10.—* πορθεῖν 
in conjunction with διώκειν, Gal. i. 13, 23.—* ri οὖν with a question following 
Rom. iii. 9, vi. 15, xi. 7, and ri οὖν ἐροῦμεν, Rom. iv. 1, vi. 1, vii. 7, viii. 31, 
ix. 14, 30, ef. iii. 5; only a distant parallel in 1 Cor. x. 19, vioderia, Rom. 
viii. 15, 23, ix. 4, each time in a different connection ; only other occurrences, 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT κι) 


Gal. iv.5; Eph. i. 5.—äpa οὖν, Rom. v. 18, vii. 3, 25, viii. 12, ix. 16, 18, 
xiv. 12, 19; only other occurrences, Gal. vi. 10; 1 Thess, v. 6, and in the 
suspected Epistles, 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; Eph. ii. 19. One observes the same thing, 
however, in the case of Col. and Eph. also, whether they be taken separately 
or conceived of together as having been written one right after the other: 
ἀπαλλοτριοῦσθαι, Eph. ii. 12, iv. 18 ; Col. 1. 21.—eis ἔπαινον τῆς χάριτος or δύξης 
αὐτοῦ, Eph. i. 6, 12, 14.---σύνδεσμος, Eph. iv. 3; Col. ii. 19, ii. 14.— 
συνεγείρειν, Eph. ii. 6; Col. ii. 12, iii. 1.—* δόγμα, Eph. 11. 15; Col. ii. 14; 
δογματίζειν, Col. ii. 20.—* παροργισμός, Eph. iv. 26; παροργίζειν, vi. 4; 
perhaps also Col. iii. 21 (Rom, x. 19 from LXX).—* ev τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, Eph. 
1. 3, 20, ii. 6, 11. 10, vi. 12 Ξε ἐν (τοῖς) oüpavoıs, 2 Cor. v. 1; Phil. iii. 20; Col. 
i. 5, 16, 20, while ἐπουράνιος by itself occurs also 1 Cor. xv. 40, 48f.; Phil. 
ii. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 18.—* μεθοδεία, Eph. iv. 14, vi. 11.—* συναρμολογεῖν, Eph. 
ii. 21, iv. 16.—ovppéroxyos, Eph. iii. 6, v. 7.—* xaraßpaßevewv, Col. ii. 18; 
βραβεύειν, Col. iii. 15 (above, p. 472, n. 3), with which also ἀγών, ἀγωνίζεσθαι 
belong, Col. i. 29, 11. 1, iv. 12.—* σύνδουλος, Col. i. 7, iv. '7.—* ἀπεκδύεσθαι 
and ἀπέκδυσις, Col. ii. 11, 15, 111. 9.—dpyai καὶ ἐξουσίαι, Eph. 111. 10, vi. 12; 
Col. i. 16, ii. 15, cf. Eph. i. 21; Col. ii. 10 (only other comparable instances 
Rom. viii. 38 ; 1 Cor. xv. 24).—xepadn of Christ, Eph. i. 22, iv. 15, v.23 ; Col. 
i. 18, ii. 10 (1 Cor. xi. 3 is hardly comparable) ; hence ἀνακεφαλαιοῦσθαι, Eph. 
i, 10 (different in Rom, xiii. 9).—* αἰσχρότης ἢ u@poAoyia, Eph. v. 4; αἰσχρὸς 
λέγειν, V. 12; aicxpodoyia, Col. iii. 8.— οἰκοδομή, Eph. ii. 21, iv. 12, 16, 29,— 
πληροῦν, Eph. i. 23, iii. 19, iv. 10, v. 18; Col. i. 9, 25, ii. 10, iv. 12, 17 (in the 
four “main Epistles” only seven times), and πλήρωμα, Eph. i. 10, 23, iii. 19, 
iv. 13; Col. i. 19, ii. 9 (instances in all the other Epistles are, disregarding the 
quotation 1 Cor. x. 26, confined to Rom. xi. 12, 25, xiii. 10, xv. 29, 1.6. here 
also within very narrow limits).—d@adpodovrAcia and ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, Eph. 
vi. 6; Col. iii. 22. 

8. (P. 501.) An instance of this dependence would be the origin of the 
salutation, as Holtzmann, Krit. 131 f., cf. 55 f., conceives it. The author who 
made up this letter on the basis of Col. pietured to himself the seven Churches 
of Rev. i. 4, 11, from Ephesus to Laodicea (S. 13f., 245, 307), as those 
addressed. The error of this assumption is obvious ; the author did not have 
in mind Ephesus (above, p. 484f.), which stands at the head of the list, Rev. 
i. 11, ii. 1, but, on the contrary, did include in his thought from the first 
Colosse, which is not mentioned at all in Rev. i.-iv. (above, pp. 480 f., 486). 
Besides, Col. iv. 18, where the forger found Hierapolis mentioned, leaves no 
doubt that he intended Eph., which was composed by him, for the Church in 
Hierapolis also, another place not mentioned in Rev. If, however, he thought 
that he must address the seven Churches of Rev., though in a different sense 
from that of the letters there, why did he not make this plain to his readers 
by a salutation modelled after Rev.i. 4? He preferred to copy Col. i. 1, so 
far as it suited him. The words as far as θεοῦ suited, but then he struck out 
“Timothy the brother,” since his “universal and ecumenical aim” required 
him to strip away all “individual and local limitations in the original ἢ 
(Holtzm. 131); just as if Timothy was not mentioned as joint author in the 
letter addressed to all the Christians of all Achaia, a letter, therefore, which 
had an aim just as much and just as little ecumenical as Eph. (2 Cor. 1. 1), 
He then copied τοῖς, and, since he could not use ἐν KoAoccais, passed at once 


518 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to ἁγίοις. Why he copied this and not καὶ πιστοῖς immediately after is not 
explained. While he could not yet decide upon a fitting address—as ev τῇ 
᾿Ασίᾳ, perhaps—to insert at the place where he found ev Κολοσσαῖς, so useless 
to him, it was only after he had copied all of the next word ἁγίοις that he 
reflected “that at any rate the letter must go somewhere” (Holtzm. 132). 
But now his patience gave out before he could copy the καὶ πιστοὶς ἐν Χριστῷ, 
which belongs to ἁγίοις, and to which any number of names of places could 
be conveniently annexed by means of a τοῖς οὖσιν ; so he straightway deeided 
to insert a local address in the most unsuitable place conceivable, and wrote 
τοῖς οὖσιν as preliminary thereto. According to Holtzm. 132, he decided, 
after longer meditation “over the mode of the address,” to write “ τοῖς οὖσιν 
ἐν, leaving the name in question to be filled in later.” How Holtzmann thinks 
he knows this remains a mystery. Whether the author in his autograph 
originally left a space after ἐν, where his secretary was supposed to insert in 
the copies intended för the individual Churches the names of their respective 
cities, and perhaps did so insert them, or whether he himself prepared seven 
exemplars each with a different address after ἐν, in either case it is equally 
incomprehensible that the whole ancient Church until after Origen should 
have possessed no exemplars with ἐν, followed by a gap or by some one or 
other of these seven names. The ev ᾿Εφέσῳ, which has prevailed since the 
fourth century, is certainly, according to all extant testimony, direct and 
indirect (Marcion, Tertullian, Origen, Basil, Jerome, above, p. 488 f.), inserted 
into an older text which contained neither an ev nor a local address. The 
result of the deep reflection of this writer, who “could not at once specify 
[his readers] with local exactness,” was therefore this: that he gave up trying 
to find a local designation for his letter, and then went merrily on to copy 
what is written in Col. i. 2. Why he omitted ἀδελφοῖς, and on the other 
hand inserted an Ἰησοῦ, and at the end again a καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 
which is unquestionably spurious in Col.i. 2, Holtzmann has failed to explain 
from the “ecumenical” character of the Epistle, or more properly from its 
designation for the seven Churches of Rev. But without this we have gone 
far enough to see clearly that the author of this Epistle, which, as no one 
denies, is rich in great thoughts and sustained by a lofty enthusiasm, was a 
wretched bungler, unable even to write a salutation suited to his purpose. 

9. (P. 503.) Holtzmann, Krit. 100f., counts in Eph. thirty-nine words 
which occur elsewhere indeed in the N.T., but not in Paul’s writings, and 
thirty-seven which occur nowhere else in the N.T., i.e. seventy-six un-Pauline 
words. The same total is given by von Soden, HK, iii. 88, though he assigns 
only thirty-five to the second class. The lists need sifting. (A) xaraßpa- 
Bevew should be stricken out, since it occurs only in Col. ii. 18, not in Eph. ; 
further, either ἀπέλπίζειν or ἀπαλγεῖν, since we cannot read both in iv. 19; 
also ἅπας, vi. 13, which is likewise well attested in Gal. iii. 28 (quite apart 
from the fact that πᾶς, which Paul uses everywhere else, occurs fifty-one 
times in Eph.). Then all exact and inexact quotations from the O.T. should 
be excluded from the caleulation, unless we make the absurd claim that 
Paul corrected on principle the text of the LXX according to his own 
vocabulary. Consequently without further debate fall out of consideration 
αἰχμαλωτεύω, αἰχμαλωσία, ὕψος, iv. 8 (Ps. Ixviii. 19, Paul himself uses 
αἰχμαχωτίζω, Rom. vii. 23; 2 Cor. x. 5; 2 Tim. iii. 6); ὀργίζεσθαι, iv 26 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 519 


(Ps. iv. δ); σωτήριον, vi. 17 (Isa. lix. 17, instead of this, 1 Thess. v. 8, 
more freely ἐλπὶς σωτηρίας) ; τιμᾶν, vi. 2 (Ex. xx. 12); ἐπιφαύσκειν, v. 14 
(GK, ii. 804). Further, words which occur. in 1 and 2 Tim. and in 
Tit. should not be reckoned unqualifiedly as un-Pauline, such as ἀπατᾶν, 
v. 6 (1 Tim. ii. 14; aside from this, the presence of this word is without 
significance in view of ἀπάτη, Col. ii.8; 2 Thess. ii. 10; Eph. iv. 22) ; ἅλυσις, 
vi. 20 (2 Tim. i. 16); διάβολος, iv. 27, vi. 11 (1 Tim. iii. 6,7; 2 Tim. ii. 26) ; 
εὐαγγελιστής, iv. 11 (2 Tim. iv. δ); παιδεία, vi. 4 (2 Tim. iii. 16). (B) 
Designations of things, qualities, or relations, for which there is but one 
ordinary expression, are of no significance in determining a man’s style, 
unless it can be shown that elsewhere he uses an uncommon expression 
instead ; thus ἄνεμος, iv. 14; ὕδωρ, ν. 26; ὀσφύς, περιζώννυμι, ὑποδέω, 
vi. 14 ἢ, ; μῆκος and πλάτος, iii. 18 (in conjunction with ὕψος, iv. 8, see under 
A, and βάθος, Rom. viii. 39, xi. 33); μέγεθος, i. 19 (neither has Paul 
μεγαλειότης, μεγαλωσύνη) ; μακράν, ii. 13, 17 (in conjunction with ἐγγύς, Phil. 
iv. 5); ἀμφότεροι, ii. 14, 16, 18; ἀπειλή, vi. 9; perhaps also puris, σπῖλος, 
v. 27; κρυφῆ, v. 12 (as over against a single ev τῷ κρυπτῷ, Rom. ii. 29). Also 
θυρεός, the large shield of the Roman soldiers, and the βέλη, against which the 
shield served as a protection, belong here, unless we are inclined to find fault 
with the apostle, who had lived for years constantly in the custody of soldiers, 
and who even before that had borrowed many figures from military service, 
because he once mentions the shield in addition to the breastplate and helmet 
(1 Thess. v. 8), or sums up all the weapons of defence and offence as πανοπλία, 
vi. 11,113. Since in letters very widely separated in time he is accustomed to 
draw figures from the games also, it can have no significance that he once, 
instead of the race and boxing match (1 Cor. ix. 24 ff. ; Phil. ii. 14; 2 Tim. 
iv. 7f.), makes use of the wrestling match, and writes πάλη, vi. 12. von 
Soden classes among the pet words of Eph. which, he holds, never slipped 
from Paul’s pen elsewhere (HK, 89), δέσμιος, iüi. 1, iv. 1; but in: doing so he 
forgets ver. 9 of Philem., a letter which he acknowledges to be genuine (cf. 
2 Tim. i. 8) ; nor does he consider that it was only as a prisoner that Paul 
could so designate himself and talk of his δεσμοί, Phil. i. 7, 13-17; Philem. 
10-13 ; Col. iv. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 9. (©) Equally of no significance are words 
related in derivation to other words of Paul used outside of Eph. and Col., and 
in place of which he elsewhere never or very seldom uses other expressions. 
So a solitary ἄγνοια, iv. 18, as over against.a solitary ἀγνωσία, 1 Cor. xv. 34; 
ἀγνοεῖν occurring thirteen or fifteen times ; or παιδεία, vi. 4 (2 Tim. iii. 16) ; 
related to madevrns, Rom. ii. 20; παιδεύεσθαι, 1 Cor. xi. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 9; 
παιδαγωγός, 1 Cor. iv. 15; Gal. iii. 24; or προσκαρτέρησις, vi. 18; along with 
mpookaprepeiv, Rom. xii. 12, xili. 6; Col. iv. 2 ; or ἄνοιξις, vi. 19; from 
ἀνοίγειν, Col. iv. 3; also with στόμα as object, 2 Cor. vi. 115 or χειροποιητός, 
ii. 11; along with ἀχειροποίητος, 2 Cor. v.13; Col. ii. 113 or φρόνησις, i. 8, as 
compared with φρόνημα, which has a somewhat different meaning (only in 
Rom. viii. 6, 7, 27), and the frequent φρονεῖν ; or καταρτισμός, iv: 12, as 
against a solitary karaprıcıs, 2 Cor. xiii. 9, καταρτίζειν being often employed 
similarly ; or alaxpörns καὶ pwpodoyia, v. 4, as compared with αἰσχρὸς λέγειν, 
v.12; aicypodoyia, Col. 111. 8; αἰσχρός (unseemly), 1 Cor. xi. 6, xiv. 35 (Tit. 
i. 11); cf. also, as regards the formation of the second word, χρηστολογία, 
Rom. xvi. 18 ; and πιθανολογία, Col. ii. 4, each of which occurs but once. If 


520 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


in iv. 23 ἀνανεοῦν stands instead of ἀνακαινοῦν (Col. iii. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 16, 
ef. Rom. xii. 2; Tit. iii. 5), Paul likewise has along with καινὴ κτίσις, 2 Cor. 
v. 17, νέον φύραμα, 1 Cor. v. 7, which means essentially the same; and the 
collocation of ἀνανεοῦσθαι and καινὸν ἄνθρωπον (Eph. iv. 23 f.) has its counter- 
part in νέον ἀνακαινούμενον, Col. iii. 10. In 1 Cor. ix. 7, ποίμνη and ποἰμαίνειν 
serve as a figure of labour in the Church; hence ποιμένες, iv. 11, should 
cause no surprise, and from this standpoint there would be no reason to object 
to Bentley’s endeavour to read this word instead of δυνάμεις in 1 Cor. xii. 28,29 
(Ellies, Bentleii Critica Sacra, 37), especially since unquestionably the figure 
was very common in apostolic times (1 Pet. v. 2f.; Acts xx. 28f.; John 
x. 9, xxi. 15-17). If Paul represents the Church of the O.T. as well as of 
the N.T. under the form of a πόλις (Gal. iv. 25 f.), he must have dared to use 
πολιτεία also, ii. 12, and συμπολίτης, ii. 19, when occasion offered, just as 
elsewhere he uses πολίτευμα, πολιτεύεσθαι, Phil. i. 27, iii. 20. So also it is of 
no moment whatever, that of the concepts opposed to these, ξένοι, πάροικοι, 
ii. 19, the latter is not used by Paul elsewhere, and the former only in Rom. 
xvi. 23, and then with a different meaning. If in 1 Cor. iii. 10-17 he regards 
the individual Church as a building in process of erection and as a temple, it 
is no mark of lexical peculiarity for him in Eph. 1i. 20ff. to apply the same 
figure to the whole Church, and thus in addition to οἰκοδομή, θεμέλιος, ναὸς 
ἅγιος, ἐποικοδομεῖν, used elsewhere by him, to use also συνοικοδομεῖν, axpo- 
ywvialos, κατοικητήριον, συναρμολογεῖσθαι. Since he represents Christians as 
forming ἃ σῶμα (1 Cor. xii. 12-28; Rom. xii. 4f.), σύσσωμος, 111. 6, cannot 
surprise us, even if Paul coined this word himself. This word shares the 
fault of being used by Paul only once, with those of similar formation, 
συμφυλέτης, σύμφυτος, σύμφωνος, σύμψυχος, σύζυγος, συνηλικιώτης (σύμμορῴφος 
twice), and a hundred others in the older Epistles. It is possible that Paul, 
who earlier as “a Hebrew” wrote σατανᾶς regularly (Rom. xvi. 20; 1 Cor. 
v. 5, vii. 5; 2 Cor. ii. 11, xi. 14; 1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Thess. ii. 9), and along 
with this perhaps only ὁ πειράζων (1 Thess. iii. 5), later became accustomed to 
say ὁ διάβολος. But all that can be adduced in support of this, outside of Eph. 
vi. 11, is:2 Tim. ii. 26 ; for Eph. iv. 27, 1 Tim. iii. 6, 7 plainly treat of human 
slanderers ; and along with it we find 6 πονηρός, Eph. vi. 16; cf. 2 Thess. 
iii. 3; and 6 caravas, 1 Tim. i. 20, v. 15. Similarly uncertain would be the 
claim that ἀγρυπνεῖν, Eph. vi. 18, which takes the place of the older γρηγορεῖν, 
1 Cor. xvi. 13, 1 Thess. v. 6, 10, indicates a later usage ; for the former is 
found nowhere else in the later Epistles, while on the other hand the latter 
occurs in Col. iv. 2. The remaining words in the list are ἀνιέναι, vi. 9; 

ἄσοφος, v. 15; ἀσωτία, v. 18 (elsewhere only in Tit. i. 6); ἐκτρέφειν, γ. 29, 
vi. 4: ἑνότης, iv. 8, 18 ; εὔσπλαγχνος, iv. 32; ἐξισχύειν, ill. 18; ἐπιδύειν, 
iv. 26 ; ἑτοιμασία, vi. 15; εὐτραπελία, ν. 4; κατώτερος, iv. 9; κληροῦν, 1. 11; 

κλυδωνίζεσθαι, iv. 14; κοσμοκράτωρ, vi. 12; κυβεία, iv. 14; BRENNEN 
ii. 14; ὁσιότης, iv. 24; πολυποίκιλος, iii. 10; προελπίζειν, i. 12; σαπρός 
iv. 29; συγκαθίζειν, ii. 6; φραγμός, ii. 145 xapırovv, i. 6. Likewise the 
vocabulary of Col. has been treated statistically. In his enumeration of 
un-Pauline words (48=33+15) Holtzmann, 105, A. 3, 106, A. 8, has tacitly 
left out of account those which occur also in Eph. (see above, p. 518 f.), and 
which are therefore, according to him, as un-Pauline as those which occur 
only in the Pastoral Epistles ; others, like θρησκεία, karaßpaßeveıv, are wanting 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 521 


for no imaginable reason. In the light of the foregoing remarks on the 
vocabulary of Eph., the great part may be dropped out as having no sig- 
nificance, e.g. ἅλας, ἀνεψιός, ἀνταπόδοσις (ill. 24, cf. ἀνταποδοῦναι, aside from 
quotations, 1 Thess. iii. 9; 2 Thess. i. 6 ; ἀνταπόδομα only in the quotation, 
Rom. xi. 9; but ἀντιμισθία also occurs but twice, Rom. i. 27; 2 Cor. vi. 18), 
ἀποκρίνεσθαι, ἀπόκρυφος (ii. 3, along with ἀποκεκρυμμένος, 1. 26; 1 Cor. ii. 7; 
Eph. iii. 9), ἀρέσκεια (ἀρέσκειν occurs thirteen times; also ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, 
iii. 22; οἵ. Eph. vi. 6; as over against ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν, Gal. i. 10; 
1 Thess, ii. 4), ἀρτύειν, βραβεύειν, karaßpaßeveıv (along with βραβεῖον, 1 Cor. 
ix. 24; Phil. iii. 14), δυναμοῦν, i. 11 (ἐνδυναμοῦν instead of this, leaving out 
of account Eph. vi. 10; Phil, iv. 13; 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. ii. 1, iv. 17; also 
only once, Rom. iv. 20), εἰρηνοποιεῖν (i. 20, as against ποιεῖν εἰρήνην, Eph. 
ii. 15), ἐξαλείφειν, κρύπτειν (iii. 3; 1 Tim. v. 25; but κρυπτός five times), 
μετακινεῖν, i. 23 (instead of this perhaps μετατιθέναι, which also occurs but 
once, Gal. i. 6, or in the suspected Epistle, 2 Thess. ii. 2, σαλεύειν ; on the 
other hand, auerakivnros, 1 Cor. xv. 58), μόμφη (iil. 13, μέμφεσθαι also only 
once, Rom. ix. 19, more frequently ἄμεμπτος), νουμηνία (μήν, Gal. iv. 10, 
likewise solitary, denotes the same thing), öparos (1. 16, as against ἀόρατος, cf. 
Rom. i. 20), παρηγορία, πλουσίως (ill. 16, as against πλούσιος, Eph. 11. 4 ; 2 Cor. 
Vili. 9), mpoakovew, προσηλοῦν, σκιά, σύνδουλος, σωματικῶς (σωματικός also only 
in 1 Tim. iv. 8), φιλοσοφία, χειρόγραφον (ii. 14; cf. Philem. 19). Certain 
expressions are only apparently otherwise expressed outside of these letters : 
θεότης, ii. 9, expresses a different concept from that of θειότης, which also 
occurs only once, Rom. i. 20. He chooses ἀνταναπληροῦν, i. 24, instead of 
ἀναπληροῦν, which he uses elsewhere, since he wishes to express at the same 
time that he is suffering for the Church in Christ’s stead, or in return for 
what Christ also has endured for him ; ἀπεκδύεσθαι, ἀπέκδυσις, il. 11, 15, iii. 9, 
double compounds like ἐπενδύεσθαι, 2 Cor. v. 2, 4, instead of the simple 
ἐνδύεσθαι and ἐκδύεσθαι, 2 Cor. v. 3, 4, because the question here was not of 
the contrast between being naked and being clothed, but of the removal, 
putting away of that which has adhered hitherto. Paul puts in the mouth 
of the false teachers γεύεσθαι, θιγγάνειν, and it is possible that not only here, 
but in his whole polemic against them, he has reference to their own catch- 
words, and that in this way we may account for certain quite remarkable 
expressions, such as ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς, θέλειν ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν 
ἀγγέλων (above, p. 478, n. 7), from which in turn ἐθελοθρησκεία, ii. 23, is 
formed. Certain words are left over which Paul could have found occasion 
to use in the letters which are admitted to be his: ἀθυμεῖν, ἀποκαταλάσσειν, 
i. 20f. (Eph. ii. 16); ἀποκεῖσθαι, i. 5 (2 Tim. iv. 8); ἀπόχρησις, ἀφειδία, 
δειγματίζειν, ἐμβατεύειν (? above, p. 478 f., n. 7), εὐχάριστος (ἀχάριστος, 2 Tim. 
iii. 2), mapaXoyileodaı, mıdavoAoyla, mırpalvew, πλησμονή, πόνος, iv. 13 (instead 
of κόπος, usual elsewhere, yet not with quite the same meaning) ; πρωτεύειν, 
στερέωμα, συλαγωγεῖν (cf. dovAaywyeiv, 1 Cor. ix. 27). To these should be 
added certain rarer words which Col. has in common with Eph.; see above, 
p- 516, n. 7. 

10. (P. 503.) Following the method of our critics, the present writer has 
compiled an idioticon of Gal., which may be of use also in later investigations. 
In this list, however, words appearing only in O.T. quotations are omitted, 
Of. Ewald, ZKom. Eph. 37. (A) Words which occur nowhere else in the 


522 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


N.T.: aAAnyopeiv, βασκαίνειν, δάκνειν, ἐθνικῶς, εἴκειν (cedere), ἐκ πτύειν, ἐπιδι: 
ατάσσειν, εὐπροσωπεῖν, ἰουδαΐζειν, ἰουδαϊκῶς, ᾿Ιουδαϊσμός, ἱστορεῖν, κατασκοπεῖν, 
κενόδοξος, μορφοῦν, μυκτηρίζειν, ὀρθοποδεῖν, πατρικός, παρείσακτος, πεισμονή, 
προευαγγελίζεσθαι, προθεσμία, προκαλεῖν, mpokvpovv, προσανατίθεσθαι, στίγμα, 
συνηλικιώτης, συνυποκρίνεσθαι, συστοιχεῖν, φθονεῖν, φρεναπατᾶν. (Β) Words 
which occur in no other letter under Paul’s name: ἀκυροῦν, ἀναλίσκειν, 
ἀναστατοῦν, avarideodaı, ἀνέρχεσθαι, ἄνωθεν, ἀποκύπτειν, διαμένειν, ἐγκράτεια, 
ἐκλύεσθαι, ἐνέχειν, ἐνευλογεῖν, ἐνιαυτός (elsewhere ἔτος), ἐξαιρεῖν, ἐξαποστέλλειν, 
ἐξορύττειν, ἐπίτροπος, εὐθέως, “Ἱεροσόλυμα, καταγινώσκειν, κατάρα, κρέμασθαι, 
μετατιθέναι, μεταστρέφειν, μήν, ὅμοιος, παιδίσκη, παρατηρεῖν, πηλίκος, πορθεῖν, 
προϊδεῖν, προστιθέναι, συμπαραλαμβάνειν, ταράσςειν, ὑποστέλλειν, ὑποστρέφειν, 
φαρμακεία, φορτίον, ὠδίνειν. (C) Words which occur besides only in 
the strongly assailed Epistles (Eph., Col., 2 Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., Tit.): 
ἀναστροφή (Eph.), e&ayopaleıw (Eph., Col.), ζυγός (1 Tim.), μεσίτης (1 Tim.), 
οἰκεῖος (Eph., 1 Tim.), παρέχειν (Col., 1 Tim., Tit.), στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου 
(Col.), στύλος (1 Tim.). To these should be added (D) peculiar phrases 
which occur nowhere else in the N.T., such as εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας 
καὶ τῆς περιτομῆς, 11. 7; δεξιαὶ κοινωνίας, 11. 9; προγράφειν, Mi. 1 (in an 
altogether different sense from Rom. xv. 4; Eph. iii. 3); οὐδέν (μοι) 
διαφέρει, Gal. ii. 6, iv. 1; κόπους παρέχειν, vi. 17; ἡ ἄνω (or νῦν) 
Ἱερουσαλήμ, iv. 3 ἴ. ; ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ, vi. 16. Thus, apart from the phrases 
last mentioned, which are of much more significance for a truly critical in- 
spection than the threefold list of bare vocables, there are to be found in 
Gal. (A 31+B 39+C 8=) seventy-eight suspicious words, and among them 
seventy which are decidedly “un-Pauline.” 

11. (P 511.) Ign. Smyrn. vi. 1: “The judgment falls upon the heavenly 
beings also and the majesty of the angels and the rulers visible as well as in- 
visible, if they believe not on the blood of Christ.” Concerning Col. ii. 15, 
above, p. 473 f. 


$ 30. THE HISTORICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS AND THE 
OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 


Confident that now at last, after many unsuccessful 
attempts, he had. found the way which God wanted him 
to follow, and. accompanied by Silvanus, Timothy, and 
Luke (Acts xvi. 10 ff.), for the first time Paul touched the 
soil of Europe in the autumn of the year 52. Without 
delaying at the port town of Neapolis, he went at once to 
Philippi, the most important city of Eastern’ Macedonia 
(n. 1). Its character was more Roman than Greek; but 
this was no hindrance to the apostle’s work, since a know- 
ledge of Greek was a necessity for everyone there. Here 
he found an, organised Jewish congregation, which, though 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 523 


small, had among its worshippers a number of “God: 
fearing Gentiles,” mostly women. Naturally, therefore, 
as was always his custom, Paul made this the centre from 
which to begin his preaching. To this congregation be- 
longed a dealer in purple, a native of Thyatira, Lydia by 
name (possibly so called simply from the name of the 
place from which she came), who asked the honour of 
entertaining the missionaries at her house (Acts xvi. 14f., 
40). With reference to the other Christian household in 
Philippi, that of the unnamed jailer, there is nothing to 
indicate that prior to conversion its members had had 
anything to do with the Jews. Although it is not stated 
that Paul taught elsewhere than in the Jewish προσευχή, 
Acts xvi. 16-23, 39 gives the impression that his eom- 
ing was followed at once by important results among the 
Gentiles, of which element the Church in Philippi seems 
mainly to have consisted. 

The meeting with the maid possessed by the spirit of 
divination—a meeting which was repeated for a number 
of days afterward—occurred when the missionaries were 
on their way to the Jewish προσευχή for the first time, and 
the command of Paul by which she was silenced led to 
the interference of the authorities, which ended in the ex- 
pulsion of Paul and Silvanus from the city... Consequently 
their entire stay in Philippi could not have occupied 
more than a few weeks. Apparently, however, Timothy, 
who rejoined Paul and Silvanus in Thessalonica,—at the 
latest in Bercea (above, p. 203),—and Luke, of whose 
whereabouts during the years immediately following we 
know nothing, were» left behind to carry on the work 
which had been thus forcibly interrupted. In fact, Phil. 
i. 1, u. 19-23 point to an intimate relation between this 
Church and Timothy. The appeal for protection which 
Paul made on behalf of Silvanus and himself on the 
ground of their Roman citizenship, after they had suffered 
ignominious treatment at the hands of the police (1 Thess. 


524 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ii. 2; Acts xvi. 22f.), was not for their own safety, since 
the command to leave the city, which Paul did not ask 
the authorities to revoke, was assurance enough that at 
least, so far as the authorities were concerned, they were 
not to be further molested. On the other hand, the fact 
that the highest officials in the city (στρατηγοί = pretores, 
duwumviri) visited the missionaries personally in the 
prison, apologised for their unfortunate blunder, and 
politely requested them to leave the city, could react 
only to the advantage of the teachers and adherents of 
the new doctine who remained behind. There may have 
been subsequent persecutions (Phil. i. 28-30), but on the 
whole the relation of the Church to those outside seems 
to have been comparatively peaceful. Six years later, at 
the time when 2 Cor. was written, Paul had been for 
some months in Macedonia, and no inconsiderable part 
of this time must have been spent with the Philippian 
Christians, who were especially dear to him (1. 7f., 11. 16, 
iv. 1). Also on the last journey prior to his arrest he 
seems to have enjoyed a rest of several days there (Acts 
xx. 6). In the intervals there were frequent eommuni- 
cations between Paul and the Church. A few months 
after the Church was organised, Timothy was sent back 
from Athens to Macedonia (above, p. 205). Whether he 
reached Philippi on this journey we do not know. He 
certainly did touch at Philippi when he was sent by Paul 
at the beginning of the year 57 from Ephesus to Corinth 
by way of Macedonia (above, p. 259f.), Twice within a 
few weeks after the Church was organised, while Paul 
was still at Thessalonica, they had sent him money, and 
after Paul had left Macedonia continued to contribute to 
the support of the apostle and his missionary work with 
greater regularity than any other Church (n. 2). The 
account of these gifts, which Paul represents as contain- 
ing credit and debit entries (iv. 15, 17), could in reality 
hardly have been anything but a written communication 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 525 


between the givers and the receiver. To this communi- 
cation Paul himself refers in ii. 1. Warnings such as 
those introduced by the words, “To write the same things 
to you, to me indeed is not irksome, but for you it is safe,” 
we do not find in any earlier passage of the extant Epistle. 
Consequently Paul must have written these warnings in 
at least one earlier letter; and if the allusion was to be 
understood by his readers, it must have been in a letter 
written not very long before the present Epistle. The 
fact that apart from this statement of Paul’s we have no 
trustworthy information regarding more than one Epistle 
of Paul to the Philippians, is no sufficient reason for deny- 
ing that there were others (n. 8). 

Regarding the frequent communications between Paul 
and the Church which took place just before this letter 
was written, Paul himself gives us more definite informa- 
tion. For a time the contributions of the Philippian 
Church to Paul’s support had been intermitted, which 
was excusable in view of a temporary stringency in their 
financial condition. But some time prior to the composi- 
tion of this letter they had again sent to the imprisoned 
apostle a considerable sum of money, at least enough to 
meet all his needs, despatching it by one of their own 
members, Epaphroditus by name, who seems also earlier 
to have been in the service of the Church or mission 
(n. 4). Upon his arrival in the place where Paul was, 
Epaphroditus was taken dangerously ill, as implied in 
Phil. ii. 30, because of the efforts which he had made to 
discharge the commission of the Church. When this 
letter was written he had so far recovered as to be able 
to take it back to Philippi. Meanwhile, considerable time 
had elapsed. Not only had the news of Epaphroditus’ 
illness reached Philippi, but the news had come back to 
Paul and Epaphroditus from Philippi that there was 
great anxiety there for Epaphroditus’ life; for, when he 
learned how the Church felt, Epaphroditus was very de- 


526 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


sirous of returning to Philippi, and Paul felt under obliga. 
tion to send him as soon as possible with this letter 
(ii. 25-28). With these interchanges which took place 
between the arrival and departure of Epaphroditus, it is 
self-evident that other news also, was interchanged, be- 
tween Philippi and Rome and Rome and Philippi. | As 
the messengers came and went, they would naturally be 
entrusted with letters. The news that Epaphroditus was 
ill in Rome may have reached Philippi with the report of 
his arrival there. But whether this announcement was 
made by Epaphroditus himself, or by Timothy, or by Paul, 
certainly Paul could not have failed to acknowledge the 
gift of money which the Philippians had sent, and. to 
express his thanks, or te request. the others to do so for 
him. If it has been rightly inferred from ii. 1 that Paul 
had written to the Philippians only a short time before, 
then the most probable assumption is that this letter 
contained the announcement of Epaphroditus’ arrival and 
of his illness, Paul’s first expression of thanks for the 
gift of money, warnings such as those in ui. 2 ff., and 
naturally also numerous other communications. We are 
able to gather from the extant Epistle to the Philippians 
a fairly definite idea of the manner in which they had 
replied recently to the letter of Paul's which has not come 
down to us; for throughout our Epistle is a direct reply, 
not to the communications received some weeks or months 
before through Epaphroditus, but to a letter which had 
just arrived from Philippi. When, contrary to his usage 
elsewhere, Paul emphasises strongly at the beginning of 
the letter the fact that he, for his part, has only occasion 
to thank the Lord Jesus for the substantial interest which 
they had always taken in him and his work, of which 
interest they had now furnished additional proof, and 
that he joyfully fulfils the obligation of petition on their 
behalf (i. 3-7, n. 2), there is manifestly implied a con- 
trary view of the same facts and conditions. This con- 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 527 


trary view cannot very well be that of Timothy, whom 
Paul mentions in the greeting as joint-writer with him 
of the letter; for then it would be difficult to understand 
how possible dissatisfaction with the Philippians on the 
part of Timothy could be so silently taken for granted 
and yet be made so much of. Moreover, had this been 
the case, Paul would certainly have added a Παῦλος to 
the ἐγὼ μέν (1 Thess, ii, 18; 2 Cor. χ. 1; Philem. 19). 
Rather must this have been the view of the Church which 
he addresses (1 Cor. v. 3). The Philippians must recently 
have expressed their dissatisfaction with what they had 
done to support Paul and his work, and their doubt as to 
whether Paul had been satisfied with the same. The tone 
in which Paul speaks of the matter throughout the letter 
(i. 17, 25, 30, iv. 10-20) is natural only on the supposi- 
tion that this feeling had been very strongly expressed, 
and the Church had lamented and apologised. for the 
smallness and tardiness of their last remittance. Again 
and again throughout the letter he assures the Philippians 
not so much of his gratitude, which he had expressed 
before, but of his unclouded joy and full contentment 
with his condition, inward and outward. What he de- 
sires and asks of them in the matter of charity is not 
more sacrifice, in which regard the. Macedonian Churches 
had already distinguished themselves (2 Cor. viii. 1 f, 
xi, 9; 1 Thess. iv. 9), nor that simplicity in giving which 
he so often commends (Rom. xii. 8; 2 Cor. ix. 13; Jas. 
1. 5; Matt. vi. 3), but rather the opposite—a clear insight 
into and a careful consideration of the circumstances and 
conditions under which their charity may be exercised 
consistently with uprightness and good order (i. 9-11). 
Probably the unfortunate condition of their financial 
affairs, hinted at in iv. 10, 19, was connected in some 
way with their deficiency in these virtues (above, p. 
220 f.). 

A second matter with regard to which Paul found. it 


528 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


necessary to set the minds of the Philippians at rest was 
his own condition at the time. He does not leave it to 
Epaphroditus to give them an oral account of his state, as 
he did to Tychicus in his letters to the Churches in Asia 
(Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7). On the other hand, he does not 
speak of it as if he were telling them something new ; he 
is simply endeavouring to set in their right light facts with 
which the Church was already familiar, and with regard to 
which they had expressed to him opinions differing from 
his own. The discussion begins in conversational abrupt- 
ness with the words, “I will have you know, my brethren, 
that my affairs have fallen out rather to the furtherance 
of the gospel” (n. 5). As shown by this sentence, as well 
as by the entire discussion that follows, Paul is speaking 
here not of various facts and circumstances connected 
with his own condition and work, but specifically of his 
trial (ἀπολογία, i. 16). From i. 7, consequently, we must 
infer that the Philippians had heard of this trial some 
time before, and had recently expressed their sympathy 
with him in it. They had done so, however, with more 
goodwill and love than insight and’ discrimination (i. 9). 
They believed not only that the apostle’s life, but also the 
cause of the gospel, was in extreme peril. In answer to 
this ungrounded fear and the expressions of deep depres- 
sion resulting from it, Paul shows them that this very 
trial about which they were so anxious furnishes justifica- 
tion for entertaining the most sanguine hopes both for the 
cause and for him personally, and that already it has 
borne fruit for the cause of the gospel (§ 31). It is easy 
to see how anxiety about the fate of the apostle, to which 
was now added concern for Epaphroditus’ life, together 
with the feeling that the sending of Epaphroditus and the 
oift which he carried from them had not been an adequate 
expression of their love for the apostle, who was now face 
to face with death, nor had come up to Paul's expecta- 
tions — how all this had produced a feeling of utter 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT κῶς 


depression in the Church. We can also understand why 
Paul used every means in his power to dispel this feeling 
and to make the Church rejoice. Hence his repeated and 
cordial recognition of their generosity to him (i. 3-7, 
il, 17, iv. 10-20), the assurance that he is satisfied with 
the Church and proud of it (1. 4, ü. 16f., iv. 1), the 
repeated exhortation to joy (ii. 18, 28f., ili, 1, iv. 4) and 
to freedom from anxiety (iv. 6, 19, 111. 15), and the most 
favourable representation possible of his present condition 
and outlook into the future (§ 31). From the noticeable 
circumstance that he emphasises frequently the fact that 
he includes all the members of the Church in his remem- 
brances, petitions, thanksgivings, and greetings (i. 1, 4, 7, 
8, 25, 1. 17, 26, iv. 21), we must infer that the opinion 
had been expressed that, while Paul continued to entertain 
friendly feelings toward individual friends of his in 
Philippi, he was not so satisfied with others, and con- 
sequently not so satisfied with the Church as a whole. 
And yet it had been the Church which, to the full extent 
of its ability, had shown this sympathy with him. So it 
is that the letter is addressed to them in their collective 
capacity, with special mention of their overseers and 
officers (i. 1). The condition within the Church was not 
one of complete harmony, which may have led to emphasis 
upon the unity of all its members. This assumption could 
not be made simply upon the basis of what is said in i. 17, 
i. 1-5, were not certain persons expressly exhorted in 
iy. 2, in terms closely resembling ii. 2 f. (n. 6), to work in 
harmony with others. There were two women who had 
rendered great service to the Church at the time when it 
was organised, and who, when this letter was written, seem 
to have been engaged in some sort of work for the Church; 
for some unnamed person, whom Paul addresses directly 
as a sincere companion, probably Epaphroditus, who 
brought the letter to Philippi, is directed to help these 


two women in their work. The same is expected also of 
VOL, I. 34 


530 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


a certain Clement in Philippi, and of others whom Paul 
calls his fellow-workers, but does not mention by name. 
Consequently it could not have been purely personal 
differences nor differences of opinion about religious 
matters that made it seem necessary to exhort these two 
women to harmonious effort and labour, as is evidenced 
by the peculiar repetition of the word παρακαλῶς Rather 
must it have been a matter of Church business, such as 
had taken Epaphroditus to Rome, in which Euodia and 
Syntyche had had to contend with difficulties, and had 
failed to agree entirely between themselves. The sense 
would be complete if iv. 2 were joined immediately to 
i. 29f.; what stands between in a measure interrupts the 
thought. After indicating by τὸ λοιπόν in 111. 1 that the 
discussion of the principal topic of the letter is complete, 
and that he is about to conclude (1 Thess. iv. 1; 2 Thess. 
iii. 1), it occurs to Paul—there is indication that he was in 
doubt for a moment whether he ought to do it or not 
(n. 3)—to repeat a warning against certain persons which 
he had already expressed in an earlier letter. The same 
reasons which led him to overcome his hesitation about 
repeating the warning influenced him also to dwell upon 
the subject somewhat at length, and to depart further 
from the original plan of the letter than the τὸ λοιπόν in 
iii. 1 would lead us to expect. This had so far fallen into 
the background, that when he really comes to conclude 
the letter in iv. 8 he is able to repeat it. If these persons 
to whose harmful activity he directs the attention of the 
Church in iii. 2 had already secured a footing in Philippi, 
especially if they had secured a following in the Church 
there, Paul would not have hesitated, but it would have 
been his plain duty to warn the Church, and he would 
not have called this warning a precautionary warning. 
There is not a word of regret or complaint for any influence 
which the Philippians had allowed them to gain over 
them, nor any formal warning against their seductions, 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 531 


“Beware of them,” he says once and again. Naturally 
the Philippians were to do this in order not to be taken 
unawares. The danger is not immediate. But it is well 
that their work be known and recognised, as Paul had 
learned to know it from long experience. These persons 
are the old enemies, against whom he had warned the 
Romans in similar manner in anticipation of future 
troubles (xvi. 17). He calls them “those of the con- 
eision, playing upon the word circumeision, and contrasts 
them with himself and Timothy, likewise circumcised (i. 1; 
Acts xvi. 3, above, p. 182), who are of the true cireum- 
eision (n. 7), thereby indicating that these persons are 
Jews unworthy of the name (Rom. 11. 28). This contrast 
and the whole exhortation would be without point if these 
persons were only Jews, who possibly had it in their 
power to persecute the Christian Church. Rather must 
they have been Jewish Christian teachers, like those who 
claimed at least the same right to preach the gospel as 
the true apostles who had founded the Churches in 
Corinth and Galatia. This is clear from their characteri- 
sation as κακοὶ ἐργάται (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 13, ψευδαπόστολοι, 
ἐργάται δόλιοι). Finally, Paul calls them dogs, not with 
the design of applying to these unworthy Jews in the 
name of the Gentile Christians the opprobrious title which 
the Jews applied to the unclean Gentiles, but having in 
view the troublesome obtrusiveness and roving character 
of ownerless dogs, such as one is accustomed to see in the 
streets of an Oriental city. This threefold characterisa- 
tion is severe and curt, so that the persons in question 
could not have been Jewish Christian preachers who merely 
refused to carry on their missionary work in harmony 
with Paul and his helpers, whose lack of confidence in him 
grieved the apostle (Col. iv. 11; Phil. 1. 15; § 31). They 
must have been, rather, sworn enemies of the apostle and 
undoers of his work, of whom he cannot say, as he does of 
himself, that they have broken with their Pharisaic past 


532 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(iii. 7-14), but when they became Christians they con- 
tinued to be Pharisees, boasting the legal righteousness to 
which they had attained, and exercising genuine Pharisaic 
zeal for making proselytes (Matt. xxiii. 15; Pirke Aboth 
i. 1); engaged not in preaching the gospel among the 
Gentiles, but in disturbing the Gentile Christian Churches 
(n. 8). That there was occasion enough to warn a Church, 
which as yet had not been attacked by them, against their 
disturbing influence, Paul was well aware from earlier 
experience. The real occasion and purpose of the letter, 
however, are not to be found in this incidental warning, 
nor in the other exhortations which are also incidental 
(i. 27-ii. 18, iii. 17-iv. 9), but in the actual statements of 
fact and opinion in i. 3-26, ii. 19-30, iv. 10-20. 


1. (P. 522.) For historical and geographical matter and inscriptions, see 
Hevuzry ev Daumet, Mission archeol. de Macedoine, 1876, pp. 1-161; C. I. L. 
iii. 120, and Nos, 633-707, 6113 ; C. I. @. Nos. 20105 and 2010c (p. 995). The 
mining town Φίλιπποι, founded by Alexander’s father on the site of the old 
Kpnvides, received a Roman colony after the battle of 42 B.c. (Strabo, vii. 
fragm. 41). This in turn was considerably augmented after the battle of 
Actium (31 2.0.) by settlers from Italy, who had been forced to surrender 
their own estates to Octavianus’ veterans (Dio Cass. li. 4), Thereafter it was 
Colonia Augusta Julia Philippi with Jus italicum (Dig. li. 15. 6, and 7. 8). 
For that reason the inhabitants regarded themselves as Romans (Acts xvi. 21). 
Difficulties meet us in Acts xvi. 12, ἥτις ἐστὶν πρώτη τῆς μερίδος “Μακεδονίας 
πόλις κολωνία; so Tischendorf, following NAC al. On the other hand, 
B πρώτη μερίδος τῆς M., E πρώτη μερὶς M., D κεφαλὴ τῆς M. πόλις Kod. (cf. 853, 
“which is the capital of Macedonia, and is a colony”; also several min., 
among them 137, Ambrosianus; in Blass, ed. min.=M. om. μερίδος), πρώτης 
μερίδος τῆς M., conjecture of Blass. (ed. maj.), supported by Lat., Paris, 321 
(in prima parte), and the Provengal Version. Hort’s conjecture, put forth 
only tentatively, τῆς Πιερίδος M. (Append. p. 97, cf. Steph. Byz. on Kpnvides ; 
Herod. vii. 212 ; Thue. ii, 99), has met with no favour. The impulse to all 
the changes has been given by pepis, which must be retained. It often 
indicates a rather large district of a still larger province (Strabo, iv. 3, 
p. 191=Cxs. Bell. Gall. i. 1; Strabo, xii. 37, p. 560; xvi, 2, p. 749; frequently 
in the Egyptian documents, cf. Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, 158; an 
article by the same author, in answer to the present writer, in the Expos., Oct. 
1897, p. 320). The Romans had divided this province into four such districts 
(Liv. xlv. 29; Marquardt, R. Staatsverw.? 1.317). But “ the first city” of the 
district. to which Philippi belonged was not Philippi, but Amphipolis. But 
it is also very improbable that Luke should have called Philippi “a first city 
of ὦ district,” or indeed “of the district of Macedonia.” We should rather 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 3533 


read with Blass πρώτης, and paraphrase: “a city belonging to the first of 
those four districts of Macedonia, 7.e. the first which Paul touched on his 
journey, and besides this, a colony, which is the reason for its importance.” 
So far as place and time are concerned, the port Neapolis (now Kavala) was 
the first city of the province of Macedonia to which Paul came ; but without 
stopping there he journeyed on forthwith by the Via Egnatia, which touches 
the coast at Neapolis, to the much more important Philippi. To judge by 
the inscriptions, at least half the population were Latin in origin and speech. 
There among other things was a Latin theatre, maintained, it would seem, by 
the town (Heuzey, p. 145, No. 76; C. I. L.iii. No. 6113, archimimus latinus et 
ofjicialis, etc.). VALENS, the name of the presbyter of Philippi who made 
considerable stir fifty to sixty years after the Church was founded (Polye. ad 
Phil. xi. 1), occurs seven times in a single inscription from the neighbour- 
hood of Philippi, which contains many names (C. I. L. iii. No. 633 ; ef. also 
Nos. 640, 671, 679, 680. Im No. 633 CRESCENS also occurs twice (ef. Polyc. ad 
Phil. xiv). The names Evopıa and SyntycHz (Phil. iv. 2) do not occur in 
the inscriptions from Philippi, but are common enough elsewhere. Evodia 
(Latin also Huhodia, in Victorinus on Phil. iv. 2 Euchodia, elsewhere even 
written Heuodia), C. I. G. Nos. 3002, 5711, 5923, 6390 ; Inscr. Att. 111. (from 
the time of the empire) Nos. 1795, 1888, 2079, 3160; Inser. Gr. Sic. οἱ, It. 
Nos. 855, 1108, 1745; Agypt. Urk. des berl. Mus. No. 550; ©. I. L. iii. Nos. 
1388, 2314, 2435; v. No. 1173; vi. Nos. 17334-17339; viii. No. 8569. 
Εὐωδία also (Duchesne et Bayet, Mission au mont Athos, p. 40, No. 50) is 
different perhaps only in spelling ; it is written so even in Phil, iv. 2 in some 
MSS. The corresponding man’s name is Evodos, more rarely Εὐόδιος (Philo, 
ὁ. Flacc. x; Eus. H. E. iii. 22), also Εὐώδιος, Ag. Urk. No. 793. Συντύχη, 
C. I. @. Nos. 2264m, 2326, 3098, 3865% ; Le Bas-Waddington, Asie min. No. 
722; Inser. Gr. Sic. et It. No. 13695; C. I. L. iv. No. 2666; v. Nos. 1073, 
2521, 8125, 8858 ; vi. Nos, 9662, 10243, 15607, 15608, 23484 ; viii. No. 7962 ; 
ix. Nos. 102, 116, 156, 369, 1817, 2676, 3363, 6100. It is uncertain from Phil. 
iv. 3 whether both these women supported Paul in the spreading of the 
gospel as early as his first stay in Philippi; for at the time also when 2 Cor. 
was written Paul remained several months in Macedonia. He may have 
spent a part of this time in Philippi and utilised it among other things for 
an ἀθλεῖν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ. It may appear strange that Lydia (Acts xvi. 14, 
40) is not mentioned in this connection. But we should remember that 
Lydia is not a real name, but a cognomen derived from the name of her 
native place ; cf. Renan, St. Paul, 146. The Roman poets use it only of those 
who belong to the demi-monde, who hardly possess a name of their own 
(Hor. Odes, i. 8,13, 25, iii. 9; Mart. Epigr. xi. 21). Λύδη also, which denotes 
the same thing, is very rare as a proper name ((. I. G. Nos. 653, 6975 ; 0.1. 
Att. iii. Nos. 3261, 3262 ; Hor. Odes, iii. 28). Just as Omphale is called the 
Lydian (Sophocl. Trach. 432, ef. 70), so this dealer in purple, who had. re- 
moved to Philippi from Thyatira, hence from Lydia, probably was often 
called the Lydian, though she had always borne a personal name besides— 
perhaps Euodia or Syntyche? Moreover, we are reminded of the purpur- 
aria (Acts xvi, 14, Vulg.) by a mutilated inscription at Philippi (Οἱ 1. L. iii. 
No. 664), and even more definitely by a Greek inscription on a tomb at 
Thessalonica which the guild of purple dyers erected to the memory of a 


534 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


certain Menippus from Thyatira (Duchesne et Bayet, Mission au mont Athos, 
p. 52, No. 83). Thyatira, a Macedonian colony (Strabo, xiii. p. 625), had a 
guild of purple dyers (C. I. @. Nos. 3496-3498). The name Clemens (Phil. 
iv. 3) is also attested for Philippi, ©. J. L. iii. No. 633, Valerius Clemens. 
In itself it would not be impossible to conjecture that the jailer in Acts xvi. 
23 ff. was named Clemens. However, see n .6. Moreover, the indices to 
Tacitus, Pliny’s Epistles, and the collections of Latin and Greek inscriptions, 
show that Clemens is such a common cognomen in the first three centuries 
A.D. that it is a hopeless venture to base any hypothesis whatever upon it 
alone. Merely to indicate its wide currency, some examples are adduced from 
the time of the Empire: C. 7. Att. iii. Nos. 1094, 1114 (at the end), 1138 (col. 
3, line 23), 3896 (all these from Athens, likewise the birthplace of Clemens 
Alex.) ; ©. I. G. Nos. 3757 (Asia Minor), 4557 (near Damascus), 4801 (Egypt, ef. 
Berl. Ägypt. Urk. No. 344, four bearers of this name, Oxyrh. Papyri ii. 185, 313, 
No. 241, 376) ; 5042 (Ethiopia) ; 1829c (under the Additamenta from Apollonia 
in Illyrieum) ; Οἱ 1. L. iii. Nos. 1739 (Epidaurus), 5211-5216 (Cilli in Styria). 
The river outside the town, on the bank of which the Jews and proselytes of 
Philippi were wont to assemble for Sabbath worship (Acts xvi. 13), is the 
Angites (Herod. vii. 113, now Angista, perhaps identical with the Tayyas or 
Tayyirns, Appianus, Bell. civ. iv 106, 107). It flows past Philippi about halfa 
mile west of the gates of the city, and empties into Lake Cercinitis, through 
which the Strymon flows, just before reaching the sea. Since προσευχή in Acts 
xvi. 16, at any rate, denotes the place of prayer, the present writer sees no reason 
to change the text in xvi. 13 (Blass, ἐνόμιζον ἐν προσευχῇ εἶναι). Though 
elsewhere προσευχή is used interchangeably for συναγωγή (Schürer, ii. 447 f., 
ef. 444 [Eng. trans. u. ii. 72f., cf. 68 1.1}, yet Luke, who uses every- 
where else the latter word only, seems to express by the former an idea 
for which συναγωγή did not seem a suitable expression. There were 
seats there (Acts xvi. 13). But that it was only a makeshift for a regular 
synagogue is also expressed by οὗ ἐδόκει (so D, Vulg., Gigas, ἐνόμιζεν N, 
ἐνομίζετο EHLP, ἐνομίζομεν BC) προσευχὴ (ABDEHLP, προσευχήν NC) 
εἶναι. It may have been an open hall, with or without a roof, or some other 
plain building. There seems to be no support in the older tradition for 
the statements of the Acts of Paul (circa 170) about a sojourn of Paul in 
Philippi (Vetter, Der apokr. dritte Korintherbrief, 1894, 8. 54; Acta Pauli, ed. 
C. Schmidt, 72 ff., 77; @K, ii. 599). The names occurring in this, which 
have been mangled in many ways by translators and copyists, are not poorly 
chosen. Stratonice is an ancient Macedonian name (Thue. ii. 101), and 
Apollophanes oceurs in an inscription at Neapolis near Philippi (Heuzey, 
p. 21, No. 5). 

2. (Pp. 524, 526.) Phil. iv. 15f. The καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ adds force to 
the expression, and even when taken alone indicates that the same thing 
happened later also. But since the stay in Bera, whence Paul journeyed to 
Athens, was short, we can hardly understand ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας of 
the moment of departure, but as the pluperfect (Hofmann); so that we are 
to think of remittances to Athens and Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 8f.), Moreover, 
Phil. i. 3-7 refers to the material support of the mission on the part of the 
Philippians, as the present writer thinks he has shown (Z/KW, 1885, 8. 
185-202) in a somewhat more thorough way than has been done before, 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 535 


Also the reading of i. 3 there defended, S. 184, ἐγὼ μὲν εὐχαριστῶ τῷ κυρίῳ 
ἡμῶν, must be considered established so long as no one can explain better 
than Klöpper, 1893, how this original reading arose from the common one, 
which plainly resulted from assimilation to a well-known phrase of Paul’s 
found especially at the opening of his Epistles (Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor. i, 4, 14, 
xiv. 18; Col. i, 3; Philem. 4; 1 Thess. 1, 2). Klöpper (Komm., ad loc.) 
conjectures that the need was felt of freeing the apostle from the connection 
with Timothy implied in the “address,” and that in this 1 Thess. ii, 18 
served as model. Why has no one felt and satisfied this need in 1 Thess, 
i. 2; 2 Thess. i. 3; 1 Cor. i. 4; 2 Cor. i. 3; Col, i. 32 and how could 
1 Thess. ii. 18, where it was necessary to distinguish between Paul and his 
helpers, and where, moreover, ἐγὼ μέν is followed by Παῦλος, have served 
as a model for the opening of a letter, where nothing is said which neces- 
sarily excludes Timothy ? (see above, p. 210). The correct text is attested 
not only by D*G and their Latin parallel texts, but also by Ambrosiaster, 
Cassiodorus, and, in a crucial point, another ancient Latin text (Italafraym., 
ed. Ziegler, p. 74, “gratias ago domino meo”), and the imitation in the 
apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans (GK, ii. 584, “gratias ago Christo”), 
We should probably translate: “I for my part thank our Lord for all 
your substantial remembrance (of me, and indeed), always, in each of my 
prayers, offering up my prayer for you all with joy on the ground of your 
participation for the purpose of the gospel (7.2. your co-operation in the 
missionary work) from the first day until now, being confident for this very 
reason that he who began (such), a good work among you will (also) bring it 
to completion until the day of Christ Jesus; just as, in fact, it is my duty to 
be mindful of this for you all (to care for you thus through joyful, continual, 
hopeful prayer), since I have you in my heart (must ever think of you) as 
those who are all comrades in my grace both (for years) in my imprisonment 
and also (now) in the defence and confirmation of the gospel.” 

3. (Pp. 525, 530.) That ra αὐτά, Phil. iii. 1, refers to iii. 2 ff. and not back 
to ‚xaipere ev κυρίῳ (cf. ii. 18), surely needs no further proof. Further, since 
ὀκνηρός, like φοβερός or our “doubtful, fearful,” and the like, is used not 
only of persons, but also of things which awaken in a person the mood in 
question, the meaning here (cf. Oed. Rex. 834) must be: “It seems to me 
unobjectionable ; I do not hesitate to write the same to you (Theod. Mops. 
ἐμοὶ... γράφειν ὄκνος οὐδείς ; ef. Plut. Mor. 11 D, πολὺς δ᾽ ὄκνος ἔχει pe, 
and the frequent οὐκ ὀκνήσω, e.g. Papias, quoted in Eus. H. E. iii. 39, 3). 
Further, since the emphasis falls on τὰ αὐτά, not on γράφειν, we cannot 
complete the thought like Theod. Mops. ; “1 do not hesitate to say to you 
in writing also what I said to you orally.” We are therefore shut up to 
the conclusion that Paul is referring to similar warnings of earlier letters 
still present in his memory and in that of the readers. In saying that it 
seems to him unobjectionable to repeat the same things, he acknowledges that 
the repetition might seem superfluous, but that he has overcome this objection 
or similar ones. It is a question whether Polycarp really knew of several 
letters of Paul to the Philippians when he writes, ad Phil. iii. 2: οὔτε yap ἐγὼ 
οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται κατακολουθῆσαι τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ 
ἐνδόξον Παύλου, ὃς γενόμενος ἐν ὑμῖν κατὰ πρόσωπον τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων ἐδίδαξεν 
ἀκῥιβῶς καὶ βεβαίως τὸν περὶ ἀληθείας λόγον, ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν 


536 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ἐπιστολάς, eis ἃς ἐὰν ἐγκύπτητε, δυνηθήσεσθε οἰκοδομεῖσθαι eis τὴν δοθεῖσαν 
ὑμῖν πίστιν ; οἵ. GK, i. 814 ff. In another place, chap. xi. (retained in Lat. 
only) he writes; “ Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi qui estis in 
principio epistule ejus; de vobis etenim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis.” For 
a discussion of more recent efforts to explain or emend the senseless epistule 
ejus, see Forsch. iv. 252. Better than all others is the suggestion of E. Nestle, 
communicated to the present writer in a letter, that we assume in the original 
ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς ἀποστολῆς αὐτοῦ. Just as ἀποστέλλειν and ἐπιστέλλειν were not 
infrequently confounded (Acts xxi. 25; 1 [3] Kings v. 8; Neh. vi. 19), so here 
ἐπιστολῆς grew out of ἀποστολῆς. Even in Gal. ii. 8 the latter word denotes 
not the act of sending forth, but, quite like the modern “ mission,” the work 
committed to the one sent forth, and the performance of this commission. 
Polycarp renders freely and not badly the ev ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, Phil. iv. 15; 
but in the following sentence he refers to the Philippians the contents of 
2 Thess. i. 4 also. It is the more improbable that this is a temporary oversight, 
since before in chap. i. 2 he seems to refer 1 Thess. i. 8 f. in like manner to the 
Philippians, while Tertullian per contra adduces in one instance (Scorp. xiii) 
several passages of Phil. as addressed to the Thessalonians. The three letters 
to the Macedonian Churches were classed together by many writers: Clem. 
Protr. 87; GK, i. 174; Vict. Petav., in the genuine conclusion of his Com- 
mentary on Rev., ef. Hausleiter in the ThLb, 1895, S. 196, “ Paulus ad ecclesiam 
Macedoniam ita dixit=1 Thess. iv. 15-17; Jerome, Comm. in Gal. lib. ii. preef. 
(Vallarsi, vii. 430, probably following Origen, cf. GK, ii. 427 ff., 1002), “ Mace- 
dones in caritate laudantur et hospitalitate ac susceptione fratrum,” which is 
confirmed by 1 Thess. iv. 9. They were also joined frequently in the MSS. 
(GK, ii. 344, 349, 353 ff.). It is in this way, then, that Polycarp also knows 
of several letters of Paul to the Philippians, 1.6. the Macedonians. Following 
an older source, also Georgius Syncellus, Chronogr. ad annum 5576, ed. Bonn, 
i. 651, may have written in reference to Clement of Rome: τούτου xa ὁ 
ἀπόστολος ἐν τῇ πρὸς φιλιππησίους μέμνηται πρώτῃ ἐπιστολῇ. Regarding 
a second epistle to the Philippians in a Syrian Canon, about 400 A.D. 
(Studia Sinait, ed. Lewis, i. 11 ff.), see NKZ, 1900, S. 795, 799 f. ; W. Bauer, 
Der Apostolos der Syrer (1903), S. 36 ff., and the writer’s Grundriss der Gesch. 
d. Kanons, 2te Aufl. 49 A. 11. 

4. (P. 525.) The references in Phil. ii. 25-30, iv. 10-20, are clear in all 
essential features. It has been remarked already (n. 2), that in i. 3-7 the 
Church’s very recent active fellowship with their apostle is combined with 
all their similar conduct before this. But the same is true of ii. 17 also; ef. 
ZfKW, 1885, S. 290-302. The present writer translates 11, 14-18: “Do all 
things without murmuring and doubting, in order that you may present 
yourselves free from blame and impure admixture, as spotless children of 
God in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you 
shine as lights, holding forth the word of life [in] the world, a matter of 
glorying to me until (and on) the day of Christ, since (in this case, on the 
presupposition that you follow this exhortation) I (shall) not have striven 
in vain nor laboured in vain, but even in case my blood is actually poured 
forth as a libation (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 6), I rejoice over the offering and service of 
your faith (cf. ii, 25, 30, iv. 18), and delight in you all. Even so do you also 
rejoice and delight in me!” We might better read simply κόσμῳ instead of 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 537 


ἐν κόσμῳ, Which cannot possibly be dragged into the relative sentence along- 
side of ἐν οἷς (ef. Hofmann). Could Ephrem have read thus (Comm. p. 162, 
apparebitis mundo) ? 

5. (P. 528.) Instead of his ordinary οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, Paul writes 
in 1. 12, γινώσκειν δὲ ὑμᾶς κτὰλ., with stronger emphasis upon the first word, 
and with reference to ἐπίγνωσις, i. 9. The reading ra κατ᾽ ἐμέ incurs the 
suspicion that it has come in from Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7. We should read 
ra κατ᾽ ἐμέ with GS! (which, quite at variance with its rendering of those 
passages, translates as if the original had read τὴν κατ᾽ ἐμὲ πρᾶξιν) S® on the 
margin, Arm. With regard to τὸ μᾶλλον =potius, not magis or plus (emolu- 
menti, quam detrimenti), ef. the writer’s Essay, Z/KW, 1885, 5. 201. 

6. (P. 529.) With τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν, iv. 2, cf. ii. 2, 5, but not 1 Cor. i. 10. 
It does not mean the same thing as ὁμόνοια, ὁμοδοξία, but always denotes 
agreement for the accomplishment of practical aims; cf. Z/KW, 1885, 5. 
193f. Regarding the names Euodia, Syntyche, and Clemens, see ἢ. 1. With 
Ambrosiaster, Lightfoot, Hofmann, et al., we should take μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος 
κτὰ. as the continuation not of the relative clause, but of the main clause 
(συλλαμβάνου), for αἵτινες introduces a motive for that request, namely, the 
signal rewards which these women deserve for their help in the first organi- 
sation of the Church ; but they would be only depressed if Clement and many 
others besides shared these rewards. Moreover, if it really should be thought 
that Paul’s fellow-labourers in the founding of the Church are named here, 
we should expect to find Timothy and Silas mentioned, instead of Clement 
and other nameless individuals. The persons in question, then, are men who 
are now in Philippi, still living, of course, and so in a position to aid these 
women, to take hold with them of the work which they are carrying on ; 
for this is the meaning of συλλαμβάνεσθαί τινι (Luke v. 7; Artemid. Oneiroer. 
iii. 9, 37, iv. 74, as in the Attic writers, occasionally with genitive of the 
thing), and not to give them ‘spiritual counsel. In the Book of Life stand 
the names of those who while living upon earth are enrolled as citizens in 
heaven (Luke x. 20; Rev. iii. 5, xx. 15; Heb. xii. 23). Paul includes among 
his fellow-labourers those also who, though in a different place, are carrying 
on the same work as he (Philem. 1, above, p. 452). Ephrem paraphrases 
rightly : “quorum nomina ego non hie deseripsi, quia multa erant, attamen 
scripta sunt in libro vite.” Paul speaks in the third person of the three whose 
names are mentioned, and of the nameless co-workers added at the end, and 
that, too, though he has a request to make of them 811. This fact alone makes 
it exceedingly probable that the single “comrade” addressed in the second 
person will indeed be present in Philippi at the time of the letter’s arrival 
and thereafter, but is now at the time of the letter’s writing present with 
Paul. Victorinus (Mai, Ser. vet. n. Coll. iii. 2. 80), also Lightfoot and Hofmann, 
rightly conjectured that Epaphroditus is meant. If this helper gat near Paul 
during the writing, or served him perhaps as scribe, it must have seemed 
unnatural to the apostle to have his request come to Epaphroditus in the 
same form as to those who were absent, mediated, so to say, by the Church 
to whom the letter was addressed (ef. Col. iv. 17). Rom. xvi. 22 is not a 
parallel case. Clem. Al. Strom. iii. 53, p. 435, thought that Paul was speak- 
ing here of his wife, whom, according to 1 Cor. ix. 5, he did not take with him 
on his journeys, thus differing from the other apostles. This view is adopted 


538 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


by Origen, who allegorises δοῦλος, Rom. i. 1, cf. 1 Cor. vii. 22 (Delarue, iv. 461), 
and appeals to a tradition which, to be sure, lacked universal acceptance (sicut 
quidam tradunt). It is also quoted by Eusebius without unfavourable eriti- 
cism, H. Εἰ. iii. 30; and this must have been the cause of the further spread 
of the fable that Paul was married (propagated with peculiar zeal before 
Eusebius by Pierius, according to an excerpt in the Cod. Barocc. 142, cf. de 
Boor, Texte u. Unters. y. 2.170; then by pseudo-Ign. Philad. chap. iv.; Epiph. 
Mon., ed. Dressel, p. 39 ; Solomon of Bassorah, Apis, chap. 1., tr. by Schön- 
felder, p. 83). Clement omitted the γνήσιε, a form incompatible, as Theodore 
Mops. long ago emphatically declared, with this interpretation of Phil. iv. 3, 
which would have required γνησία instead ; and Renan, St. Paul, 148, who 
thought that Lydia should be understood, neglected to justify the masculine. 
This is not one of those adjectives which vary between two and three endings 
for gender (Kühner-Blass, i. 1. 536). Moreover, σύζυγος γνησία could hardly 
denote anything else than the legitimate wife in distinction from a concubine 
(Xen, Cyrop. iv. 3. 1). The ancient Lat. translation germane compar (e.g. 
Ambrosiaster, Vulg.) or germane unijuge (Victor. p. 79) led to the mistaken 
idea that Germanus was a proper name (Pelagius=pseudo-Jerome, Vallarsi, 
xi. 3.377), which in this form forced its way even into the Greek text of 
Cod. G. Ina similar way from the Greek γνήσιε, which perhaps the Syrians 
had previously written on the margin, arose the remarkable proper name 
Chenisi or Khenesis in the Armenian Ephrem, p. 166; cf. Vetter, Lit. Rund- 
schau, 1894, 5. 111. On the other hand, Laurent, Neutestamentliche Stud, 134, 
sought to defend σύζυγε as a proper name, though such a name has not yet 
been pointed out either in the literature or in inscriptions. Wieseler, Chron. 
457 f. note, thought that Christ should be understood ; Rückert, on 2 Cor. viii. 
22, S. 265, an own brother of Paul’s; Völter, TRTij. 1892, S. 124, Timothy. 
With regard to modern allegorical interpretations of the passage, see ὃ 32, n. 4. 

7. (P. 531.) Inasmuch as, in spite of his mention of Timothy, i. 1, Paul 
has spoken of himself in the singular uniformly throughout the letter, and a 
great many times too, the ἡμεῖς in iii. 3, 175 is all the more striking, especially 
since “I” stands immediately before and after it. It cannot group the 
apostle with the Christians addressed, like the “We” of iii. 15f., or with all 
Christians, as in iii, 20f. In iii. 175 both are alike impossible, and Paul can 
mean only himself and Timothy, whom he mentions along with himself in 
i.1, Why is that not true of iii, 3 also? Timothy was also circumcised 
(Acts xvi. 3). It is incredible that Paul should be speaking here in the 
name of all Christians, much less of the Gentile Christians, with reference 
to baptism and the new birth; for (1) the Judaists were also baptized, and 
could thus appeal to the outward sign of spiritual circumcision (Col. 11, 11); 
(2) Paul the Jew is here speaking; (3) he speaks in iii. 5 of his circum- 
cision in the literal sense; (4) he does not distinguish here between a 
spiritual and a carnal circumcision, in which case he must have disallowed 
the Judaists’ claim to circumcision, .e. the true one. He simply says that 
by reason of their evil mind their circumcision had lost its worth, has 
become merely a mutilation. Paul is not here giving utterance to the truth 
that Christians are the true Israel, a thought quite out of place in this 
connection ; he is rather, as in Rom. ii. 25, 28f., contesting the worth of 
being a Jew outwardly, on which basis the Judaists were able to win 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT = 539 


consideration for themselves, and is setting himself and his helpers, the 
founders of the Church, who sprang from Israel indeed, but who have 
broken with Pharisaic Judaism, as the real Jews over against these false 
brethren. The Philippians then need not be imposed upon by them. The 
change back to ἐγώ, iii. 4, from the ἡμεῖς, ii. 3, is fully explained by the 
fact that iii, 3 indeed, but not iii. 4ff., could be said of Timothy, whose 
origin was only half Jewish, and who was not circumcised until adult age. 
Paul does not use the plural again to indicate himself until ii. 17, and 
even there such a transition was in itself no more necessary than, in the 
similar passages, 1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1; Eph. v. 1. But since Paul prefers not 
to set himself before the Philippians as a model without at the same time 
mentioning others who may likewise serve as examples, it is indubitable 
that he means them to understand by these others the founders of the 
Church, just as in 1 Thess. i. 6; 2 Thess. 111, 7, 9, the only difference being 
that in 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1 all three are named as writers of the letter, 
in Phil. i. 1 only Paul and Timothy. We are thus to understand these two 
by the “we” in iii. 3, 17. With κύνες Hofmann aptly compares Ps. lix, 
7, 15, xxii. 17, 21. Furthermore, the idea of uncleanness is more remote in 
this case, though elsewhere in the N.T. it is coupled with this word, Matt. 
vii. 6, xv. 26; Rev. xxii. 15; cf. Schoettgen, p. 1145. 

8. (P. 532.) Ona superficial comparison of Phil. iii. 19 with Rom. xvi. 18 
and of Phil. iii, 18 with Gal. vi. 12, we might come to the conclusion that in 
Phil. also the reference is to the Judaists ; moreover, the view that it was 
these of whom Paul had often spoken to the Philippians would agree very well 
with iii, 1 as rightly understood. However, what he was reminded to say 
about the Judaists has already come to a close in iii. 15. Here in a general 
exhortation to conduct modelled after that of the founders of the Church 
(ef. i. 27, ii. 12), there was need of a clear reference to iii. 2 if the thoroughly 
general description of the “ earthy minded” was to be understood in such a 
special sense. On the other hand, indeed, this is not a description of Gentile 
immorality outside the Church (ii. 15; Eph. iv. 17), but of just such 
immorality on the part of many Christians (2 Thess. iii. 6, 11; 1 Cor. v. 1); 
for it is only because the missionaries’ earlier exhortations have had no 
effect upon them that Paul must confess that now, even weeping, he calls 
them the enemies of the Cross of Christ. The words do not allow us to 
determine whether they have gone so far as an open renunciation of 
Christianity, or have simply shown by their un-Christian conduct that they 
will recognise none of the earnest life that the Cross demands; cf. 1 Tim. 
1. 20; 2 Tim. iv. 10.  Polyearp, xii, 3, following Phil. iii. 18, speaks of the 
enemies of the Cross after he has mentioned the heathen kings, the persecu- 
tors and enemies of Christianity. 


§ 31. PAUL'S SITUATION AT THE TIME WHEN 
PHILIPPIANS WAS WRITTEN. 


The apostle was in prison (i. 7, 13, 14, 17), and must 
have been in Rome; for otherwise among the greetings 


540 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


sent to the Philippians by the whole body of Christians 
in the community where he was, he could not have 
specified as a special group those of the Christian 
servants belonging to Czesar’s court (n. 1). He could 
not have assumed on the part of his readers the know- 
ledge of an accidental and temporary residence of royal 
servants in Ceesarea, among whom were a number of 
Christians, but must have made special mention of the 
fact and have explained why they were there. On the 
other hand, the Philippians, who had been in recent 
communication with Paul (above, p. 524), might very 
well have known that among the Christians in Rome 
there were servants of the imperial household (above, 
p: 419 f.).. Moreover, Paul was in a place where there 
were a large number of missionaries at work, some of 
whom were friendly, others hostile to himself (i. 14-18), 
which suggests at once the situation in Col. iv. 11, and, 
like this passage, points to Rome (above, p. 443 f.). 
Finally, what is here said about Paul’s trial suits Rome, 
but would have been impossible in Ceesarea. 

Unlike the other imprisonment letters discussed, 
Philippians, besides mentioning the imprisonment of the 
apostle, speaks of his defence and confirmation of. the 
gospel as if it were something associated with the im- 
prisonment and yet to be distinguished from, it (1. 7). 
The defence of the gospel was known, at least to his 
friends, to be the one purpose of his imprisonment (i, 16). 
From the repeated use of the word ἀπολογία and the 
usual meaning which this word has elsewhere (1 Cor. 
ix. 5° 2 (Cor, , Vil. 11, 2 1m JV, Tb GLS SE 
xxv. 16), it is clear beyond question that reference is had 
to the defence of an accused person before a tribunal, and 
not to that vindication of the gospel which accompanied 
its proclamation to non-Christians. That a trial was 
impending the Philippians had learned some time before, 
and had recently expressed their sympathy with Paul at 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 541 


this turn in his fortune (1. 7). Indeed, this turn of affairs 
had made them very solicitous about Paul and the cause 
of the gospel (above, p. 528). In answer to this feeling, 
Paul shows them in 1. 12-18 that, so far as the cause of 
the gospel is concerned, it has suffered no harm whatever, 
but has only gained. One good result has been that 
“his bonds in Christ have become manifest throughout 
the whole pretorium and among all the rest.” Since 
everyone at all mterested in Paul’s fate had known 
perfectly well, ever since the day of his arrest in Jerusalem, 
the fact of his imprisonment, this passage must mean 
(and this interpretation is favoured by the position of ev 
Χριστῷ) that it has now become clear to everyone that he 
had been imprisoned solely because of his relation to 
Christ, and not for any offences against public order (Acts 
xxi. 28, 38, xxiv. 5; 2 Tim. 11. 9). Of course, Paul’s 
fellow-believers knew this from the first, and the pro- 
curator Festus had at once convinced himself of the 
fact (Acts xxv. 18f., 25, xxvi. 31£.). When, however, 
Paul continued year after year in prison under constant 
military guard, persons not intimately acquainted with 
him, who came in contact with him or heard of him, must 
have assumed that there were serious criminal charges 
against him. Not until the new turn in his affairs, 
which brought him to trial and gave him opportunity to 
defend himself, was this cloud removed ; and naturally the 
imperial guard would be the first tounderstand the situation. 
To take “preetorium” (1. 13) as referring to a building, 
not to a group of persons, is practically out of the 
question, because of the co-ordination of ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραι- 
τωρίῳ and καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν. To take it as referring to 
the preetorian guard is justified, both by linguistic usage 
and the actual circumstances of this case (n. 2). If, 
upon his arrival in Rome, Paul was handed over to the 
prafectus pretoru, the soldier who guarded him. would 
have been a pretorian soldier (Acts xxviii. 16, n. 2). 


542 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


With the frequent daily changes of the guard, in the 
course of two years Paul would have come into contact 
with hundreds of these pratorian soldiers. How natural 
that they should know about the progress of his trial, 
and that through them it should become more widely 
known among the populace! If through the trial it had 
become generally known that Paul had been accused by 
the Jews, and until now had remained in prison solely on 
account of his religious convictions, that was so much 
gained for the gospel. 

A second gratifying result of the hearing which had 
taken place some time before is indicated in 1. 14, namely, 
that the majority of the brethren had become confident 
in the Lord as to the outcome of the apostle’s imprison- 
ment (n. 3), and were venturing more than they had done 
heretofore to proclaim the word of the Lord fearlessly. 
Some there appear to have been in Rome, who, like the 
distant Philippians, feared the worst. From the fact, 
however, that the majority of the Christians about Paul 
who were engaged in spreading the faith were confidently 
expecting Paul’s release, and on the strength of this 
confidence were preaching the gospel with increased 
courage and zeal, it must be inferred that on the occasion 
when Paul made his defence it became apparent that the 
Imperial Court was not inclined to suppress the gospel 
nor to punish men like Paul, against whom nothing could 
be proved except that they were engaged in spreading a 
new Jewish doctrine. The Roman judge must have 
taken the same attitude toward his case as had been 
taken by Gallio and Festus, and made that attitude 
known (Acts xvii. 15, xxv. 19). Nothing is said in 
Philippians about preaching activity on the part of Paul 
and the fellow-workers about him (Eph. vi. 19 f.; Col. 
iv. 8, 10-14; Philem. 10, 28f.), just as the earlier 
letters of the Roman captivity or Acts xxviil. 16-31 are 
silent regarding any trial in progress. Evidently the 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 543 


trial had put an end to the preaching. When his trial 
began his active work ceased, being deprived as he was 
of the liberty required to carry it on. Others had taken 
his place in this work. Although the Philippians were 
troubled when they heard that Paul was no longer able 
freely to continue his preaching work, Paul himself looks 
upon it rather as advantageous to the gospel, and ex- 
presses his joy at the ample substitute which exists for 
his own preaching (i. 12, 18). He forces his noble heart 
thus to rejoice, although he cannot conceal the fact that 
this increased activity on the part of the missionaries 
about him is in part influenced by motives which can 
cause him no joy. A glance at Col. iv. 11 (above, 
p. 442) leaves no doubt that he had in mind Jewish 
Christian missionaries. From the fact, however, that he 
calls all the preaching which was being carried on about 
him a proclamation of Christ, expressing his own joy at 
the same, taking into consideration also his purpose to 
encourage the Philippians to take a hopeful view of the 
situation, we must conclude that he is not referring to 
false brethren, or evil workers, dogs, servants of Satan, 
like those he warned them against in iii. 2, and with 
whom he had had to contend in Corinth and Galatia. 
The persons of whom he speaks in i. 14-18 not only 
preach Jesus (2 Cor. xi. 4), but also the Saviour whom 
Paul preaches ; so that their purpose, the governing 
motive of their work, must have been the proclaiming of 
Christ. But Paul discovers other motives and indireet 
purposes in this newly increased preaching activity about 
him. Now that Paul is hindered from working, there are 
many who labour with increased zeal, even actuated by 
ill-will toward him, καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, and governed 
generally by unworthy feelings (ἐξ épuBetas), They avail 
themselves of this opportunity to gain precedence over 
him, and to lay claim to the field which he is compelled 
temporarily to vacate. They have a certain malicious joy 


544 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


in seeing their great rival condemned to inactivity, and 
do not hesitate to add to the pain of his captivity by 
making him envious at their success, for such, they feel, 
must be the effect of their work (i. 17, οἰόμενοι) ; but they 
are mistaken. There are other Christians in Rome who 
have been stimulated to increased activity, both by their 
zeal for the cause of Christ and by their love for the 
friend who is now before the emperor’s tribunal. No 
matter by whom the cause of the gospel is promoted, nor 
with what feelings toward himself its promotion is carried 
on, he is able to rejoice at its progress. 

But even looking at the situation from a personal 
point of view, he is able to contemplate both the present 
and the future with joyful confidence (i. 19-26). This is 
the third hopeful aspect of the progress of his trial, by 
emphasising which Paul seeks to overcome the despond- 
ency of the Philippians. He certainly cannot approve 
nor share their feeling about his trial. For him the only 
life worthy of the name is Christ, and of Him no one nor 
anything, not even death, can deprive him; in fact, if he 
were consulting only his own blessedness, death would be 
pure gain, because thereby his longing for more intimate 
fellowship with Christ would be satisfied. On the other 
hand, he has a calling upon earth to fulfil which seems to 
render necessary a longer continuance in the flesh. He 
finds himself unable definitely to decide between the two. 
As a Christian he comforts himself with the thought that 
whatever the outcome of the impending trial may be, 
whether it ends with his execution or his acquittal, Christ 
will be glorified in his body. These considerations (1. 20- 
24) prove that such a state of discouragement as had 
taken hold of the Philippians, and the surrender of their 
joy in the Lord (ii. 18, iii, 1, iv. 4) in contemplation of 
Paul’s possible martyrdom, have no place whatever in the 
Christian life. But, leaving this out of account, this 
anxiety of theirs is groundless, and the danger which they 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 545 


fear imaginary. Paul is firmly convinced that he is soon 
to be set αὖ liberty. “I know that this shall issue in my 
salvation through your prayer, and through the supplying 
of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (i. 19). Since the petitions 
of the Church for the apostle in prison, and now on trial, 
could not have been offered for his death but only for his 
release (Philem. 22; 2 Cor. i. 11; Acts xii. 5), the help of 
the Spirit must also relate to the same. The apostle is 
confident that the Spirit of Christ who has helped him 
heretofore will stand by him when he makes his defence, 
supplying everything that he needs in the emergency, 
preserving constantly his presence of mind, and enabling 
him to speak words which shall lead to his acquittal (Matt. 
x. 19f.; Mark xiii. 11; Acts iv. 8). Accordingly, the 
salvation which he feels sure is to be the issue of his trial 
is not the blessedness nor the glorification of Christ 
through him, whether by life or by death, of which he 
speaks in i. 20, but his acquittal. That this is his mean- 
ing one is compelled to infer from his use of the words of 
Job to express this confident expectation (n. 3). And 
any possible doubt is removed by the second passage, in 
which he states with even greater definiteness what he 
feels sure will be the issue of his trial (i. 25). What he 
says in 1. 22 about the advantage of his longer continu- 
ance in the flesh is stated only hypothetically ; in i. 24 
this continuance in the flesh he declares as his actual con- 
vietion, which would be impossible if his only ground of 
expectation were simply a conjecture from the preceding 
course of his trial that he was to escape with his life. 
With even stronger emphasis he claims again to know 
certammly that he shall continue to live, come to Philippi 
again, and have fellowship not only with individual 
members of the Philippian Church, like Epaphroditus, but 
with the whole Church (i. 25£. ἢ, 3). How this con- 
viction was formed Paul does not state explicitly. Doubt- 


less it was due in part to the tavourable opinion as to the 
VOL. 1. 35 


546 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


outcome of the trial which Paul and those about him had 
formed from its preceding progress, which led them con- 
fidently to expect his acquittal (1. 12-18), also to the feel- 
ing which Paul had that his life mission was not yet ful- 
filled (i. 22, 24). We shall not, however, be wrong—in 
fact, will be giving simply the impression gained from all 
Paul’s statements about the matter—when we affirm an 
additional cause, namely, a longing desire on his part and 
a premonition which were not governed by any rational 
considerations (i. 19, 25). This third determining influ- 
ence, which played an important röle in Paul’s life, as it 
does in the life of every great man and of all men having 
the habit of earnest prayer (n. 4), is suggested in 1. 20; 
for it is not a common Christian experience confidently to 
hope that Christ may be glorified in one’s body, whether 
this body continue longer to be a dwelling-place or be 
immediately dissolved. Paul’s confidence is based upon 
past experiences (ὡς πάντοτε καὶ viv). Because in the past 
this frail and suffering body of his has been so often used 
as the instrument of Christ’s miraculous power, he hopes 
that it will be so to the end. Therefore he cannot believe 
that death will come to him in the deep, or at the hands 
of robbers (2 Cor. xi. 25£.,i. 10; cf. above, p. 318 n. 4), or 
in feverish delirium, but he looks forward with longing 
and with hope to a death which itself will glorify Christ, 
i.e. to amartyr’s death (John xxi. 19). Even more clearly 
does he direct attention in ü. 17 to this violent end, not 
as a possibility for which he and the Philippians must be 
prepared, but as the goal of his earthly life—not to be 
realised at once, to be sure, but certain to come in the end 
(above, p. 536 n. 4). While he speaks thus of his martyr- 
dom only as something which he earnestly desires and 
hopes for (i. 20), he feels confident, for the reasons 
already given, that death is not now imminent, but that. 
a period of activity lies before him. No trace of any 
doubt as to this outcome is to be detected in 11. 19-24. 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 547 


The trial is not yet at an end. For the time being 
all that Paul can do for the Philippians is to pray for 
them (i. 4, 9), and by the sending of Epaphroditus (ii. 25— 
30), as well as through the letter which Epaphroditus was 
to bring for the quieting of their fears, to strengthen and 
encourage them. When he is certain how the case will 
go, i.e. when sentence has been passed, he does not plan to 
go at once to the East and to Philippi, but trusts that he 
shall then be able to send Timothy to Philippi (ii. 23). 
When, now, he expresses his confident expectation that he 
himself will shortly come (ii. 24), the ταχέως is not to be 
taken too strictly, since the point of comparison is the 
sending of Timothy immediately after his case has been 
decided (ii. 23, ἐξαυτῆς). Furthermore, the manner in which 
Paul speaks here of Timothy’s relation to the Philippians 
and to his own apostolie work (11. 20-22), shows that this 
man, who had helped to organise the Philippian Church, 
was not going back simply for the purpose of conveying 
a letter and news, but that temporarily he was to take 
Paul’s place in Philippi while the apostle remained absent 
for some time longer. Finally, before he leaves Rome or 
goes to Philippi, Paul plans to await the return of Timothy 
from Philippi, hoping through him to receive good news 
from the Church there (ü. 19). Taking all these things 
into eonsideration, one must conclude that after the end of 
his trial Paul purposed to remain away from Philippi for 
at least some months, either intending after his acquittal 
to stay for some time in Rome, where he would then be 
able to prosecute his work with entire freedom of move- 
ment, or to carry out his long cherished plan of pressing 
out from Rome to the West (Rom. xv. 22-29). The 
former is the more natural supposition, since, if Paul had 
planned before returning to the East to take up a new 
work in the West, he could not have foreseen how soon he 
would be able to get release from it; so that for him to 
announce his early arrival in Philippi would have been 


548 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


strange (ii. 24, 1. 25), particularly since some time before 
he had announced his intention of visiting Colossz 
(Philem. 22, above, p. 454), which involved a journey from 
Rome to the East. Still these considerations are not 
decisive (see below, § 36). 

It is very evident that the situation depicted in 
Philippians could not have preceded, but must have 
followed that presupposed by Ephesians, Colossians, and 
Philemon (n. 5). When the latter were written Paul 
was engaged in preaching the gospel, supported by a 
considerable number of helpers; nothing is said of 
any external hindrances with which he had to contend. 
They quite confirm what is said in Acts xxviii. 30f. He 
does not ask the Christians in Asia to pray that such 
hindrances may be removed, but only that his preaching 
of the gospel may be of the right kind and followed 
by larger results (Eph. vi. 19£.; Col. iv. 3f.; indirectly, 
also, iv. 5f.). Since in Philippians there is no indica- 
tion of preaching activity on Paul’s part, indeed i. 14-18 
can hardly be understood in any other way than as im- 
plying that other missionaries in Rome had taken advan- 
tage of the interruption in Paul’s work (above, p. 592 f.), 
the inference is that the letter was written, not during 
the two whole years that followed his arrival in Rome 
(Acts xxviii. 30), but after their close, 1.6. later than the 
spring of 63. This conclusion follows with even greater 
certainty from the positive facts of which we learn in 
Philippians. If the trial, upon the outcome of which de- 
pended Paul’s fate and all his plans for the future, took 
place during these two years, then the entire representa- 
tion of the case in Acts xxviil. 30 f is misleading; for 
this passage gives throughout the impression that for two 
whole years after Paul was delivered to the commandant 
of the guard his condition remained practically unchanged, 
with no judicial investigation of his case. Moreover, 
assuming that the trial took place during these two years, 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 549 


it is difficult to understand why this trial, which at the 
time when Philippians was written was arousing the 
deepest sympathy on the part of those about Paul and 
of his distant friends in Philippi, and was being followed 
by all with the greatest imterest,—why this trial had 
no apparent influence upon Ephesians, Colossians, and 
Philemon. If Paul and all those about him, Christians 
and non-Christians alike, were correct in their judgment 
at the time when Philippians was written, he must 
have been set at liberty very shortly afterward, which 
excludes the possibility of Paul’s having written later 
during the same imprisonment letters in which his con- 
dition seems uniformly to be that of a captivity of in- 
definite duration, in which only once reference is made to 
the prospect of liberation (Philem. 22, above, p. 454), and 
that in a way purely subordinate and incidental. The 
supposition of the earlier date of Philippians is just as 
impossible if it be assumed that Paul and those about him 
were totally deceived in their opinion, or that some un- 
foreseen circumstance gave the trial an outcome different 
from that which they had expected. In that case he would 
have been either executed or banished to an island, or 
condemned to labour in the mines. Finally, another 
indefinite postponement of the trial after it had been begun 
in such’ earnest, and when it was so near decision, is ex- 
tremely dificult to conceive. And even if such a delay 
did take place, which at the time when Philippians was 
written seemed entirely impossible, there could hardly fail 
to have been some trace of it in letters written later during 
the same captivity, as well as of the bitter disappointment 
of Paul and his friends caused by this delay. But the 
most difficult thing of all to explain is how Paul, some 
weeks or months after he and his friends had been 
deceived in the expeetation which they had had of his ulti- 
mate release, —an expectation based upon good and suffi- 
client grounds,—how Paul could have expressed again, 


550 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


even incidentally (Philem. 22), the hope of being set at 
liberty without having the strongest grounds for enter- 
taining such a hope, and without stating to his distant 
friends the reasons why he felt that he and they would 
not be again deceived. Only one other possibility re- 
mains, namely, that the events upon which at the time 
when Philippians was written Paul based his definite ex- 
pectation of being set at liberty, took place in the interval 
between the composition of Ephesians, Colossians, and 
Philemon and the composition of Philippians. At the 
close of the two years (Acts xxviii. 30), during which 
Paul’s case remained in statu quo, in the spring of 63 
his trial began and soon took a turn most favourable to 
the accused, as set forth in Philippians. The indefinite 
hope which he had had of being set at liberty again, and 
of being able to visit the Churches in Asia (Philem. 22), 
has become a definite expectation. Whether this expecta- 
tion was fulfilled must be determined primarily by the 
investigation of the other letters attributed to Paul which 
have not yet been inquired into. 


1. (Ὁ. 540.) Phil. iv. 22, μάλιστα δὲ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας. Concerning 
the somewhat doubtful δέ, ef. GK, ii. 939. Although domus Cesaris (Cesarum, 
Augusta, Augustana, Augustiana, later domus divina) is the ordinary designa- 
tion of the imperial house in the sense of the ruling family with all its 
members, the expression which we have here (ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας, ex domo) never 
denotes relatives of the emperor. Such a meaning would be expressed by 
οἱ ἐκ γένους (OT πρὸς γένους, Clem. Hom. iv. 8, xii. 8, 15), or aq’ αἵματος 
(Philo, Leg. ad Οαΐ. χὶ ; Jos. Bell. i. 18. 4), or βασιλικοῦ γένους (Dio Cass. 
lx. 1. 3), or συγγενεῖς τοῦ Καίσαρος (Acta Thecle, xxxvi). It denotes rather, 
according to constant usage, servants in the imperial household. Im later 
times some of these might be of high rank, but earlier they were only 
slaves or freedmen (Philo, in Flace. v, Mang. ii. 522; Acta Petri et Pauli, 
ed. Lipsius, 104. 9, 106. 15, 193. 5; Hippol. Refut. ix. 12 beginning ; 
Inser. R. Neapol. No. 6912, “ex domo Cxesarum libertorum et servorum,” 
ete.; CO. I. L. vi. Nos. 8645, 8653, 8654; x. No. 1745). In Gregory’s 
Testament (Migne, xxxvii. 389), ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας μου γενόμενος is “my former 
slave.’ We must also remember that from the earliest times οἰκέται, like 
domestiei during the period of the Empire (Suet. Otho, 10 end; Tert. 
Apol. vii, xxxix), denotes the “ domestics” (cf., further, Lightfoot, Phil. 19. 165, 
169-176). It was not until after Nero’s time that certain court positions 
were filled by knights instead of freedmen, and it was later still before 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 551 


this came to be the rule (cf. Friedlander, Sittengesch.® i. 83 f.) ; consequently 
Phil. iv. 22 cannot refer to persons of knightly rank. The later tradition 
about equites Owsareani among the Roman Christians of that time (Clem. 
Hypot. on 1 Pet. v. 13, Forsch. iii. 83, 95) carries back into the times of Phil. 
iv. 22 conditions which did not arise until later. 

2. (P. 541.) On τὸ πραιτώριον, Phil. i. 13, see Marquardt, R. Staatsverw.? 
ii. 411, 475ff.; Mommsen, R. Staatsr.? ii. 863 ff. ; Lightfoot, 97-102. As a 
place it denotes originally the general’s tent and the part of the camp where 
this stands—the headquarters ; then the dwelling of any prince or chief offieial 
(Matt. xxvii.27 ; Mark xv. 16 ; Acts xxiii. 35 ; Acta Thom. 3, 17, 18,19; Tert. 
Scap. iii); finally, any particularly aristocratic, “princely ” building (Suet. 
Aug. Ixxii; Calig. xxxvii; Tib. xxxix in pretorio=Tac. Ann. iv. 59 in villa). 
When the emperor dwelt in such a building outside of Rome, it was occasion- 
ally so designated in the dating of an edict, as, eg., C. I. L. No. 5050 Bais in 
pretorio ; cf. Jos. Ant. xviii. 7.2. The view of the Antiochian commentators 
(e.g. Theodorus, ed, Swete, i. 206), that the imperial palace in the capital which 
was called palatiwm in their times, went by the name of pretoriwm in Paul’s 
time, is a worthless conjecture, unsupported by any examples. Still more 
untenable is the notion that ἡ Καίσαρος οἰκία (iv. 22, which, if for no other 
reason than the form of the phrase itself, οἱ ἐκ τῆς «rd. cannot mean a build- 
ing) is equivalent to τὸ πραιτώριον (i. 13)=7d πραιτώριον Ἡρώδου (Acts xxiii. 
35). This is the view of O. Holtzmann, ThLz. 1890, col. 177, who is 
quoted approvingly by Spitta, Urchristentum, i. 384. But a palace built by 
Herod in Cxsarea was far from becoming ἡ Καίσαρος οἰκία simply by passing 
over into Roman hands or by serving presumably as the procurator’s official 
residence ; still less were the people employed in this building of ἐκ τῆς 
Καίσαρος οἰκίας. Proof is lacking also for Wieseler’s view (Chronol. 403), 
that pretoriwm denotes the guardroom or barracks in or beside the palatium 
where one of the pratorian cohorts was regularly quartered (Tac. Hist. i. 24, 
29 [“cohortis que in palatio stationem egit”], 38; Ann. xii. 69; Suet. Otho, 
vi). Dio Cass. liii. 16, 5, like Polyb. vi. 31. 6f., translates pretorium by 
στρατήγιον ; but his meaning is simply that the emperor lived in the palace 
and had his headquarters there, not at all that a part of the palace was called 
pretorium. Nor can it be proved that this is used here as a name for the 
castra pretoria (Plin. H. N. iii. 9. 67) or castra pretorianorwm (Tac. Hist. i. 
31) outside of the Porta Viminalis, where since Tiberius’ time the whole 
guard had been quartered (Tac. Ann. iv. 2,7, xii. 36 ; Suet. ΤΊ. xxxvii; Schol. 
on Juv. x. 95; Dio Cass. lvii. 19. 6). To begin with, we are not to think of 
a place at all as referred to in Phil. i. 13, since the combination “in the whole 
preetorium and (among) all the rest”—especially in view of the fact that the 
second expression has no preposition of its own—is correct and natural only 
if pretoriwm indicates a class of persons. Furthermore, this corresponds to 
an unquestionable usage ; for pretoriwm, along with cohortes pretorie, is the 
regular name for the imperial guard. Moreover, expressions like prefectus 
pretorio, militare in pretorio, have nothing to do with a particular locality, 
and passages such as Tac. Hist. iv. 46 (“militiam et stipendia orant.. . 
igitur in preetorium accepti”) and Suet. Nero, ix (*ascriptis veteranis e 
preetorio”), which have been adduced to support the meaning castra pretoria, 
simply establish the meaning “guard.” Paul, from the time of his arrival 


552 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


in Rome, was probably guarded by soldiers from this body (Acts xxviii. 16) 
This passage in the other recension reads: ὅτε δὲ εἰσήλθομεν eis Ῥώμην, ὁ 
ἑκατόνταρχος παρέδωκε τοὺς δεσμίους τῷ στρατοπεδάρχῃ" τῷ δὲ Παύλῳ 
ἐπετράπη μένειν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς σὺν τῷ φυλάσσοντι αὐτὸν 
στρατιώτῃ (cf. Blass, Comm. 287; ed. min. 94. 9f.). The ancient Latin 
translation of this text gives for τῷ στρατοπεδάρχῃ principi peregrinorum 
according to one MS. (g=the so-called Gigas in Stockholm), and prefecto 
according to another (p=Paris, lat. 321), with which a Provencal version 
agrees. Even before the latter variant was known, Mommsen (Sitzungsber. d. 
Berl. Ak. 1895, 8. 495 ff.), following a suggestion of Harnack’s, not only 
collected all that was hitherto known about the princeps castrorum pere- 
grinorum, commonly called for brevity princeps peregrinorum, but also sought 
to show that the centurion Julius handed over Paul and the other prisoners 
to this princeps peregrinorum, declaring, on the other hand, that the traditional 
reference of στρατοπεδάρχης to the prefectus pretorio was “impossible histori- 
cally as well as linguistically” (498). In answer to this the following must 
here suffice : (1) The existence of a princeps castrorum peregrinorum (C. I. L. 
vi. No. 354), and of the troops and barracks of which he was the commandant, 
has yet to be established for the time preceding the reorganisation under 
Septimus Severus. The occurrence of the title in a Latin text of Acts xxviii. 16 
is no proof of an earlier date, for it is a hypothesis improbable and incapable 
of demonstration that there was any Latin translation of Acts before the 
death of Severus, 211 A.D. (ef. GK, i. 51-60). Besides, we do not know that 
prefechus or princeps peregrinorum dates from the first translator. (2) Inasmuch 
as this princeps peregrinorum occurs in a Latin text of Acts written at the very 
earliest a hundred and twenty-five years after the Greek original,—therefore, 
at any rate, not a translation resting on a knowledge of the events there 
related, and linguistically not a translation of στρατοπεδάρχης at all, but at 
best only a happily chosen quid pro quo, it cannot help us in our search for 
the meaning of the original writer. (3) As for the alleged linguistic impossi- 
bility of taking στρατοπεδάρχης as equivalent to prafectus pretorio, it is 
particularly to be emphasised that the Latin title in Luke’s time and long 
afterwards was rendered by the Greeks in many different ways (cf. Mommsen, 
R. Staatsr.® ii. 866, and the citations in Hirschfeld, Unters. z. röm. Verwaltwngs- 
gesch. i. 220-239). Josephus, Luke’s contemporary, uses various renderings 
(Ant. xviii. 6. 6, xix. 4. 6, xx. 8. 2), once having recourse to ἦν ἐπὶ τῶν 
στρατοπέδων (Ant. xix. 1. 6), in which connection it should be remarked 
that τὰ στρατόπεδα does not here mean castra, but is synonymous with τὸ 
στρατεύματα (xviii. 6. 6, xx. 8. 2), and this in turn with of σωματοφύλακες 
(xix. 4. 6); so likewise Luke (xxi. 20) understands by στρατόπεδα troops, 
while he terms their camp or barracks παρεμβολή (Acts xxi. 34, 37, 
xxii. 24, xxiii. 10, 16, 32, xxviii. 16). Herodian, a Syrian, and therefore 
fellow-countryman of the Antiochian Luke, uses regularly, besides the simple 
ἔπαρχος (i. 9. 10), ἐπάρχων τῶν στρατοπέδων, i. 16. 5 [in this one place 
ἔπαρχος τ. or.], iii. 10. 5, xiii. 1, iv. 12. 1 [rod στρατοπέδου], v. 1.2. Philo- 
stratus renders it in various ways (Vit. Apoll. iv. 42, vii. 16), once (Vat. 
Sophist. ii. 32) as of τῶν στρατοπέδων ἡγεμόνες. Why should not Luke have 
included in the one compound στρατοπεδάρχης What Josephus, Herodian, and 
Philostratus expressed by combining its various parts—especially since the 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 553 


word is used quite often to designate important commands (Dion. Hal. x. 36 ; 
Jos. Bell. vi. 4. 3; Luc. Conser. Hist. 22; Eus. H. E. viii. 4. 3, ix. 5. 2; Mart. 
Palest. ix. 2)? (4) The eye-witness who is speaking in Acts xxviii. 16 may 
have been none too well informed about military matters, or at least not 
specially conversant with the official titles; but he is certainly not speaking 
here generally of some officer of rank or of any barracks whatever, but of 
the one particular στρατοπεδάρχης in Rome, and of the one particular 
παρεμβολή. Consequently the former term must mean the prefectus pretorio 
and the latter castra pretorianorum. From the third century onward it was 
a fixed rule that the emperor exercised his jurisdiction through the prefectus 
pretorio (Mommsen, R. Staatsrecht, ii. 972, 987, 1120) ; but even before this it 
was so exercised in very many cases, cf. Traj. ad Plin. lvii (with regard to one 
who had appealed from the sentence of the governor: ‘vinctus mitti ad 
preefectos preetorii mei debet”); Spartianus, Severus, iv. 3; Philostr. Vit. 
Sophist. ii. 32. Whoever was so sent from the province to receive final 
judgment at the hands of the prefectus pretorio certainly had to be brought 
before him or his subordinates; and who but the prefectus pretorio or his 
subordinates could have had the task of deciding where and how those under 
accusation and those held for examination should be lodged and guarded in 
Rome? Paul was not sent to the imperial tribunal without a report from the 
procurator Festus (Acts xxv.26f.). To whom could the centurion Julius have 
delivered the prisoners and the report respecting them but to the prefectus 
pretorio as judicial deputy of theemperor? Previously, Mommsen (R. Staatsr.? 
li. 972, n. 2) decided from Phil. i. 14 (read rather i. 13) that Paul, like other 
“accused persons sent from the provinces to Rome for final judgment, was 
given over to the prefecti pretorio to be guarded.” Now that is “ historically 
impossible,” since, while the prefectus pretorio administered criminal justice, 
he had nothing to do directly with the superintendence of the prisons 
(Sitzungsber. 498, A. 1; 498, A. 2). But, asa matter of fact, Acts xxviii. 16 
does not refer any of these things to the stratopedarch ; it says simply that 
after Julius had reported with his prisoners to the commander-in-chief, and, 
as we are justified in adding, had delivered up the writ from Festus, per- 
mission was given to Paul, in distinction from the other prisoners, who were 
confined in the camp in question, to dwell outside the camp guarded by a 
soldier, that is, to find and rent quarters for himself (cf. xxviii. 30). The 
passive expression (ἐπετράπη) leaves it uncertain whether the prefect himself, 
or, as is more likely, one of his subordinates, decided upon the various dis- 
positions to be made of the prisoners. The Roman expounder of Paul’s 
Epistles in 370 A.D. (Ambrosiaster in his prologue to Eph. p. 231), who natur- 
ally had before him the old Latin text of Acts xxviii. 16, 30 (see above, p. 
552, line 5 f.), says of Paul incidentally : “quia veniens ab Hierosolymis in 
custodia sub fidejussore intelligitur degisse, manens extra castra in conductu 
suo.” To Paul, then, was granted at the outset a favour which was secured by 
Agrippa, later king Herod Agrippa 1., only after long imprisonment of a stricter 
kind and as a preliminary to his final release (Jos. Ant. xviii. 6. 10; Niese, 
§ 235, and Lightfoot’s discussion of the same, 101, as against Wieseler’s mis- 
interpretations). This case is very instructive for the study of Paul’s 
situation. By the emperor’s order the prefectus pretorio Macro arrested 
Agrippa (Niese, § 190 ; ef. Hirschfeld, p. 219, No. 6)—the event occurring in 


554 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Tuseulanum (Niese, 179). From that time on Agrippa was constantly kept 
in chains and guarded by soldiers, naturally of the pretorian guard (Niese, 
195, 196, 203, 204, 230, 233), and that, too, in the στρατόπεδον at Rome (235), 
i.e. the castra pretoria, until he was allowed after the death of Tiberius to go 
back to his former private dwelling, though still kept under guard (235). 
This latter was Paul’s situation during the two years. What form his 
imprisonment took at the end of this period so sharply defined by Luke is a 
question. Tradition is here silent. Yet we must conclude from Acts xxviil. 
30f. that Paul then ceased to live in his own hired house. He was not 
released, for at the time of Phil. he was still under arrest and in chains. On 
the contrary, his trial had now begun. If the prefectus pretorio as the 
emperor’s deputy conducted this trial, Paul must have been lodged either in 
the castra pretoria outside the Porta Viminalis, or, since the prafectus pretorio 
had to stay in the palace as a rule (Mommsen, R. Staatsr.3 11. 864 ; Dio Cass. Ixix. 
18, 2, ef. above, p. 551, n. 2, line 26, on Dio Cass. liii. 16, 5), in the guardroom 
of the preetorian cohort stationed there. The latter assumption is strongly sup- 
ported by Phil. iv. 22. The special greeting from Christians who belonged 
among the court servants, following the greeting from the narrower circle of 
his friends (iv. 21) and from all the Christians in Rome (iv. 22a), would then 
be explained by the nearness of the court. Still it is possible that for the 
“Romans” of Philippi (Acts xvi. 21) it would be of itself peculiarly inter- 
esting and a matter of encouragement to receive a greeting from Christians 
in the neighbourhood of the emperor. It would thus be borne in upon the 
anxious hearts of the Philippians that the Christian confession and thus also 
Paul himself at that time were not so much in danger at Rome as they had 
supposed. But be that as it may, it was not for a short time merely, but 
ever since his arrival in Rome, that Paul had had to do with the “ Praetorium,” 
and indeed with very many soldiers of that body one after the other. Thus, 
and thus alone, can Phil. 1. 13 be explained satisfactorily. Mommsen 
(Sitzungsber. 498, A. 1) holds it as indubitable that πραιτώριον should be 
understood as “the judicial board, the prefecti pretorio [there was only one 
at that time, Acts xxviii. 16] with their numerous assistants and subalterns ” ; 
but one would like very much to see examples from the usage of the first 
century which would confirm such a view. It does not agree well with the 
expression ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ, which suggests a large body such as the guard 
was (from Tiberius until Vespasian it consisted of nine cohorts of a thousand 
men each, Tac. Hist. ii. 93), and is at variance with the facts related above, 
which shows that Paul for more than two years had had relations with 
hundreds of preetorians in the ordinary sense of this word. 

3. (Pp. 542,545.) Itis not merely the words τοῦτό μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν, 
i. 19, which Paul borrows from Job xiii. 16, LX X ; as usual, he has in mind 
the whole context out of which he takes the expression ; xiii. 18 f. especially 
in his thought, and in his οἶδα we can even hear an echo of the words οἶδα 
ἐγὼ ὅτι δίκαιος ἀναφανοῦμαι (“that I shall be acquitted in the trial”), This 
determines the meaning of τοῦτο τε“ the legal process in which I am involved ” 
(essentially the same as τὸ [al. τὰ] κατ᾽ ἐμέ, i. 12; ef. ii. 23), and of σωτηρία 
=“ preservation of life” (Acts xxvii. 34), which in this case could be only ac- 
quittal by the judge. ΟἿ᾽, further, the writer’s essay, Z/KW, 1885, S. 300 f., also 
S. 108, 201, with reference to i. 7, 12. In i. 25, τοῦτο πεποιθώς can hardly be 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 555 
translated “firmly convinced of this,” “sure of this,” or “relying upon this.” 
Appeal to Bernhardy’s Syntax, 106 ; Kühner-Gerth, i. 309, A. 5 ; or to πέπεισμαί 
τι, Heb. vi. 9; or to πέποιθα, Rom. ii. 19 (ace. with inf.) ; Phil. ii. 24 (érv), 
cannot make up for the lack of examples of πέποιθα, with acc. In Phil. i. 6, 
αὐτὸ rovro=“ for this very reason.” Consequently the certainty expressed in 
i. 25 is not based upon the confidence in the judgment of i. 24; but along 
with this judgment, which is quite possibly only an erroneous judgment, is 
expressed the conviction: “And this I know assuredly, that.” (Cf. ii. 24, 
πέποιθα, of the same thing; Rom. xiv. 14, οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι.) The frequent 
recurrence of πεποιθέναι (in Phil. six times, in all the other letters seven 
times) is in keeping with his mood and situation. The construction with the 
dative, i. 14 (ef. Philem. 21; 2 Cor. x. 7), does not express the idea that these 
brethren put their confidence in Paul’s chains, which of itself would be hard 
to comprehend, but that they now took a hopeful view of these chains, and 
awaited an outcome of his imprisonment favourable both for Paul and for 
the progress of the gospel. Joined to μενῶ (-Ξ- ἐπιμένειν τῇ σαρκί, i. 24) in 
i. 25 is καὶ παραμενῶ, besides (needlessly amended in the Antioch text to read 
συμπαραμενῶ) added to introduce πᾶσιν ὑμῖν. It does not mean, however, 
“to remain with you all,” for Paul was not yet in Philippi; but παραμένειν 
retains its meaning “to continue in life ” (Herodot. i. 30 ; Iren. iii. 3. 4), and 
not infrequently in this connection (Plato, Phed. p. 115; Iren. ii. 22. 5 
παρέμεινε yap αὐτοῖς μέχρι τῶν Τραϊανοῦ χρόνων ; 11. 32. 4, παρέμειναν σὺν ἡμῖν 
ἱκανοῖς ἔτεσιν) ; therefore, “I shall continue in life, and, what is more, in 
fellowship and intercourse with you all.” 

4. (P. 546.) The supernatural agencies operating in Paul’s decisions 
and actions are emphasised not only in Acts, especially those passages where 
the narrator shows that he himself was present (xvi. 6-10, 18, xx. 23, xxi. 
8-14, xxiii. 11, xxvii. 23; cf. ix. 3-18, χη]. 2, 9, xviii. 9, xxii. 17), but also by 
Paul himself (Gal. ii. 2 ; 2 Cor. xii. 1-9, 12, i. 17; Rom. xv. 19). What he 
means by magnifying Christ in his body may be gathered from 2 Cor. ii. 
12-16, iii. 18, iv. 11, vi. 9, x. 3-6, 11, xii. 7-10, 12, xiii. 3-10; 1 Cor. v. 5, 
xv. 30-32 ; Gal. iv. 13-15, or from the narratives of miracles in Acts. 

5. (P.548.) Since Bleek, Lightfoot in particular, pp. 29-45, has advocated 
the view that Phil. was written earlier than Eph., Col., and Philem. He 
holds (38) that the outward condition of Paul at the time of Phil. is in no- 
wise different from that described in Acts xxviii. 30f., and to be inferred, it 
may be added, in Eph., Col., and Philem. ; but this, as has been once more 
demonstrated (above, p. 540 ff.)., is as untenable as the assumption that 
Paul’s prospect of release is not more strongly expressed in Phil. than in 
Philem. 22 (39). If Paul had had a definite prospect of release when he 
wrote Philem., he could not have left it wholly unexpressed in his other 
letters of that date, Eph. and Col. (above, p. 545); but aside from this, is 
ἐλπίζω then (Philem. 22) really equivalent to οἶδα, πεποιθὼς οἶδα, πέποιθα ἐν 
κυρίῳ, Phil. 1. 19, 25, ii. 24% Further, we must regard the letters written at 
the same time and addressed to Christians of the same place, Col. and 
Philem., and in a measure also Eph., as a single reflection of a definite 
situation ; how then can we compare the solitary line oceurring, not in the 
Epistle to the whole Church, but among some remarks at the close of a 
private letter, with the detailed description and argument in Phil. i. 12-26, 


556 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with the further assurance in Phil. ii. 24, and with the repeated reference to 
the contrast between absence and personal presence in Philippi, i. 27, ii. 12 ? 
Lightfoot’s single positive argument lies in his theory of a gradual develop- 
ment in Paul’s writings in respect of theological thought, polemic antitheses, 
and style, according to which he judges that Phil. has more in common with 
the older letters, Rom. especially, than with Eph. and Col. Here also this 
theory is plainly incompatible with the facts (see above, p. 200 f.). After 
what has been said in notes 1-3, it seems to the present writer to need no 
further proof that we cannot think of Phil. as having been written at a still 
earlier time, namely, in Cxsarea, especially as it must be accepted as proved 
that Eph., Col., and Philem. also were written, not in Caesarea, but in Rome. 
The arguments used above, p. 443 ff., to prove this latter point, only gain 
force when applied to Phil. Spitta (Urchristentwm, i. 34) finds in Phil. i. 30 
a proof that Paul has only lately become a prisoner. But Paul’s battle, of 
which the Philippians have lately heard, is not one which arises from his 
imprisonment, but from the change in his fortune denoted by the ἀπολογία 
(i. 7, 16)—those very events with regard to which he has enlightened the 
troubled Philippians in i. 12-26. A still stronger argument for the com- 
position of the letter in Ceesarea is held to lie in iv. 10 ff.; but such an opinion 
is overthrown by the ἤδη ποτέ, which points to a long interruption of the 
financial aid on the part of the Philippians (above, p. 525 f.). 


§ 32. THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE 
PHILIPPIANS. 


One would suppose that the inimitable freshness of 
feeling betrayed in every line of this letter, the natural- 
ness, even carelessness of its style (n. 1), the large number 
of facts hard to invent, regarding which the readers are 
not definitely informed, but which are touched upon and 
elucidated in a conversational way under the presupposi- 
tion that they are already known, together with the 
strong external evidence, particularly the evidence of the 
Philippian letter of Polycarp, a disciple of one of the 
apostles—might have safeguarded Philippians more even 
than the other Epistles of Paul against the suspicion of 
being the product of a later period. Hitzig, indeed, saw 
(Zur Krit. paulin. Briefe, 24) that Baur’s criticism lacked 
exegetical basis, and Holsten actually endeavoured by a 
new interpretation of the letter to secure such a basis for 
his own criticism, which in essentials agreed with that of 
Baur (n. 2). Baur directed his attention mainly to the 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 557 


passage so much discussed by theologians, ii. 5-11, which 
with all its beauty really has in the letter as a viele a 
very subordinate place, and contains scarcely more dog- 
matic material than is to be found in a sentence like 2 Cor. 
viii. 9. According to Baur, the author of Philippians 
here denies of Christ what Valentinus had taught concern- 
ing his σοφία (Paulus, 11. 51-59), although, as a matter of 
fact, Valentinus’ σοφία did not grasp after likeness to God, 
but sought to unite itself with the divine First Cause ; 
while, between the sinking of the baser part of this σοφία 
into matter and the self-emptying of Christ, there is 
nothing in common except the fact that both the Pauline 
kevodv ἑαυτόν and the Valentinian name for matter (κένωμα) 
are derived from the word κένος, According to Baur’s re- 
presentation, the author of Philippians, like the pseudo- 
Paul of Ephesians and Colossians, was influenced and 
governed by the very Gnostic ideas which he here seems 
in some measure to oppose ; and this view is maintained 
notwithstanding the fact that Philippians was adopted 
with some changes by Marcion into his N.T. (8. 51, 59, 
ef. above, p. 497 f.). Instead of admitting the natural 
agreement between Phil. iv. 15 and 2 Cor. xi. 8f., Baur 
finds (S. 62-65) the repeated relief of Paul by the 
Philippians, which he thinks had been arranged before- 
hand, to be in contradiction to the principles laid down 
in 1 Cor. ix. 6-18, apparently forgetting that the same 
contradiction exists between 1 Cor. ix. and 2 Cor. x1., 
and that to allow one’s self to be supported and paid by 
those who hear one’s preaching is, in fact, a very different 
thing from accepting the freewill offerings of a grateful 
Church towards the carrying on of new missionary work, 
that is, towards defraying the expenses of travel and 
making the preaching of the gospel without cost in other 
places. The indifference to false teachers shown in Phil. 
i. 15-18 is also found to be un-Pauline (Baur, ἢ. 72; 
Hitzig, S. 15). As a matter of fact, this expression of 


558 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


unselfish joy on the apostle’s part for the spread of the 
Christian faith in Rome shows that the preaching of all 
the missionaries who were working there, even those who 
were hostile to Paul, was in his judgment really a pro- 
clamation of Christ. The thing which he shows himself 
magnanimous enough to overlook is not the corruption of 
the gospel, but the unfriendly, to him painful, rivalry of 
certain preachers (above, p. 543). 

If, now, it be asked, what purpose there was in the 
forgery of the letter, a twofold answer is given. Baur— 
and at this point Hitzig agrees with him—finds this purpose 
to be—(1) the glorification of the extraordinary success of 
Paul’s preaching in Rome, and (2)—and at this point it is 
Holsten especially who follows in Baur’s footsteps—to 
lessen the opposition between the Jewish Christian and 
Gentile Christian parties. The former purpose is incon- 
ceivable, since throughout the entire letter nothing is said 
about Paul’s preaching in Rome. Neither the imperial 
guard nor the larger group to whom reference is made in 
i. 13 owed their conversion to the knowledge, secured 
through Paul’s trial and from contact with him, to the 
effect that he was not a violator of the laws of the State, 
but the representative of a religious doctrine relating to a 
certain Christ (above, p. 541). Furthermore, reference is 
made in i. 14-18 not to the spiritual success of the 
preaching, but to the favourable impression made by 
Paul’s defence before the court, and to its effect, not so 
much upon those who had heard Paul's preaching before 
his trial began, as upon the missionary activity of other 
teachers, some of whom were ill-disposed toward Paul. 
There is nothing to indicate that the royal servants 
(iv. 44, above, p. 550, n. 1), whom Baur makes relatives 
of the imperial house (ii. 65 f.), were converted through 
Paul’s influence, and a pseudo-Paul of the second century 
would not have regarded the privilege of conveying greet- 
ings from some servants of the court as any special honour 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 559 


to the apostle. This supposition, namely, that the author 
of Philippians meant to glorify Paul at the expense of 
historical accuracy, was further supported by Baur and 
others, by assuming as self-evident that the Clement men- 
tioned in iv. 8 was identical with the distinguished head of 
the Roman Church at the close of the first century, or was 
so represented, and by assuming that the latter was, or is 
here, represented to be the same as T. Flavius Clemens, 
related to the Flavian royal family, and consul in the year 
95 a.D., who was likewise a man of some note (n. 3). 
The latter identification is a fiction of the pseudo- 
Clementine Romances, which were written certainly not 
earlier than the year two hundred, and has no basis what- 
ever in fact. Even if the identification were possible, it 
would have no significance with reference to Philippians, 
since the person referred to in Phil. iv. 3 was an influential 
member not of the Roman, but of the Philippian Church, 
and so cannot be identified with Clemens Romanus. 

That the purpose of the author was to lessen the 
opposition between Gentile and Jewish Christians is 
likewise inconceivable; because in the one passage, 
where Jewish Christians are clearly referred to (ii. 2), 
they are spoken of in the severest tone of disapproval, 
and declared to be base enemies of Christianity. And 
those who are opposed to them as being real Jews both 
in feeling and by circumcision are not the Gentile Christian 
party, but Paul and his helpers (above, pp. 531, 538 f., 
n. 7). There is not a single passage in the letter con- 
taining exhortations to harmony or to co-operation among 
the members in which there is indication that there were 
differences of faith and doctrine in the Chureh which 
needed to be overcome (above, p. 529f.). In order to 
discover such opposition and an attempt to overcome it 
in iv. 2f., one must have recourse to an allegory of the 
most fantastic sort, and to an interpretation of words 
contrary to their natural sense (n. 4). 


560 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Not more successful in discovering a plausible motive 
for the composition of the letter have been the efforts of 
those who think that Philippians is made up of a number 
of letters or fragments of letters, some of them genuine, 
others spurious (n. 5). Before the original unity of the 
letter can be called in question, essential contradictions 
must be shown to exist with reference to the facts referred 
to in the letter; and before the genuineness of the whole 
or of single parts of the letter can be regarded as in 
doubt, it must be shown that there are ideas in the 
letter out of harmony with the Epistles generally con- 
ceded to be Paul’s. Like Corinthians and Thessalonians, 
this Epistle is not an essay, but a real letter, in which 
the succession of ideas is not always strictly logical. 
We should certainly be able to understand its details 
better if our knowledge of the correspondence between 
Paul and the Philippians which preceded it were derived 
from existing documents and historical reports, not simply 
from inferences drawn from the Epistle itself. However, 
what we do have is enough to show that Philippians is 
the product of actual conditions, which could not have 
been invented, and which are only partially reflected by 
the letter itself. 


1. (P. 556.) Genuine epistolary style is to be seen in the passages where 
reference is made to remarks of the Philippians without any quotation of 
them, or even a statement to the effect that they are the occasion of the 
discussion which follows, as in 1 Cor. vii. 1. The most striking of these are 
i. 3, ἐγὼ μέν (above, p. 535, n. 2; 1. 12, μᾶλλον, above, p. 528), also iv. 10. 
Observe the carelessness in sentence construction in i. 22, 27, 29, ii. 8, 14. 
It is also genuinely Pauline (cf. above, p. 516, n. 7) that certain expressions 
should recur very frequently in this short letter: πέποιθα (above, p. 555, 
n. 3); φρονεῖν ten or eleven times, in all the other letters twelve times ; 
πλήν three times, elsewhere only twice; κοινωνία, κοινωνεῖν, TUYKOLY@VOS, 
συγκοινωνεῖν Six times altogether ; χαίρειν, συγχαίρειν, χαρά sixteen times in 
all ; δέησις four times, in Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Col., 1 and 2 Thess., and 
Philem. altogether only three times, in Eph. twice, in 1 and 2 Tim. three 
times. 

2. (P. 556.) Holsten in JbfPTh. 1875, i. S. 425 ff. ; 1876, ii. S. 58ff., 
982 ff. The arguments of the Tübingen school are judged (i. 425, ii. 329 1.) 
to be in part incomplete, in part unfortunate, and on the whole deserving 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 561 


oblivion. The demand for a new interpretation (i. 426) is met by the con- 
clusion (ii. 372), “I have brought criticism back again to the basis of exe- 
gesis.” How it fares with this reconstructed criticism the present writer 
has shown by the citation of characteristic examples (cf. his Abhandlungen, 
Z{KW, 1885, S. 183, 186, 188, 189, 194, 201, 291). 

3. (P.559.) Baur (Paulus, ii. 66-72, 85 f.), Hitzig (11 ff.). In the groundless 
identification of this Clement of Philippi with Clement of Rome the moderns 
have been anticipated by Origen (tom. vi. 36, in Jo, ed. Preuschen, p. 163), who 
also recognised Hermas, author of the Shepherd, in Rom. xvi. 14 (Delarue, 
iv. 683), and Luke the Evangelist in 2 Cor. viii. 18 (see below, Div. ix.). But 
Origen certainly did not base his conjectures on such a monstrous assertion. as 
that of Baur (S, 66), that “neither history nor legend. knows of any other 
Clement at this time” (cf. above, p. 534). With regard to the relation between 
Clement of Rome and the consul T, Flavius Clemens, the present writer can no 
longer appeal unconditionally to what he wrote thirty-eight years ago in his 
Hirt des Hermas (S. 44-69). Lightfoot has the best discussion of the whole 
question, St, Clement (1890), i. 14-103. When it was brought to Baur’s atten- 
tion that there is no hint, that the Clement of, Phil. iv. 3 had any connettion 
with Rome, but that we should rather seek him in Philippi, he made a point 
out of this very thing against the genuineness of the letter (S. 86), holding that 
we cannot, tell where the persons whom it mentions belong ; as if the letter 
were to blame for this, and not rather its inattentive readers. There is not 
the slightest unclearness as to the whereabouts of Paul, Timothy, Epaphro- 
ditus, Euodia, Syntyche, Clement, the bishops and deacons (i, 1), the imperial 
guard (i. 13), or the brethren who were preaching Christ (i, 14-17). ‚The 
Judaists alone, against whom the Philippians are warned in iii. 2, are men- 
tioned without a hint of their local habitation ; and for the simple reason 
that reference is made not to individual persons, but to a whole class, which 
had its representatives throughout Asia and Europe. 

4. (P. 559.) Schwegler (Nachapost. Zeitalter, ii. 135), whom) Baur (ii. 72, 
86) followed, found in the women Euodia and Syntyche the Jewish Christian 
and Gentile Christian parties respectively, and in the “true comrade,” Peter. 
Volkmar (ThJb, 1856, 8. 810ff) on this theory explained. Evedia (from 
656s=doctrine) Ξε ὀρθοδοξία, ὀρθοδία, the Jewish Christian party, which con- 
sidered itself as alone orthodox, Zvvruoxn=consors, the Gentile Christians, who ~ 
had become partakers of salvation. Unsatisfied with this distribution of the 
characters, Holsten (ii, 71), without mentioning Hitzig, who (S. 10) considered 
that he had refuted Schwegler’s view by showing that the röles could be 
reversed, declared Euodia to be the Gentile Christian. party, which has 
always been on the right way, Syntyche the Jewish Christian party, which 
has met the former upon the right way, and the Synzygos, as his name 
implies, the one who yokes together (!), %.e. who has the task of uniting 
the Churches. Finally, Volter (7h7%j. 1892, p. 123) left the question open 
again as to how the two women’s names shall be divided between the two 
parties in question, and tacitly made the copyist’s error Εὐωδία, (instead of 
Evodia, above, p. 533, line 17) the basis for his interpretation of these names. 
But Hitzig (S. 5-10) had proved long before that the names in question came 
rather from Gen. xxx. 11, 13, namely, Συντύχη from Leah’s exclamation at 
the birth of Gad, Evodia from the name Asher., Since the LXX gives only an 

VOL. I 36 


562 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


uneertain support (ev τύχη) for the formation of the first name and none at 
all for Euodia, the author must have drawn from the Hebrew text. According 
to Hitzig (8. 9), he drew even the name of the mother of these sons of Jacob, 
Zilpah, into his etymological investigations, which included derivations from 
Armenian, Aramaic, and Arabic. Her name signifies “the foreskin.” Her 
daughters (sons they were in the history) Euodia and Syntyche are, then, two 
classes of Gentiles into which the Church was divided, the Roman or Latin 
and the Greek. The author, according to Hitzig, xiii.-xxi., belonged to the 
former class; for, in addition to his acquaintance with Oriental languages 
and his easy handling of Greek, he was very familiar with the latest’ produe- 
tions of Latin literature. Though writing no later than Trajan’s time, he 
had read, in particular, the Agricola of Tacitus, perhaps also the letters of 
Seneca and of Pliny. The only passages that can be compared are i. 16 with 
Agric. xli, “optimus quisque amore et fide, pessimi malignitate et livore”; or 
ii. 3 with Agric. vi, “vixerunt mira concordia per mutuam caritatem et invicem 
se anteponendo.” The presupposition of all these fantastic conceits is the 
claim that Euodia and Syntyche are unheard of proper names (made with 
especial emphasis by Hitzig, 6); but ef. the twenty-three or twenty-four 
instances of Euodia and the twenty-five of Syntyche above, p. 533. A longer 
search might perhaps yield double that number. Moreover, it was shown ~ 
above, p. 537, n. 6, that the nameless comrade was not to reconcile these 
women who were at variance, but to help them in their work. Even if Phil. 
were not a letter addressed by its founder to the Church in Philippi and 
received by it, but a literary fiction, and if there had never been in Philippi 
a Euodia and a Syntyche, a Clement and another comrade of Paul’s, who 
would have understood immediately what he wished to say to them, no 
reader could have found in the simple words of iv. 2f. the secrets which the 
crities have sought to find beneath their surface with such various results. 
This supposed pseudo-Paul must have intended at least to make himself 
understood. Holsten (i. 431) had no trouble in finding even in Phil. 1. 5 
the author’s endeavour to bring about the unity of faith which the Philippians 
lacked. The fellowship among the Philippians in the matter of the gospel, 
which, if we are to believe this passage, had existed since the founding of the 
Church, Holsten makes the subject of Paul’s prayers for them. To contend 
‘continually against such exegesis seems to the present writer as superfluous 
as it is vain (ef. the writer’s Abhandlungen, S. 189 ff). To characterise 
Holsten’s treatment of the Epistle as over-critical (P. W. Schmidt, Neutesta- 
mentl. Hyperkritik, 1880), seems uncalled for. 

5. (P. 560). After many suggestions had been offered which met with 
little response, D. Völter (Th Tij. 1892, S.'10-44, 117-146), sought to estab- 
lish in detail the hypothesis that Phil. consists of a genuine and a spurious 
letter of Paul to the Philippians, combined by a redactor with the aid of 
a few additions of his own. The genuine letter embraces, i. 1 (without 
σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις); vii. 12-14, 18b-26, ii. 17-20, 22-30, iv. 10-21, 
perhaps also ἵν. 23. The spurious letter, likewise addressed to the Philip- 
pians, and perhaps furnished with similar opening and closing greetings, 
embraces i. 8-11, i. 27-ii. 16, ii. 1b-iv. 9, 22. To this should be added, 
perhaps, a sentence to which Polycarp refers, ad Phil. xi. 3 (p. 29 ; see above, 
p. 535, n. 3). The redactor interpolated the Church officers in i. 1, also 


LETTERS OF FIRST ROMAN IMPRISONMENT 563 


i2'15-18a, ii. 21, tii. la. The spurious letter was written at the very earliest 
under Trajan, more probably not until Hadrian’s reign (S. 146), let us say 
about 125! Vélter does not think it worth while even to mention when the 
redactor made the combination which Marcion regarded as a genuine letter of 
Paul’s about twenty-five years after the writing of one of its component parts. 
Nor does he point out any more clearly an idea which could have suggested 
to the redactor his remarkable work, or an aim which he might have thus 
sought to attain. For the desire to commend a certain form of Church 
polity, which, it is held (S. 24), gave rise to the insertion of the bishops and 
deacons in i. 1, is discernible again neither in the other alleged interpolations 
of the 'redactor, nor in thé whole altogether aimless undertaking of making 
one letter out of two. The redactor, it is claimed, inserted iii. la as a 
transition to the section iii. 1b-iv. 9, introduced from the second letter. At 
the very moment, then, when he was preparing to insert into the exemplar, 
which he had been using, an exceedingly significant section, whereby the con- 
clusion must be deferred, he is made to declare expressly by the use of ro 
λοίπόν that he really had nothing more of importance to say, but was 
hastening to the conclusion ; and he is made further to use as a transition to 
the insertion from the second letter an exhortation to joy in the Lord, which 
certainly is not adapted to introduce the warning against Judaists. And it is 
this stupid compiler we have to thank for our Phil.! The postponement of 
the conclusion is explained naturally enough when we regard Paul as the 
sole author, and follow the hints which he himself has thrown out (see above, 
p. 529f.). There is no trace of two conclusions to the letter, which, of course, 
if they existed, would have to be assigned to two different letters. At any 
rate, the second alleged conclusion cannot be made to begin with iv. 10, where 
sentences follow which in themselves could stand just as well at the beginning 
of a letter (Polye. ad Phil. i. 1, imitates this very passage). It should rather 
begin with iv. 4, or with iv. 8, where the χαίρετε and λοιπόν respectively of 
iii. 1 are taken up again after the matters have been discussed which for a 
time delayed the apostle when he was already hastening to a close. Likewise 
the assertion, that in 1. 3-7 and i. 8-11 there are two introductions of similar 
content, can be made only by one whose linguistic knowledge is such that it 
can allow him to characterise the translation of 1. 4 f. (5. 33) (“whilelI.... 
remember in prayer your fellowship with regard to the gospel”), as adequate 
(ef. in refutation, above, p. 534, n. 2, and the writer’s Abhandlungen, KfKW, 
1885, 5.188). While in 111. 1 there is in reality an interruption of the thought 
which is indicated by Paul himself, Volter (S. 16) laboured vainly to point out 
a wide gap before i. 27. As in Gal. ii. 10, v. 13, μόνον introduces the mention 
of a duty upon the performance of which the applicability of what has been 
said before is conditioned. It is only on condition that the Philippians walk 
in a manner worthy of the gospel, and that, too, whether Paul is there to see 
it or is absent and only hears of it (cf. ii. 12), that their pride and joy will 
be increased by his intended visit to Philippi (i. 26). In the opposite case 
his visit would only bring shame to them and pain to himself (cf. 2 Cor. 
xii. 20-xiii. 10). In this way, as in Gal. v. 13, Paul makes a transition to an 
extended exhortation of independent significance (i. 27-ii. 18). But this 
comes in very fittingly between the description of his present situation and 
mood (i, 3-26) and the statements about what he intends to do in the future 


564 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW; TESTAMENT: 


in order to make his relation to the Philippians again, a more personal one 
(ii. 19-30, sending back of Epaphroditus, sending of Timothy, his. own 
coming) ; for the exhortations are plainly intended for this interval primarily, 
At first sight we might call iv. 10-20 a doublet of i. 3-8; but even if this were 
the proper designation of the relation of these two sections, analogies to it are 
not lacking even down to the trivial formula, “Thanking you again,” at the 
end of modern letters which have begun with an expression of gratitude. As 
a matter of fact, we see thatthe money which the Church had, sent by 
Epaphroditus was kept in mind: by, the apostle throughout the letter; again 
and again he refers to it (ii. 17, 25, 30). , But in i. 3-8, this is combined in 
such a way with other similar actions of the Philippians, that no one could tell 
that this was specially implied here unless he were acquainted with the facts, 
or at least had read iv. 10-20, thus coming to understand also ii. 17, 25, 30; 
indeed, only a purpose on Paul’s part to express.elsewhere in the letter due 
appreciation of this last gift of the Philippians, can explain why in i, 3-8 he 
merely refers to this along with other similar acts of the Philippians, and 
then only to say that on his part the prevailing mood was not depression, 
least of all dissatisfaction, which might lessen his copfiding love for thems but 
rather thankful joy. 


INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. 


— 


VIL. 
THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL. 


§ 33. THE FACTS PRESUPPOSED IN THE SECOND 
EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 


Ir seems best to consider the Second Epistle first, because 
it records more tangible facts than do either 1 Tim. or 
Titus, and because it is natural to attempt to establish 
an historical connection between this letter, which was 
written in prison, and the four letters which have just 
been investigated. 

When it was written Paul had been for some time in 
chains (1. 8, 16, 1. 9) and in Rome (i. 17). The primary 
cause of this imprisonment was his fulfilment of his apos- 
tolie calling (i. 12). His situation, however, is essentially 
different from that which obtained when Ephesians, Colos- 
sians, and Philemon, and even Philippians, were written. 
When he comforts himself and his friend regarding his 
present captivity by remarking that the word of God is 
not bound, but can and must continue its course (ii. 9), 
he does not refer at all to his own preaching activity as 
if it were practically unhindered by his captivity ; for this 

VOL. II. I 


2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


remark stands at the close of an exhortation to Timothy, 
not only to continue to preach the gospel unweariedly 
as Paul had done, but also to make provision for the 
further propagation of this preaching through other trust- 
worthy teachers (ii. 1-8). It is primarily because Paul 
himself is unable longer to preach, and because he will 
never be able to resume his preaching, that Timothy is 
urged to carry on the work with even greater zeal than 
heretofore (iv. 1-8). The other notices regarding Paul’s 
condition at the time also indicate that when 2 Tim. was 
written, preaching activity on his part was practically 
impossible. He is bound with chains like a criminal 
(ii. 9). A certain Onesiphorus from Asia Minor, who 
went to Rome to visit the imprisoned apostle and to 
alleviate his condition, had difficulty in reaching him. It 
required great devotion on Onesiphorus’ part even to 
ascertain Paul’s whereabouts, and unflinching courage, 
when he had found him, to visit him repeatedly, and to 
minister to his wants (n. 1). For some time at least 
intercourse between Paul and the other Christians in 
Rome must have been broken off. Probably one result of 
Onesiphorus’ self-sacrifice in seeking him, and placing his 
personal services or his means at the apostle’s disposal, 
was the restoration of communication between Paul and 
his friends by letter and by personal intercourse (n. 1). 
Luke is with him constantly (iv. 11). He had been able 
some time before to send Tychicus to Ephesus (iv. 12). 
He is able to convey the greetings of certain Roman 
Christians, and formally to extend those of all the Chris- 
tians in the place where he was (iv. 21, n. 2). Paul 
seems to have no doubt as to his ability to receive the visit 
and to accept the services of Timothy and Mark, if they 
reach Rome in time (iv. 9, 11, 21). The isolation, therefore, 
in which Onesiphorus had found Paul was relieved, but 
his personal condition, however, remained essentially the 
same. It was such that his friends near and far were 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 3 


tempted to break off and to deny their relations with him. 
Demas, who in Col. iv. 14, Philem. 24, is mentioned with 
the faithful Luke asa fellow-labourer of Paul’s in Rome, has 
now through love of the world deserted the apostle and 
gone to Thessalonica (iv. 10). Even Timothy needs to be 
earnestly exhorted not to be ashamed through cowardice 
of the testimony of the gospel or even of the imprisoned 
apostle, but, following his teacher’s example with strength 
and love, to endure the sufferings which the preaching of 
the gospel and his relation to the apostle might bring 
upon him (i. 8, cf. i. 7, 12, 1. 3, 12, ii. 10-12, iv. 5). 
Inasmuch as Onesiphorus, who meanwhile had died, is 
evidently held up to Timothy as a model in this regard 
(i. 16-18, n. 1), mention of the conduct of certain persons 
in the province of Asia, with which Timothy was familiar 
(i. 15), can only be designed as a terrible warning. Paul 
charged, naturally not all the Christians in Asia, but all 
of the group known to Timothy, as that of Phygelus and 
Hermogenes, with having turned away from him and 
having refused to have anything to do with him. From 
the context it is clear that here, as in the preceding 
exhortation to Timothy, and the praise of Onesiphorus 
which follows, the reference is to relations with the 
apostle, who at the time was in close confinement and 
serious danger. But we would have to know what 
Timothy knew (οἶδας, i. 15), in order to state what 
occasion Phygelus, Hermogenes, and their friends had for 
either acknowledging or denying their relationship with 
Paul ; and in order to say whether their unworthy conduct 
was due, as in Timothy’s case, to lack of courage, or, as in 
Demas’ case, to love of the world and desire to escape 
suffering, or whether their renunciation of Paul was the 
outcome of differences of opinion of a more serious character 
and of long standing (n. 3). However, from what has 
been said this much is certain, namely, that Paul had been 
for some time in prison, which at first had cut him off 


4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


from all communieation with the outside world, and finally 
was considered so dangerous that all his friends not ab- 
solutely trustworthy deemed it advisable to sever their 
connections with him lest they should become involved in 
his fate. This condition had apparently existed for several 
months, since it had not only worked this effect upon the 
feelings of Christians as far away as Asia, but the apostle 
in Rome had also been informed of the same, possibly by 
Onesiphorus. 

Difference of condition greater than that between the one 
described in Philippians and that which meets usin 2 Tim. 
can scarcely be imagined. In the former letter the state 
and progress of Paul’s trial gave new courage to all the 
Christians gathered about the imprisoned apostle to pro- 
claim their faith ; and even those who had little kindly feel- 
ing toward him were making abundant use of the favour 
shown the gospel through the trial of its foremost preacher 
(vol. 1. 542 ἢ). In 2 Tim. nearly all of Paul’s friends 
are withdrawing in fear. Even a person like Timothy, 
whom Paul praises so highly in Phil. 11. 20, is tempted in 
a cowardly manner to desert the apostle, and in so doing to 
forsake his calling. Just as striking is the contrast between 
Philippians and 2 Tim. as to Paul’s judgment concerning 
his present situation and his forecast of the future. Then 
he thought it certain that the trial which so far had pro- 
ceeded favourably to him would soon end in his acquittal. 
Now he is just as certain that his present imprisonment 
can only terminate with his martyrdom. Using the same 
figure that he had then used to describe the violent death 
which he thought he was destined to meet after a period 
of liberty and of new and varied labours (Phil. 11. 17; 
vol. i. 456), he now writes (iv. 6): “I am now being 
poured out as a drink-offering.” He is no longer in the 
midst of a heated and restless conflict (Phil. 1. 27, 30, 
iii. 12-14); he has ended this conflict and has run his 
course (iv. 7, cf. Acts xx. 24). All that remains now is 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 5 


for him to receive the victor’s crown, which is ready in 
the hands of the righteous judge to be placed upon his 
head in the day of judgment (iv. 8). He seems to expect 
that the decisive day will or may possibly be postponed 
for several months. If upon the reception of this letter 
Timothy sets out at once upon the long journey to Rome 
and reaches his destination before the beginning of winter 
(iv. 9, 21), probably he will find the apostle still alive, and 
the latter may be able for some time yet to make use of 
the articles which Timothy is instructed to bring (iv. 13). 
Any permanent change, however, in his present condition 
seems to be out of the range of possibility. For the brief 
span of earthly life that remains he relies also upon the 
protection of his Lord; the only deliverance, however, 
from the evil of this world which he expects at the hands 
of Christ is a translation into His kingdom above (iv. 18). 

It is on account of the near approach of his martyr- 
dom that Paul exhorts Timothy so earnestly to be unre- 
mitting in his efforts to preach the gospel (iv. 1-5 and iv. 
6-8). Exercising all the powers that he has, Timothy is 
to fill the place of the departing apostle. Mindful of the 
future, when Paul will be no longer alive, Timothy is to 
bear in mind his own calling (ii. 17, iii. 1-9, iv. 3), and 
to see to it that in his own time and afterwards there 
shall not be lacking other faithful representatives of the 
doctrine which he has received from his teacher, also men 
to take his own place when he is gone (ii. 2). In view of 
the fact that, during the hasty journey to Rome upon 
which presumably he would set out as soon as possible 
after receiving the letter, Timothy could not very well 
have acted upon the exhortations to be found in 2 Tim. 
i. 6—iv. 5, which form the main contents of the letter, it 
is clear that Paul was by no means certain that Timothy 
would find him still alive. It may have been his desire 
to cheer this discouraged disciple that kept Paul from 
mentioning expressly the possibility of his demise before 


6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


his arrival. But the letter which he writes is of the 
character of a last testament. In case of his death before 
Timothy’s arrival, this “ beloved child” (i. 2) of his is not 
to be left without a solemn, affecting, written statement 
of the last will of his spiritual father. It is this peculi- 
arity of the letter and the imminence of the apostle’s 
death which leads him more than once to reflect upon his 
own past and that of his disciple. Just as Paul regards 
his own Christian piety as an inheritance from his Pharisaic 
forefathers, so does he consider Timothy’s faith to be an 
inheritance from his Jewish mother and grandmother (n. 4). 
Timothy is reminded of the fact that, from his earliest 
youth, long before he came into contact with Paul and the 
gospel, he had been introduced to the knowledge of the Holy 
Scriptures by his pious mother (i. 15). He is reminded 
also of his conversion, his instruction by Paul, and his con- 
fession made before the assembled congregation at the time 
of his baptism (ii. 2, cf. 1 Tim. vi. 12), also of his dedication 
to missionary service by the laying on of the apostle’s hands 
(n. 5), and of the long series of years during which he 
had shared Paul’s labours and sutferings (iii. 10), special 
mention being made of the persecutions which Paul had 
endured at the time of Timothy’s conversion in Lystra, 
Timothy’s native city, and shortly before at Iconium, and 
Antioch in Pisidia (iii. 11, ef. Acts xi. 50, xiv. 5, 19). 
In this retrospect is to be included not only passages 
like i. 15-18, where it is expressly stated that the contents 
were known to Timothy, but also such a passage as iv. 
16f. That this latter passage is not to be considered as 
giving new information is clear from the lack of concrete 
and definite expressions, the somewhat figurative character 
of the language, and the rhetorical quality of the style, 
which is strikingly unlike that of the short notices and 
business directions that precede (iv. 9-15) and follow 
(iv. 19-22). The only related passage is iv. 18. Just 
before concluding the letter with a statement of the only 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 7 


thing which in existing eircumstances he could hope for 
from the Lord, Paul himself recalls and reminds Timothy 
of an earlier occasion when he had been in similar danger. 
In his first defence no one had stood by him, but all 
those who might have given him aid left him. Paul does 
not consider this conduct praiseworthy, nevertheless he 
does not threaten his enemy with divine judgment, as in 
the verse just preceding (iv. 14). On the other hand, 
speaking in a tone strikingly different from that which 
characterises other remarks apparently similar (1. 15, iv. 
10), he attributes this desertion to weakness, and prays 
God to forgive his friends. This incident is mentioned 
primarily in order to exalt the faithfulness of the Lord 
in contrast to the untrustworthiness of men (cf. ii. 13). 
The Lord alone stood by him then and strengthened him, 
and he was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. 
Because of the use of this figurative language it is not to 
be assumed that some definite person is referred to who 
might be compared to a lion, as the emperor Nero or the 
prefectus pretorvi, who represented the latter as judge, 
or Satan (n. 6). It means rather that at that time, by 
reason of the help which the Lord supplied him in his 
defence before the court, Paul was delivered out of ex- 
treme danger. ‘This proves that by πρώτη ἀπολογία cannot 
be meant the first stage of a legal proceeding still in 
progress when this letter was written. If after such an 
ἀπολογία Paul continued in prison under charges, particu- 
larly in the severe imprisonment and the hopeless condi- 
tion in which he was at the time of 2 Tim. and had been 
for some months preceding, then the words καὶ ἐρύσθην 
ἐκ στόματος λέοντος are meaningless. No matter how suc- 
cessfully, with the Lord’s help, he had defended himself 
in a first hearing, and no matter how strong the expecta- 
tion of an acquittal aroused by it in himself and others 
may have been, if, now, he were languishing in a dungeon 
with the definite expectation of being executed as a 


8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


eriminal, he had not been delivered out of the mouth of a 
lion, but only painfully disillusioned. Hence the first 
ἀπολογία must refer to a defence which Paul had made at 
an earlier trial, which by reason of his successful defence 
had ended in his acquittal and actual release. Conse- 
quently it could not have been his defence before Festus 
and Agrippa (Acts xxv. 1-xxvi. 31), nor a defence before 
the imperial court at Rome, which left him under arrest 
and increased his hardships, as these are described in 
2 Tim. and in no other of the captivity letters. 

The same conclusion follows, if possible with even 
greater certainty, from a consideration of the purpose of 
his deliverance stated in iv. 17. In standing by him and 
strengthening him in that trial which ended in his deliver- 
ance from extreme danger, the Lord designed, so the 
apostle thinks, that the proclamation of the gospel should 
be carried to its completion, so that all peoples should 
hear it. At the time of this defence this purpose had 
by no means been accomplished, either by Paul or by 
other missionaries. That, however, it would necessarily 
be accomplished, Paul and every other Christian, on the 
strength of the promise of Jesus, fully believed. The 
only question was by whom. If Paul succumbed in the 
trial, and was devoured by the lon, then it must be 
accomplished by others after his death. But m order 
that it might be accomplished by Paul—by him and not 
by someone else, as shown by the strong emphasis upon 
the δι &uoo—the Lord had stood by him, and enabled him 
successfully to defend himself; and in order that this 
purpose might be actually accomplished, he had been saved 
out of the lion’s jaws. It is very evident that nothing 
which followed upon his deliverance from the fanaticism 
of the Jews, through his appeal to Ceesar (Acts xxv. 11), 
is in any degree commensurate with the divine purpose 
here indicated. As a result of that deliverance he had 
been sent a prisoner to Rome; and it is possible that his 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 9 


skilful defence before Festus and Agrippa, and the report 
of it which Festus made (Acts xxv. 26, xxvi. 31), con- 
tributed much to his comparative freedom in Rome, and 
his unhindered preaching of the gospel for two years. 
But through that preaching no nation heard the gospel 
which had not heard it before. To the mixed populace of 
Rome, which Paul looks upon as an ἔθνος Ρωμαίων (vol. 1. 
373, n. 3), the gospel had already been brought at the time 
when Romans was written. This is even more true if, some 
time subsequent to the writing of Philippians, in conse- 
quence of his powerful defence before the imperial court, 
Paul was permitted to resume the work in Rome which 
he had carried on during the two years prior to the writing 
of Philippians, and which had been broken off. Unless he 
did more than obtain through his labours “some fruit” 
in Rome (Rom. 1. 13; vol. 1. 373, n. 3), where a Christian 
Church had long existed, and where numerous independ- 
ent missionaries were at work (Col. iv. 11; Phil. 1. 14-18; 
vol. i. 441, 543), he could not claim to have completed 
the Christian preaching. Rome was not the end of the 
world, nor the goal of the missionary plans which had been 
in Paul’s mind for so many years. On the other hand, he 
could not, at the time when 2 Tim. was written, have 
thought that the great purpose which the Lord had in 
view when He stood by him in the first defence, namely, 
the spreading of the gospel to all peoples by Paul, was 
yet to be fulfilled. For now all that he expects from the 
Lord is a blessed death ‘iv. 18). He has just said 
(iv. 7), and everywhere the tone of the letter implies, 
that his course is ended. Since, now, a pious man could 
not aseribe to the Lord a purpose which neither had been 
realised in the past nor in his judgment could be realised 
in the future, it follows that the purpose for which Christ 
had so powerfully sustained him in the earlier trial had 
been accomplished. Subsequent to the successful issue of 
his trial and his acquittal, Paul had resumed his mission- 


ıo INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ary work, and had preached the gospel in regions where 
heretofore it had not been preached, either by himself 
or by other missionaries. 

A similar conclusion follows from iv. 7. When Phil- 
ippians was written, Paul was full of energy and of the 
thought of progress, not only as regards his own moral and 
religious life (Phil. iii. 12-14), but also with reference to 
his work ; and .one reason why he believed he would be 
acquitted in the trial then in progress, and begin his 
course anew, was his knowledge that the cause of the 
gospel demanded a continuance of his life and his further 
labours (vol. 1. 541, 545). Now his course is ended. 
Just as his statements in Philippians were not due to any 
specially joyous mood, so it is impossible to explain those 
in 2'Tim. as due to a discouraged and gloomy state of mind. 
Indeed, the whole tone of 2 Tim. gives an opposite impres- 
sion. While Paul does write with deep feeling, it is a 
feeling which uplifts him, and is designed to enhearten with 
him the discouraged Timothy. The great difference be- 
tween the two letters in their outlook upon the past and 
future is due, not to feeling, but to fact. Now, from Rom. 
xv. 15-29 we know that at the beginning of the year 58 
Paul felt that his work in the regions about the eastern 
part of the Mediterranean was done, and it was under the 
influence of this feeling that he entertained the purpose 
and hope of carrying out a plan which he had had in mind 
for some years, namely, of continuing his work west of the 
Adriatic. Rome was to be only a stopping point on the 
way ; the goal which he had primarily in mind was Spain 
(Rom. xv. 24, 28). How could Paul say that he had 
finished his course if he had remained continuously in 
Rome, where he is now about to be executed! If Paul 
wrote both Rom. xv. and 2 Tim. iv., then from 2 Tim. 
iv. 7 it may be certainly concluded that Paul regained his 
liberty as he expected when he wrote Philippians, and 
visited, among other places, Spain. 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 11 


The language in which Paul describes the purpose 
which the Lord had in standing by him in his earlier trial, 
which purpose, as we have seen, had actually been accom- 
plished in the interval between his trials (iv. 17), seems 
somewhat exaggerated. It is to be judged, however, in 
comparison with Paul’s language elsewhere, and by that 
of his contemporaries. It was considered that the gospel 
had been preached to a people or a country when it had 
been received in a number of places, and Churches had 
been organised (n. 7). Thus, for example, in the year 58 
Paul felt that there was no further room for missionary 
work (at least for missionary work of the kind that he was 
specially commissioned to do, namely, the laying of the 
foundations) in all the region from Jerusalem to [lyricum 
(Rom. xv. 19,23). There is no consideration of the regions 
lying inland from the civilised countries along the coast, 
nor of barbarians outside of the Roman empire, it evi- 
dently being taken for granted that the work of preaching 
the gospel in these vast regions, as yet very little known, 
should fall to the Churches that had been organised in the 
more civilised provinces. It is also to be borne in mind 
that, as is indicated by the letters to the Churches in the 
province of Asia, Paul regarded as his own the work done 
from centres where he laboured by helpers associated with 
him, considering the Churches thus organised as under 
his jurisdiction (vol. 1. 449, n. 3), This throws light 
upon the statement in 2 Tim. iv. 10, that Titus at that 
time had gone to Dalmatia, and a certain Crescens to 
Gaul (n. 8). There is no indication that they, like Demas, 
had deserted the apostle and sought safety for themselves ; 
or that, like Tychicus, they had been sent by the apostle 
upon some special errand (iv. 10a, 12). In either case 
it would be a question why they went to these par- 
ticular countries, with which, so far as we know, Paul, 
up to this time, had never had anything to do. The 
probability is that Titus, who had long been associated 


ı2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with Paul (Gal. i. 3), who, as his commissioner, had 
executed difficult offices in Corinth (2 Cor. vil.-ix. ; vol. i. 
308 ff., 329 f.), and who, as we shall see, not very long 
before 2 Tim. was written had completed some missionary 
work in Crete that had been begun by others, had gone 
as a missionary and as Paul’s representative and helper to 
Dalmatia. It is also probable that the unknown Crescens 
went for a similar purpose to Gaul. If, by this means, 
beginnings of Church organisations had been made west- 
ward, north-westward, and north-eastward from Rome, in 
Spain by Paul himself, in Gaul by Crescens, in Dalmatia 
by Titus, then, in reality, the missionary map had been 
very much changed since Paul’s first defence. Mention is 
made of these facts in a purely incidental way, without 
any intention on the writer’s part of giving his readers 
information. Consequently to us they lack in clearness. 
To attempt from such incidental hints to estimate what 
actual events lie behind the sonorous words of 2 Tim. 
iv. 17 would be presumptuous. The omission, for ex- 
ample, of any reference to preaching in the province of 
Africa is less strange than the failure to mention Alex- 
andria and Egypt in Rom. xv. 19, 23, although, as a 
matter of fact, we know that Paul never visited- these 
places (vol. i. 377, n. 11). We know enough, possibly, 
to render 2 Tim. iv. 7, 17 intelligible, but by no means 
enough to test the passage by actual history. 

By “apology” in 2 Tim. iv. 16 (ef. Phil. 1. 7, 16) is to 
be understood not a single hearing nor a single speech of 
defence made at this hearing, as distinet from subsequent 
hearings and speeches in the course of the same trial, but 
an entire legal defence made at an earlier trial, now ended, 
and to be distinguished from the trial in which Paul was 
involved at the time when 2 Tim. was written. What 
Paul says in this letter about the conduct of his friends 
at the time of his first defence does not contradict what 
is said in Philippians. The joyful and courageous state 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 13 


of mind which at that time had taken possession of those 
about Paul (Phil. 1. 12-18; vol. i. 542) was only the 
result of a favourable turn which, contrary to expectation, 
his trial had recently taken because of his successful  self- 
defence. When the trial began and Paul was deprived of 
the liberty which he had enjoyed for two years, the mood 
of the Christians in Rome must have been very different. 
From Philippians we learn something of the apprehensive 
reports which reached the Philippian Christians from Rome. 
Furthermore, it would have defeated the purpose of Phil- 
ippians had Paul, instead of emphasising the favourable 
aspects of his trial, and the hope of release, which condi- 
tions at the time justified him in entertaining, complained 
that, at the decisive moment, which now fortunately was 
past, no one of his friends had had the courage to take 
sides with him before the court, either as a witness for 
him or as his advocate. This weakness he forgave at 
the time, as he confesses in 2 Tim. iv. 16. On the other 
hand, there is no indication that any of his friends had 
contributed aught to the successful progress of his trial 
(Phil. 1. 12 6). He and he alone seems at that time to have 
represented his own cause and that of the gospel before 
the court (Phil. i. 7, 16); while, for the final decision of 
the court, which he still awaits, and in the further hear- 
ings necessary to this end, he depends only upon the 
petitions of his fellow-Christians and the fact that the 
Holy Spirit will put the right words into his mouth (Phil. 
1.19; vol. 1. 544). This is in perfect keeping with the 
retrospect in 2 Tim. iv. 16f. Considering the trial as a 
whole, Paul can say, “ The Lord alone stood by me, and 
strenethened me; and so | was delivered out of the lion’s 
mouth.” If 2 Tim. is genuine, it follows that the im- 
prisonment in which Paul found himself at the time when 
it was written was not a continuance of that during which 
Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, and, somewhat later, 
Philippians were written, so that the expectation so 


14 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


strongly expressed in Philippians must have been realised 
and that after the ensuing acquittal by the imperial court, 
he had used his regained freedom, among other things, 
to resume his missionary labour, and in carrying out his 
original plan to preach the gospel in the West. 

During this interval Paul was also in the East, as he 
expected to be when he wrote Philippians (Phil. 1°25 £., 
ji. 24). If it be clear both from the connection and tone 
of iv. 9-13 and iv. 19-21 that the facts here mentioned 
were not already familiar to Timothy, but that the com- 
munications and reports were quite as new to him as 
were the accompanying instructions, then special import- 
ance attaches to the notice that Paul had left Trophimus 
behind in Miletus sick (n. 9). This man, who was an 
Ephesian, had accompanied Paul upon the journey from 
Macedonia through Miletus to Jerusalem, which ended 
with the apostle’s arrest, and had reached Jerusalem 
with him (Acts xx. 4, 15-38, xxi. 29); so that on this 
journey he could not have been left behind at Miletus 
sick. Even if, on this point, the account in Acts, which 
in other respects is credible enough, be considered entirely 
untrustworthy, it is quite impossible to understand how, 
five years later, Paul could communicate this as a piece of 
news to Timothy, who, together with Trophimus, had aec- 
companied the apostle on this journey, and had since 
resided with him in Rome (Col. i. 1; Philem. 1; 1 Philsnal; 
ji. 19-23). We therefore assume that, after he was set at 
liberty from his Roman imprisonment, and not very long 
before 2 Tim. was written, Paul must have been with Tro- 
phimus at Miletus. From the close connection between this 
communication and the statement that Erastus remained in 
Corinth, it is necessary also to assume that on this same 
journey Paul touched at Corinth, being accompanied as far 
as this point by Erastus, who, as we learn from Rom. XV1. 
23, was treasurer of the city of Corinth, and, from Acts 
xix, 22, a temporary helper of the apostle. That the present 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 15 


notice does not have reference to the journey of Erastus 
from Ephesus to Corinth about Easter 57, mentioned in 
Acts, and to the departure of Paul from Corinth for 
Jerusalem about Easter 58, is clear from the close con- 
nection between this notice and the news about Trophimus. 
It is also shown by the fact that Erastus was accompanied 
by Timothy on that journey to Corinth, and that Timothy 
accompanied Paul on his return from Corinth to Macedonia 
and thence to Jerusalem, so that if Erastus, who is not 
mentioned in Acts xx. 4, failed on this occasion to accom- 
pany Paul and Timothy and the representatives of the 
contributing Churches, but remained behind in Corinth, 
Timothy must have known it at the time. Of course it 
was perfectly possible for Paul to remind Timothy of this 
fact at some later time, if there was any clear reason for 
it, or if he wanted to use it for some practical purpose. 
But merely to state a fact with which Timothy was per- 
fectly familiar, five years after the event in question took 
place, would be senseless. For the same reasons the 
sending of Tychicus from Rome to Ephesus, iv. 12, is not 
to be identified with the sending of the same person to 
the province of Asia, of which we learn in Eph. vi. 21; 
Col. iv. 7; for, in the latter case, Timothy was with 
Paul at the time (Col. 1. 1; Philem. 1). The refer- 
ence must therefore be to a later journey of Tychicus. 
Similarly the sojourn of Paul in Troas, presupposed in 
iv. 13, must have been of very recent date, and cannot 
be identified with the visit the account of which is given 
in Acts xx. 6-12. On the latter occasion Paul was 
accompanied by Timothy, of which there is no hint in 
2 Tim. iv. 13. Moreover, the nature of the errand with 
which Timothy is here charged argues against the assump- 
tion that at least five years had elapsed since Paul was in 
Troas. Timothy is to bring with him from Troas, at 
which pomt he will touch on his journey to Rome, a 
cloak, certain books and leaves of parchment, which the 


16 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


apostle had left there in the hands of one Carpus.. From 
the exact enumeration of the articles, the special mention 
of the parchments, which probably contained. written 
notes (GA, ii. 938 f.), it is to be inferred that the things 
in question were especially needed by the apostle. Evi- 
dently he needed the warm cloak for the coming winter 
(iv. 21), and how is it conceivable that he would allow 
himself to be any longer than necessary without books 
and notes which were important enough to be taken with 
him on his journeys and to be sent for from Rome to 
Asia. That Paul should have left them for more than five 
years in the hands of Carpus without making any effort 
to get them, is inconceivable. Paul’s intercourse with 
the Churches in Asia, during his two years’ imprisonment 
in Ceesarea, which was nearer than Rome, was at least 
as frequent as it was during his Roman imprisonment. 
Tychicus was sent from Rome to visit most of the Churches 
in the province of Asia (vol. i. 481), so was probably in 
Troas, afterward returning to Rome. Sometime before 
this Onesiphorus had journeyed from Asia Minor, perhaps 
from Iconium, to Rome. His way thither would have led 
him through Troas and Philippi, a route which was taken 
by Timothy soon afterwards, according to Paul's presup- 
position, and some fifty years later by Ignatius. Other 
friends of Paul’s, e.g. Epaphras (Col. 1. 7, iv. 12), may have 
travelled by the same route. During the course of these 
five years or more he must have had abundant opportunity 
to get back the things that had been left behind in Troas. 
Consequently, the only natural supposition is that Paul 
had been in Troas not long before 2 Tim. was written, 
and had left these things there. ‘This conclusion is con- 
firmed by a consideration of what follows in iv. 14 Since 
the remark about the smith Alexander ends with a warn- 
ing to Timothy against him, and since, as soon as possible 
after receiving the letter, Timothy is to set out upon a jour- 
ney to Rome, Alexander could not have been in the place 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 17 


where Timothy was, and which he was about to leave. 
Neither could he have been in Rome, for in that case Paul 
could have warned Timothy against him much more 
effectively after the latter’s arrival. He is to be sought, 
consequently, in one of the places at which Timothy is to 
touch on his way to Rome; and since Troas has just been 
mentioned as one place at which Timothy is to stop and 
perform an errand for Paul, the natural supposition is that 
Alexander was to be found there This explains the 
sequence of thought. The errand which Timothy is to 
perform in Troas makes Paul think of his own last 
residence there, and recalls the opposition he had en- 
countered from Alexander. It is natural to suppose that 
this hostility had compelled him to leave Troas in haste, 
and so had caused him to leave his things behind. 
There follows very naturally the exhortation to Timothy 
to beware of this hostile person, a warning which is 
emphasised by the statement that Alexander had resisted 
the preaching of Paul and his helpers to the utmost, con- 
sequently was not so much a personal enemy of Paul’s as 
a sworn foe of the apostolic doctrine (n. 3). Therefore, 
Timothy also is to beware of him. From the contrast 
between “me” and “thou also” we infer that Timothy 
had not shared with Paul this hostility of Alexander in 
Troas, and so was not with Paul in Troas at the time. 
Consequently, whether he had heard of the matter before 
or learned of it now for the first time from Paul’s letter, 
so far as he was concerned personally he had had no 
occasion to encounter Alexander’s enmity. We conclude, 
therefore, that, after being released from his long im- 
prisonment, Paul had gone to Troas, Miletus, and Corinth, 
in each case unaccompanied by Timothy. 

But that Paul did not see Timothy at all on this 
journey is altogether unlikely. When Phil. ii. 19 was 
written, Paul was planning to send him to Philippi. From 
1 Tim. i. 3 (ef. 2 Tim. i. 18) we learn that subsequent to 

VOL. II. 2 


18 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


this visit he remained continuously in Ephesus, and from 
1 Tim. iii. 14, iv. 13, that Paul was intending to visit him 
there (§ 34). In the meantime Paul had been in Troas and 
Miletus (2 Tim. iv. 13, 20). Very extraordinary eircum- 
stances, therefore, must be assumed in order to maintain 
that Paul was prevented on this occasion, as he had been 
on a previous occasion (Acts xx. 16), from visiting Ephesus, 
or that Timothy, in case he left Ephesus in the meantime 
against Paul’s wishes, or in case Paul was prevented from 
coming to Ephesus, was unable to arrange a meeting with 
him somewhere else. It is also to be noticed that in con- 
nection with the longing expressed in 2 Tim. 1. 4 to see 
Timothy again, Paul mentions his sorrowful recollection of 
Timothy’s tears. The only natural inference is that not 
long before Timothy had taken tearful leave of Paul; a scene 
which will not be forgotten until, as Paul hopes, he shall 
greet Timothy again in Rome. Where this painful separa- 
tion took place we do not know, only, as has been shown, 
it could not have been in Troas, or Miletus, or Corinth. 
Furthermore, where Timothy was at the time 2 Tim. 
was written we can only conjecture. If on his journey to 
Rome he was to pass through Troas (2 Tim. iv. 13-15), 
he must have been somewhere in Asia Minor, but hardly 
at Ephesus (n. 10). Nothing is said in 2 Tim. about the 
oversight of the Church, such as Timothy is represented 
as exercising at Ephesus in 1 Tim. Moreover, if Timothy 
had been at Ephesus, Paul could not have failed to mention 
in 2 Tim. iv. 12 that Tychicus, whom he had sent to Ephesus, 
would see him, particularly if Tychicus brought 2 Tim. 
(ef. Col. iv. 8; Eph. vi. 22; Phil. ii. 19, 25 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17). 
If, however, as is more probable, Tychicus left Paul after 
2 Tim. was despatched, it is difhcult to understand why 
Paul did not inform Timothy of Tychicus’ coming, pro- 
vided that Paul expected Tychicus to meet Timothy in 
Ephesus. Furthermore, the report that Trophimus had 
heen left behind in Miletus (iv. 20), and the manner in 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF) PAUL 1G 


which Paul speaks of the events that had taken place in 
Troas (iv. 13-15), are most naturally explained, if at 
the time when these things happened and subsequently 
Timothy was living at some distance from the coast cities. 
If Onesiphorus’ home was Iconium (n. 1), the greeting 
sent to him (iv. 19) would indicate that at the time 
Timothy was at or near Iconium, possibly at his home 
in Lystra. In order to convey such a greeting, Paul 
could not have urged Timothy to take so long a journey 
as that from Ephesus to Iconium. 

Quite different is the case with reference to the greeting 
to Prisca and Aquila (iv. 19). Since coming into contact 
with Paul, this coupie had already changed their place of 
residence twice in the interest of his missionary work and 
of the Churches. They had gone from Corinth to live 
in Ephesus, and thence back to Rome, whence they had 
originally come to Corinth (vol. i. 389 f.). Τῇ they 
were now in the Hast again, it is at least likely that they 
had returned to Ephesus, where earlier they had spent at 
least three years. Journeying from Iconium or Lystra by 
way of Troas to Rome, Timothy would touch at Ephesus, 
and so could convey the greeting which Paul sent to 
Prisca and Aquila. 

The investigation of the trustworthiness of all these 
statements, and the endeavour to brine them into an 
historical connection with one another and with other 
known facts, must be deferred until the facts to be found 
only in 1 Tim. and Titus have been stated. 

1. (Pp. 2, 3, 19.) Cf. Acts xi. 25 with 2 Tim. i. 17; in the latter, however, 
the stronger expression σπουδαίως ἐζήτησεν points to even greater difficulties 
which had to be overcome before the well-nigh lost apostle could be found, 
The ἀναψύχειν, i. 16 (cf. Ign. Eph. ii. 1, where it occurs along with the Pauline 
dvaravew, 1 Cor. xvi. 18; 2 Cor. vii. 13; Philem. 7, 20; οἵ, Ign. Trall. 
xii.1; Magn. xv. ; Smyrn. ix. 2, xii. 1) can of itself indicate bodily as well as 
spiritual refreshing. The aim of such a long journey, however, can only have 
been to ascertain Paul’s outward condition, and to ameliorate it as far as 
possible (ef. Phil. ii. 25, 30, iv. 10-20; Acts xxiv, 23, xxvii. 3). This certainly 
involved gifts to the jailers to make sure that they would give him friendly 


20 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


treatment and all reasonable liberty. Paul would not have suffered him tc 
bribe the judge even if it had been possible (Acts xxiv. 26). But even a 
Christian like Ignatius, who so passionately longed for martyrdom, does not 
conceal the fact that the soldiers who were conducting him were induced to 
treat him well by gifts and entertainment, ad Rom. ν. 1; ef. Mart. Polye. vii. 2; 
Passio Perpetue, chap. iii. 16 (ed. Robinson, 64. 15, 84. 22 ff.) ; Acta Pronit, xi. 
3f. (Acta mart. selecta, ed. Gebhardt p. 104 f.); Lucian, Peregrin. 12 ; Const. 
apost.v. 1. We do not know whether Onesiphorus was commissioned by some 
Chureh to do this or not ; equally uncertain is it whether it was on this journey 
or earlier that he found occasion to do a service to someone in Ephesus, such 
as he had just done to Paul (i. 18). All that we know of his home is that it 
was somewhere in Asia Minor, i. 15-18, iv. 19. The Acts of Paul (Acta Theelee, 
i.-vil., xv., xxlii., xxVvi., xlii.), represents Onesiphorus as a citizen of Iconium, 
in whose house Paul found quarters and preached to the Church. The author 
of this work certainly could not have gathered this from 2 Tim., nor even 
have conjectured it from this source, and it is true that elsewhere he com- 
bines independent traditions with statements from the N.T. (@K, i. 788, ü. 
892-910 ; Forsch. v. 97, A. 1). The Jew Onesiphorus, the host of Peter and 
Andrew in Ancyra, or in the land of the barbarians, is a worthless imitation 
of this representation (Suppl. cod. apocr., ed. Bonnet, ii. 9; Acta apost. apocr., 
ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part 1. 123 ff.). Since Paul sends greeting, not to 
Onesiphorus, but only to his family (iv. 19), and in praying that the Lord 
will reward his devotion speaks of his family first (i. 16), and mentions him 
only in connection with the judgment day (i. 18), it follows that Onesiphorus 
had died since his arrival in Rome, and that Timothy already knew of it. 
Certain minuscules (Tischendorf, 2 Tim. iv. 19) have borrowed from the 
Acta Thecle, chap. ii., the names Lectra, the wife of Onesimus, and Simmias 
and Zeno, his sons. Amphilochius of Iconium (in Ficker, Amphilochiana, 1. 
56f. cf. S. 111-135) mentions the house of Onesiphorus at Iconium as an 
example of the fact that the Apostles often used a heathen house asa church. 

2. (P. 2.) Of the four names in 2 Tim. iv. 21, Linus is the only one 
upon which history throws any light. Considering the great rarity of this 
Greek mythological name (Herodot. ii. 79) as a proper name for persons 
(©. I. Gr. No. 8518, p. 261, line 53; I. Gr. Sic. et It. No. 2276), we can hardly 
doubt that here, as Irenzeus directly asserted, the same Roman Christian is 
meant who, according to ancient tradition, became, after Peter (and Paul), the 
first bishop of Rome (Iren. iii. 3. 3; Eus. iii. 2, v. 6; pseudo-Tert. c. Mare. 
iii. 277 ; Epiph. Her. xxvii. 6; Lib. pontif., ed. Duchesne, i. 3, 53, 121, where 
is found also a discussion about a sarcophagus found in the seventeenth 
century, having, as alleged, the inscription Linus; cf. V. Schultze, Arch. 
Stud. 235-239; Erbes, ZfKG, vii. 20). His name does not occur in the 
remains which are left us of the older Acts of Paul and those of Peter. How- 
ever, a Latin recasting of the closing part of the Gnostic Acts of Peter was 
ascribed to him, also of the last part of the Catholic Acts of Paul, though less 
definitely (Acta Petri, ete., ed. Lipsius, pp. 1-44; cf. GK, ii. 833 ff., 872). 
Among the mythical characters in Const. ap. vii. 46 occurs Λίνος ὁ Κλαυδίας, 
who is declared to have been ordained by Paul as the first bishop of Rome. 
He is thus represented as the son (or husband) of the Claudia whose name 
comes after his in 2 Tim. iv. 21. These meagre statements have been 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 21 


enlarged upon by English investigators. The Claudia mentioned here is, 
they hold, identical with the one who, according to Martial, Epigr. iv. 13, 
married a certain Pucens (85-90 A.D.), and she in turn with the Claudia 
Rufina from Britain in Epigr. xi. 53, who is then made out to be a daughter of 
the British king Cogidumnus (Tae, Ayrie. xiv.) or [Titus] Claudius Cogidubnus 
(€. I. L. vii. No. 11). For a refutation of these assumptions, which even 
chronologically considered are impossible, see Lightfoot, St. Clement, i. 76-79. 
As a matter of course there were countless Claudiee in Rome at the time of 
2 Tim., cf. eg. ©. I. L. vi. 15335-15664 ; also under Claudius, Nos. 14858- 
15334. Among these occur some that are joined with the names of others 
of the earliest Christians in Rome, or with their derivatives (vol. i. 419f.) ; 
No. 14913 Claudia Olympias (according to which also the name in a Greek 
inscription from the neighbourhood of Rome, I. Gr. Sic, et It. No. 1914, should 
be amended Κλαυδίᾳ ᾿Ολυμπιά[δι7), No. 14940 Ti. Claudius Olympus (ef. Rom. 
xvi. 15), No. 14918 Claudius Ampliatus (cf. Rom. xvi. 8), No. 15564 Claudia 
Sp. F. Priscilla (Rom. xvi. 3), No. 15066 Ti. Cl. Ti. Lib. “ Pudens et Cl(audia) 
Quintilla filio duleissimo et sibi” (1.9. a combination of two names from 
2 Tim. iv. 21). Later legends tell of a Roman senator Pudens who had two 
daughters, Praxedis and Pudentiana, and two sons, Timothy and Novatus ; 
but this gives a very slight basis for historical conjeetures, οἵ. Baronius, 
Annales Eccles. ad annum 44, n. 61; Acta SS., Mai, iv. 296 ff. ; Tillemont, 
Mém. i. 172, ii. 314, 658 ff.; Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 1. 207, 418 ff., 
ii. 2. 399. It must be said, however, that the cognomen Pudens occurs 
among the higher classes from Martial’s time down (Epigr. iv. 13; Klein, 
Fasti cons. for the years 165, 166 ; Tert. Scap. iv. ; C. I. G. No. 4241, cf. 5142). 

3. (Pp. 3, 17.) Tradition has nothing to say about Phygelus (i. 15), but 
Hermogenes and Demas (iv. 10) are mentioned in the Acta Theele, cc. i. iv. 
xi.-xiv., which represents them even as early as Paul’s first visit to Iconium 
(chap. 1., cf. Acts xiii. 51) as false friends of Paul, who love money and a 
luxurious life, and, at the same time, develop the false doctrine hinted at in 
2 Tim. ii. 18, though there attributed to others. In the Acta Thecle, chap. i., 
Alexander's epithet 6 χαλκεύς (2 Tim. iv. 14) is transferred to Hermogenes ; 
ef. GK, i. 789, ii. 901, 903. It is uncertain whether this combination of 
Demas and Hermogenes has been carried over into Leucius’ Acts of J ohn, ef. 
the writer’s Acta Jo. p. lxii ; Epiph. Her. li. 6. The name Alexander is so 
common that the designation of an Alexander as ὁ χαλκεύς is much less 
striking than the ὁ ἰατρός in Col. iv. 14. It is very possible that he is 
identical with the Alexander in 1 Tim. i. 20 whom Paul had delivered over 
to Satan with a view to his chastisement and improvement (ef. 1 Cor. v. 5). 
Hymenzus, who is joined with him in this connection (1 Tim. i. 20), is 
mentioned again in 2 Tim. ii. 17, along with a certain Philetus, as the 
champion of a heresy. According to this, Hymenus, Philetus, Phygelus, 
Hermogenes, and the Alexander in 1 Tim. i. 20 must have belonged for a 
time to the Christian Church, at least in name. But it also agrees best with 
the tone of 2 Tim. iv. 14f. if we take the man there mentioned to be within 
the Church. At all events, rots ἡμετέροις λόγοις refers not to some chance 
saying of Paul, but to the teaching which Paul jointly with others has 
proclaimed or defended in the presence of this Alexander; ef. iii. 8, In 
itself, ἡμετέροις might very well include Timothy; but the whole drift of 


22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


iv. 13-15 forces us to conclude that Timothy had not shared in the experi- 
ences of Paul there reported. The Antiochian reading ἀνθέστηκεν may have 
arisen through a misunderstanding, it being assumed that the reference is to 
resistance which Alexander is now making to Paul, possibly as prosecutor, or 
witness for the prosecution ; but this does not agree with the fact that Alex- 
ander was in Asia at the time, probably in Troas. There is not a hint that 
he was ever in Rome and opposed Paul in his trial there. If he was an 
opponent of Christian doctrine as Paul preached it, his identity with the 
Alexander in I Tim. i. 20 is exceedingly probable. On the other hand, there 
is nothing to support the conjecture that he is identical with the Alexander im 
Ephesus, Acts xix. 33. This man was a Jew, and seems to have had the purpose 
of repelling the charge that he and his compatriots were enemies of the heathen 
eult like Paul, whose race his accusers must have emphasised (Acts xvi. 20) ; 
or perhaps his aim was rather to defend Paul and the Christian teaching 
against the charge of adedrns, which would imply that he was also a Christian. 

4. (P. 6.) In the light of Acts xvi. 1, it is perfectly natural that in 
2 Tim. i. 5 only Timothy’s mother and grandmother are mentioned, and not 
his Gentile father. The parallelism between Paul (i. 3) and Timothy (i. 5) 
runs throughout the whole section i. 3-14 (ἐπαισχύνεσθαι, i. 8 and 12; 
παραθήκη, 1. 12 and 14, and purely formal δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν, i. 6 and 12); and this 
of itself makes it probable that it is not the Christian faith of the two women 
that is here praised. Since Timothy was chosen by Paul to be his assistant on 
Paul’s second visit to Lystra, Timothy’s home (Acts xvi. 1; vol. i. 209, n. 2), 
and since he owed his conversion to Paul himself (1 Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim. i. 2, ii. 1, 
iii. 14), he must have been converted during Paul’s first visit (Acts xiv. 6-23 ; 
Gal. iv. 13). He was no neophyte (1 Tim. iii. 6, v. 22) when Paul chose him 
as his helper in the mission work, and to this end had him circumcised and 
ordained ; he was already an approved member of the Church (Acts xvi. 2). 
Therefore Lois and Eunice could not have become believers earlier than he. 
All that we can gather about the women from Acts xvi. 1 is that Eunice was 
still living at the time of Paul’s second visit, and was a Christian. She was 
converted, therefore, at the same time as her son. The πρῶτον, then, in i. 5— 
if Acts here deserves credence—cannot mean that the women received the 
Christian faith earlier than Timothy. Nor, on the other hand, can it mean 
that “such faith did not exist in the family of Timothy until with these 
two women, and these alone, it came to dwell there” (Hofmann, vi. 226), 
for Lois did not belong to the family of his Gentile father at all. But what 
measure of faith these Jewesses possessed hefore their conversion to Christi- 
anity, they, like Paul, had inherited from their forefathers. 'The alleged con- 
trast to Paul does not agree with the context, and must have been expressed 
by a reference to the heathen character of his father and his paternal 
ancestors. What his father and forefathers were for Paul (Acts xxii. 6; 
Gal. i. 14; vol. i. 68, π. 15), Timothy’s mother and grandmother were to him. 
Timothy’s faith forms the contrast to πρῶτον, which here, as so often, is 
not appreciably different from πρότερον, and expresses priority to the action 
of the main statement (Matt. v. 24, vii. 5, viii. 21, xii. 29, xvii. 10; 2 Thess. 
ii. 3). Paul might also have written προενῴκησεν. Paul could speak of the 
instruction in the O.T. imparted to Timothy at home, 7.6. by his mother, and 
perhaps also his grandmother, before their conversion, as a preparation for 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 23 


his calling as preacher of the gospel (iii. 15); he could characterise his own 
Christian piety as the normal continuation of the Pharisaic piety of his earlier 
years, and of his Pharisaic ancestors (i. 3; Acts xxiii. 1, 6, xxvi. 5-7); and 
with just as good reason he could speak in praise of the sincere piety of 
these Jewesses, even though perhaps Lois died without hearing the gospel. 
Only in case he had opposed the revelation of Christ when it came to him 
(ef. Gal. i. 16; Phil. iii. 7; Acts xxvi. 19), and ignoring it had held fast 
to his Pharisaism, would his inherited piety have become hypocrisy—worship 
vitiated by an unclean and evil conscience. In a like case Paul would have 
passed the same judgment upon the pre-Christian piety of Lois and Eunice. 

5. (P. 6.) As the sense of ii. 2 is to be explained and completed from 
1 Tim. vi. 12 (ef. the writer’s essay on the Apostol. Symbolum, 8. 39 ff.), so 
2 Tim. i. 6 should be viewed in the light of 1 Tim. iv. 14. Probably it was 
prophetic voices (διὰ προφητείας ; ef. 1 Tim. i. 18, κατὰ τὰς mpoayovoas ἐπὶ 
σὲ προφητείας) which suggested the choice of Timothy as assistant of Paul 
and Silvanus, and his consecration to this work with prayer and the laying 
on of hands (ef. Acts xiii. 2f.). The laying on of hands by the presbyters 
(1 Tim. iv. 14) and by Paul (2 Tim. i, 6) are not mutually exclusive, especi- 
ally since the former is mentioned merely as an accompanying circumstance 
of his endowment with special grace, the latter as the efficient cause of this 
endowment. The Churches in the neighbourhood of Timothy’s home, accord- 
ing to Acts xiv. 23, had been furnished with a body of presbyters soon after 
their founding ; see, further, § 37. 

6. (P. 7.) The earlier Greek Fathers (Hus. H. E. ii. 22; the real 
Euthalius, Zacagni, p. 533 ; Chrysost. xi. 190, 658, 722; Theodore, Swete, 
ii. 230#. ; ef. i. 117, 205f., and Theodoret) understood 2 Tim. iv. 16f. on 
the whole correetly, though they referred the lion too definitely to Nero. 
The proverbial and figurative character of the expression (Ps. xxii. 21; 
ef. 1 Mace. ii. 60; Ps. vii. 3, xxxv. 17; Midrash Beresh. r. par. 64 at end), 
which we find so used in Amos iii. 12, would have been no hindrance to 
writing τοῦ λέοντος (Judg. xiv. 9; 1 Sam. xvii. 37; Dan. vi. 21) even if the 
intention were to liken a definite individual to a lion; but, apart from the 
prophetic announcement in Acts xxvii. 24, there is no hint in the N.T. 
of a single person upon whose decision Paul’s fate in Rome depended. 
On the other hand, this expression and the fixed usage of ῥύεσθαι (2 Tim. 
ili. 11, iv. 18 ; 2 Cor. i. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 2; Rom. vii. 24, xv. 31; 2 Pet. ii. 7) 
does not admit of interpretation as an inner protection from inclination to 
sin or unbelief. Even when deliverance from temptations is meant (2 Pet. 
ii. 9; Matt. vi. 13), it is actual rescue from definite situations in real life ; 
and the devil too, when he is likened to a lion instead of a serpent (2 Cor. xi. 
3), is represented as the persecutor who seeks the death of believers (1 Pet. 
v. 8). His terrifying roar is simply a prelude to opening his jaws and de- 
vouring the prey. The expression ἐνεδυνάμωσεν cannot justify the giving of 
this spiritual meaning to ἐρύσατο ; this can be seen even from 1 Mace. ii. 61 
(οὐκ ἀσθενήσουσιν --σωθήσονται ; cf. ii. 60) and still better from a passage 
similarly misinterpreted, Phil. i. 19 (vol. i. 545) ; it follows also from the 
simple consideration that rescue from the danger of condemnation and exe- 
eution depends essentially upon how skilfully and energetically a man is 
defended or defends himself. Spitta at one time (ThStKr. 1878, S. 582 ff.) 


24 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


returned to the correet interpretation of the passage. But later (Urchristen- 
tum, i. 43ff. ; cl. also Hesse, Entstehung der Hirtenbriefe, 29 ff.) he proposed 
again his earlier view, according to which ver. 17, in contrast with ver. 
16, refers to all the divine assistance and deliverance experienced by Paul 
since his call to apostleship. In the sentence connected by δέ with ver. 16, 
ὁ κύριός μοι παρέστη plainly forms an antithesis to οὐδείς μοι mapayevero ; con- 
sequently, since no other time or occasion is mentioned, the force of the ἐν 
τῇ πρώτῃ μου ἀπολογίᾳ is continued. Even apart from this, the bare aorists in 
ver. 17 without a πάντοτε, πολλάκις, ἀεί more (cf. ἐκ πάντων, 11]. 11 ; ἐν τούτοις 
πᾶσιν, Rom. vill. 37), cannot possibly sum up all instances of the kind, especi- 
ally after two single instances have been adduced, vv. 14, 16, in the same 
form. Besides, it is by no means in every case that rescue from great danger 
is conditioned upon being strengthened by the Lord or is brought about by 
this means, but only when the deliverance of the person in danger depends 
upon his presence of mind and his courageous words and deeds, as, e.g. in a 
legal trial. Nor can the correct interpretation be disturbed by the fact that 
the purpose clause in iv. 17 comes after the second verb, and not at the end 
after the third verb. It could even come after παρέστη without any essential 
change in the meaning. It stands where it does because the statement about 
the Lord’s purpose naturally follows the completed account of His action. 
But the deliverance which was the final result of this support and strengthen- 
ing by the Lord, Paul did not describe as the immediate act of the Lord, and 
for the simple reason that he was speaking, not of a miraculous deliverance, 
as, e.g. those in Acts xvi, 26, xxvüi. 5, nor even of a strange combination of 
circumstances, but rather of the very natural result of his happy defence at 
the trial. As he stood at the bar, deprived of all human assistance, he could 
plainly trace the assistance of the Lord, the strengthening through Him, the 
supply of the appropriate means on the part of the Spirit (Phil. 1. 19). At 
this point, then, naturally comes the reflection over the aim which the Lord 
had in this act of His. Since πληροφορεῖν is asynonym of πληροῦν, only more 
emphatic (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 5 with Acts xu. 25), what is said of Christian preach- 
ing in the eastern half of the Roman Empire in Rom. xv. 19, 23 is simply 
repeated here in a stronger expression with reference to Christian preaching 
in general; every limitation of this preaching, as, 6.6. to that in Rome, is 
excluded by the added καὶ ἀκούσωσιν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. To refer this expression 
to the corona populi, who, it is held, attended the trial and heard Paul’s de- 
fence (Wieseler, Huther, et al.), is particularly out of place ; for not only was 
the public excluded, as a rule, from criminal trials before the imperial court 
(Mommsen, .R. Staatsrecht,? ii. 965), but also and especially was the circle of the 
ἔθνη, to whom the preaching is here said to have been brought, widened even 
less by a legal defence than by Paul’s missionary preaching for two years in 
Rome (see above, p. 8), Paul writes δι ἐμοῦ (cf. 2 Cor. i. 19; Rom. xv. 18; 
1 Cor, iii. 5) and not ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, which would have been hardly possible in con- 
nection with ἀκούσωσιν. But the former phrase, as well as the latter, makes 
it clear that Paul is speaking of a result to be effected through his personal 
activity, and cannot justify Hofmann’s exegesis (vi. 301), according to which 
the Lord merely takes care that the nerve of the further propagation of the 
gospel shall not be cut by a weak defence of this gospel, or even a denial of 
it, on Paul’s part. 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 25 


7. (P. 11.) With regard to the tendency to idealise the results of mis- 
sionary work, cf. Skizzen, 76-82, and vol. 1. 415f.,n. 19 on Rom. xv. 19f. 
Here belongs the use of “ Macedonia” and “ Achaia,” as if they were Christian 
lands, 2 Cor. ix. 2 (viii. 1, 4); Rom. xv. 26 ; further, Acts viii. 14; also the 
exaggerated expressions Rom. x. 18 ; Col. i. 6. 

8. (P. 11.) The reading Γαλατίαν, iv. 10 (Γαλλίαν, NC, Epiph. Her. li. 
11; cf. Eus. H. E. iii. 4. 8, ἐπὶ ras TaAXias), is by far the best attested ; 
but even aside from this, it should be retained because the commentators 
have from the first understood by it European Gaul, and that, too, though 
at the time when our oldest Greek MSS. were written, the Greeks, 
following Roman precedent, regularly called the land ἡ Γαλλία, ai TaAXiaı ; 
ef. Theodorus, ii. 227, “Galatiam dixit quas nunc nominamus Gallias,” 
and also Lightfoot on this point, Galatians, pp. 3, 31. The older Greeks 
regularly used until well down in Christian times Γαλάται, Γαλατία for Gaul 
and its inhabitants, along with the still older names, Κέλται, Κελτοί, Κελτική ; 
so that on occasion the Asiatic Galatians and their land had to be more closely 
defined as of ἐν ᾿Ασίᾳ Γαλάται (Plut. Mor. p. 258), ἡ κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν Ταλατία 
(Dioseor. Mat. Med. iii. 56, 62), TaAAoypaıkoi, Ταλλογραικία (Strabo, pp. 130, 
566). Epictetus is cited as the oldest witness for the Latinised form Γάλλοι ; 
but he is really no witness at all, for he understands by this word, Diss. ii. 
20. 17, the castrated priests of the Phrygian Cybele. Even Plutarch uses 
only Γαλάται, Vadaria (along with Κελτοί, Κελτική), and generally leaves to his 
readers to decide from the context whether they are to be found in Western 
Europe (Camillus, ec. xv.-xvii.; Cesar, cc. xiv.-xxv.; Pompeius, chap. 
xlviii.) or in Asia Minor (Lucullus, chap. xxviii.; Marius, chap. xxxi.; 
Pompeius, ec. xxxi. xxxiii. ; Moralia, pp. 257-259). The oldest Greek witness 
for Γάλλοι, in the sense of the European Celts, would be the physician Dios- 
corides in the time of Nero (de Mat. Med. ii. 101, ii. 33, 75, 108, 117, 122, iv. 
16, 42, 69, 71; nowhere else), if all the statements about barbarian names 
for medicinal herbs were not under suspicion of being later interpolations 
(Sprengel, tom. i. p. xvi). He would also be the oldest witness for Γαλλία 
(de Mat. Med. ii. 92, ἀπὸ Γαλλίας καὶ Τυρρηνίας), if only we did not read two 
lines farther down ἀπὸ Γαλατίας τῆς πρὸς ταῖς "AAreoıv as a designation of 
the same land or a part of it; cf. 111, 25; and, per contra, ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὴν 
᾿Ασίαν Taaaria, 11]. 56, 62. It was very easy for later scribes to change 
TAAATIA, which had become strange to them in this sense, into TAAAIA. 
So also, apparently, we should restore in the text of Jos. Ant. xviii. 7. 2, 
Bell. ii. 7. 3 the older Tadaria, which Josephus uses commonly elsewhere 
(see Niese’s apparatus, ad loc., and index under Γαλάται, Γαλατία). On the 
other hand, we actually find in the Acts of Paul, about 170 a.p. (ed. Lipsius, 
p- 104. 3, in the Lat. text Galilea ; as to the confounding here of Luke and 
Crescens, see GK, ii. 888), in the letter of the Lyonese, 177 a.p. (Eus. H. E. 
ν. 1. 49), and in Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 32, ai (καλούμεναι, Theoph.) Γαλλίαι. 
Galen (de Antid. i. 14; Kühn, xiv. 80) is led by a quotation from Nero’s 
time, in which Gaul was called ἡ Γαλατεία, to speak of the fluctuation in 
usage between T'a\Ao, Γαλάται, Κέλται, but without once thinking of the 
Galatians in Asia Minor. Appian’s standpoint is the same, Prowm. iii. and 
Iber. 1. Herodian seems to be the first who distinguished consciously be- 
tween ἡ Γαλλία (111. 7. 1)=Gaul and ἡ Γαλατία (iii. 2. 6, 3. 1)= Galatia in 


26 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Asia Minor. This usage is too late to be taken into account in connection 
with 2 Tim. iv. 10. Lexically considered, it may be here either Gaul or 
Galatia. But its position next to Dalmatia, which has its parallel in the 
famous Monumentum Ancyrarum (Res geste D. Augusti, ed.2 Mommsen, p. 
lxxxxv, 124, ἐξ ‘Iomavias καὶ Ταλατίας καὶ παρὰ Δαλματῶν ; cf. pp. 98, 103), 
leaves no doubt that Gaul is meant. The circumstance that Galatia was 
nearer to Timothy than Gaul, is counterbalanced by the fact that to Paul, 
writing from Rome, Gaul was nearer. Indeed, this very nearness of 
Crescens to Timothy could hardly have been left unexpressed, especially if 
Timothy were then staying in Lystra or Iconium (above, p. 19, n. 1), 2.e. in 
the province of Galatia. The lack of ancient tradition concerning Crescens 
as missionary to Gaul, and also concerning Titus as missionary to Dalmatia, 
is certainly to be regretted, but cannot be used as a basis for any historical 
conclusions. It was not until long afterward that the founding of the Church 
in Vienna was ascribed to Crescens, and, still later, that of the Church in 
Mayence (Tillemont, Mém. i. 615). It corresponds to the fluctuating 
usage of the time that Paul should write Δαλματία here, and, per contra, τὸ 
’MAvpırov in Rom. xv. 19 (Marquardt, R. Staatsverw.? i. 299); and, in par- 
ticular, this variation proves that the statements in 2 Tim. iv. relating to 
missions and geography are independent of Rom. xv. 

9. (Ρ. 14.) Hug’s suggestion (Hinl.’ ii. 418), adopted by many since his 
time, that we should take the ἀπέλιπον in iv. 20, in distinction from that in 
iv. 13, as third person plural, is inadmissible, since in that case the subject 
could not be divined. Erastus alone—mentioned just before—cannot be the 
subjeet. Nor can we find in iv. 19 one or more persons who can be joined 
with Erastus to make up the subject of ἀπέλιπον ; for it was not the house- 
hold of Onesiphorus, but only Onesiphorus himself, who had lately made 
a journey (i. 16-18, above, p. 2). Equally inadmissible is the proposal of 
Baronius (ad annum, 59, n. 1), supported also by Knoke (Prakt. theol. Kom- 
mentar zu den Pastoralbr. i. 116), to change Μιλήτῳ (al. unAıro, unAnro, unA\oro) 
into MeXirn, and: thus to understand Malta as referred to (Acts xxviii. 1-10). 
For, in the first place, Trophimus (Acts xxi. 29) is not mentioned in Acts 
xxvii. 2, where the author’s plain intention is to indicate Paul’s companions 
on the journey to Rome. In the second place, such a communication would 
have been unintelligible to Timothy unless 2 Tim. were written in the 
very first part of the first Roman imprisonment, before Timothy arrived for 
the first time in Rome, and before Eph., Col., and Philem. were written. 
But in view of what has been said above (p. 1f.) this is impossible. Even 
Baronius felt constrained to refute the view that a Miletus in Crete, now 
Milato or Milata, is meant, and that, therefore, we are to think of Acts xxvii. 
7-13. The arguments which hold against the preceding view are equally 
applicable here ; but aside from these, this Miletus is situated on the north 
shore of the island, whereas Paul,.on his journey to Rome, sailed along the 
south shore. Wieseler’s opinion (Chronol. 467), that while Paul exchanged at 
Myra the Adramyttian ship for an Alexandrian vessel sailing to Italy direct 
(Acts xxvii. 5f.), Trophimus may have continued his journey on the former 
ship as far as Miletus, where illness detained him ; and that this is the mean- 
ing of the words in 2 Tim. iv. 20 needs no refutation. 

10. (P. 18.) From the mere mention of Ephesus by name in 2 Tim. 1. 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUIL 29 


18, iv. 12, we cannot conclude that Timothy was then living elsg this 
Paul, when he was himself in Rome, wrote ἐν Ῥώμῃ, 2 Tim. 1. 17, and wuvus 
in Ephesus, ev Ἐφέσῳ, 1 Cor. xv. 32, xvi. 8, instead of ὧδε or ev ταύτῃ τῇ 
πόλει ; and in like manner, when writing to Timothy in Ephesus, he used 
not ἐκεῖ, but ev ’Ebeoo, 1 Tim. i. 3 (ef. iii. 14f.); and when he had occasion 
to speak of Corinth to the Corinthians he used eis Κόρινθον (2 Cor. 1. 23). 
Nevertheless, Theodorus, ii. 190, is plainly right when he remarks with refer- 
ence to 2 Tim. iv. 12: “dixisset utique ‘ad te,’ si Ephesi adhuc Timotheus 
moraretur, quando et hanc ad eum scribebat epistolam.” 


8 34. THE FACTS ATTESTED BY THE FIRST EPISTLE 
TO TIMOTHY. 


Unlike the shorter letter to Timothy, which on this 
account was placed after the longer one of the collection, 
and in which are found numerous notices concerning 
Paul’s personal situation, 1 Tim. has very few such notices. 
It is, however, clear that when 1 Tim. was written 
Paul was at liberty, and somewhere in the eastern part of 
the empire. He mentions a journey to Macedonia, which 
had been made recently, as will be shown below (1. 3), 
and expresses the hope of coming shortly to Ephesus, 
where Timothy was at the time (iii. 14, iv. 13). Although 
the sentence with which the letter begins is left un- 
completed (i. 3 ff), and although the construction at the 
beginning is somewhat loose, its general meaning is clear 
(n. 1). Some time before, Paul had asked Timothy to 
remain a while longer in Ephesus, where Timothy was at 
the time the request was made. These instructions had 
been given by Paul to his disciple just as the apostle was 
setting out on a journey to Macedonia, or after it had 
been begun. The latter is more likely, since there were 
better ways in which to express the former thought than 
that which he here uses (ἐκπορεύεσθαι, Acts xxv. 4; Mark 
x. 46; ἐξέρχεσθαι, 2 Cor. u. 13; Phil. iv. 15; ef. Acts 
xx. 1, xxi. 5). Since Paul does not say that he had left 
Timothy behind in Ephesus (cf. Tit. i. 5; 2 Tim. iv. 13, 
20), he could not have been in Ephesus at the time, nor 


28 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


have set out on his journey to Macedonia from that 
pomt, but, when this instruction was sent to Timothy, 
must have been journeying to Macedonia from the. West. 
Assuming —as the language seems to require — that 
Timothy was in Ephesus when he received the instruction, 
also that the apostle’s directions take for granted an 
opposite intention or inclination on Timothy’s part, the 
most natural supposition is that, in a letter written from 
Ephesus, Timothy had expressed to the apostle his desire 
to join him on this journey,, which was to take him, 
among other places, into Macedonia, or to set out to 
meet him there. But from some point on his route Paul 
had written to Timothy to remain in Ephesus. It is 
probable that in this reply he expressed the intention of 
himself coming to Ephesus; for in ii. 14, iv. 13 he 
speaks of his coming as if it had already been announced. 
That Timothy did not refuse to obey this advice of the 
apostle’s, and that when 1 Tim. was written he was still 
in Ephesus, is proved not only by the absence of all 
evidence to the contrary, but, more positively, by the way 
in which the exhortations and instructions, which con- 
stitute the main contents of 1 Tim., are all connected 
with this injunction that Timothy remain at his post. 
When he began. to write he evidently intended merely to 
remind Timothy of the purpose for which he had been 
instructed to remain where he was; but this he afterwards 
enlarges into an independent statement (1. 3-8), the 
detailed character of which is accounted for by the faet 
that he here reminds Timothy of the tasks to the zealous 
performance of which this letter is meant to urge him. 
In accordance with Paul’s earlier request, and the purpose 
which Paul had then set before him as most pressing, 
Timothy is to continue his work in Ephesus until the 
apostle himself comes. 

It is, however, because the prospect of his coming to 
Ephesus is only a hope, and because he is not sure how 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 29 


long this coming may be deferred, that Paul writes this 
letter to Timothy. In case he is compelled to remain 
away longer, the instructions in the letter will serve to 
assist Timothy in the right performance of his duties in 
the Church (iii. 14f, iv. 13). In view of the urgent 
character of the exhortations (1. 18, iv. 11, 14-16, vi. 3, 
11, 20), and the solemn manner in which he is reminded 
of his duties (v. 21, vi. 3-16), it is te be inferred 
that Timothy was endeavouring to escape from the 
duty enjoined upon him. From iv. 12 we gather that 
he had urged his youth as an excuse for a certain lack 
of energy whieh the apostle thought he showed in the 
discharge of his office. Besides, there were constant 
physical disorders which made him anxious about his 
health, and had led him to abstain from wine and from the 
use of hearty foods (v. 23, iv. 8). More noteworthy is the 
fact that Timothy should be warned by the citation of 
terrible examples of the apathy of the religious and moral 
life (i. 19 ; ef. iv. 16, vi. 12), against the love of money 
(vi. 11; ef vi. 5— 10), and against having anythine to do 
with fol and unfruitful theoretical discussions and 
investigations, which it was his duty to forbid other 
teachers to carry on (iv. 7, vi. 20; cf. i. 4, vi. 4). 

The work which Timothy has to do in and about 
Ephesus is very different from his vocation in 2 Tim. 
Where Timothy may have been at the time of 2 Tim., 
whether in Iconium, or Ephesus, or Rome, or on his 
way thither, the one thing which he is to keep in 
mind is that the proclamation of the gospel is his 
distinetive and essential mission, as it is that of the 
apostle (2 Tim. i. 8, iv. 5; ef. i. 10, ii. 8). "With this 
function was, of course, associated—in Timothy’s case, as 
in the case of Paul himself and of all apostles and 
evangelists who happened to be for a time in localities 
where there were Christian Churches (vol. i. 507 f.)—a 
teaching function which ministered to the faith and life 


30 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of the members of the Church, and, generally speaking, an 
administrative activity in the Church’s affairs (2 Tim. ii. 2, 
14-21, 24-26, iii. 16 f., iv. 2-4). But the fact is not to 
be denied, that in 1 Tim. this oversight of the Church by 
Timothy is the only funetion spoken of, and that no mention 
is made anywhere of his missionary calling. Not only do 
we miss the word “evangelist,” which is used in 2 Tim. 
iv. 5 as a comprehensive description of Timothy’s calling, 
but even the word εὐαγγέλιον occurs only once in 1 Tim., 
and then with reference not to Timothy’s calling, but to 
the ministry of Paul (1. 11; ef. 1.7). This explains why, 
in 2 Tim., Timothy’s vocation is treated as a life-calling, 
whereas the task to which he is exhorted in 1 Tim. is 
limited to the time he shall be in Ephesus until Paul’s 
arrival (1 Tim. iii. 14f., iv. 13). From the time when 
Paul made him his helper in the prosecution of missionary 
work he had been an evangelist (2 Tim. i. 6). In mani- 
fold ways on his journeys with Paul he had proved 
himself such (2 Tim. ii. 10f.). This work and service of 
an evangelist he is to continue to the end, even after 
the apostle's work on earth is finished (2 Tim. iv. 1-8). 
Of course, there is to be recognised a connection between 
the special task of which Timothy is reminded in the first 
letter and his consecration as a helper in missionary work, 
including the prophetic gifts which he then received, 
particularly. that of pastoral teaching (1 Tim. iv. 14; 
ef. i. 18). But even, leaving out of account the noticeable 
difference of language between 1 Tim. iv. 14 and 2 Tim. 
i. 6 (above, p. 23, n. 5), the marked distinction between 
the two offices cannot be explained by simply assuming 
that the special and temporary office which Timothy was 
to perform in Ephesus grew out of his life-calling as an 
evangelist and missionary, like similar temporary com- 
missions performed earlier (1 Cor. iv. 17; Phil. ii, 19-23). 

What in detail these duties were which Paul. in- 
structed Timothy to perform in the Church, will be 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 31 


discussed in connection with the question of the genuine- 
ness of the Epistle (§ 37). Here we are concerned with 
the character of these duties only as this throws light 
upon the question, at what time in Paul’s life this letter 
could have been written. , The description of these duties 
given in the middle of the letter, where Paul states its 
purpose, namely, that in case he is compelled to remain 
away longer than he anticipates, Timothy may know how 
persons ought to conduct themselves in the house of 
God, is very general (iii. 15, n. 2). From this passage 
we gather that Timothy’s position in one portion of the 
Church was similar to that of the head of a household. 
The principal reason why Paul thought it necessary for 
Timothy to remain longer in Ephesus is stated in 1. 8f. 
and emphasised again from a different point of view in 
vi. 3-5, and is this, namely, the necessity of warning 
certain persons not to teach in a manner which to the 
apostle seems perverse, and, to put it mildly, not profitable 
to the Church. He is also to warn them against occupy- 
ing themselves with profitless speculations instead of with 
sound Christian doctrine, evidently because their activity 
as teachers was prompted by such speculations (n. 3). 
He was also charged to a certain extent with the cure of 
souls; since his other instructions were such that their 
carrying out would for the most part involve personal 
intercourse with the people of his charge (e.g. v. 1-7, 
vi. 1-2, 17). On the other hand, it is self-evident 
that Timothy was authorised and bound to publicly 
exhort, advise, and reprove persons who assumed the röle 
of teachers, the young widows, slaves, the rich, and elders. 
In one case he is expressly enjoined to do so (v. 20), and 
throughout the letter, where teaching as well as exhorta- 
tion and injunction is spoken of (iv. 6, 11, 16, vi. 3), the 
reference is to public teaching in the Church. > But this 
does not by any means place Timothy on the same 
footing with the member of the Church possessing special 


32 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


gifts for teaching and speaking, or with officials in the 
Church who exercised this office (v. 17). The fact that 
Timothy is to forbid false teachers to teach in their own 
way, presupposes that he exerted a determining influence 
over all that was taught in the public gatherings of the 
Church, and so over its entire worship. This is presup- 
posed in the textus receptus of 11. 1, where, although it 
is not said in so many words that Timothy has charge 
of the matter, Paul enjoins that prayers of various kinds 
be offered for all men, particularly for rulers. The very 
fact that this is said in a letter directed to Timothy makes 
Timothy responsible for the observance of this rule in all 
public worship. Neither the offering of prayer nor 
teaching is official, but every male member of the Church 
is privileged to exercise both functions. Only Timothy 
is to see to it that both are exercised in a correct 
manner (n. 4). Since Paul does not define Timothy’s 
duties in this letter, but simply reminds him of them, 
details are for the most part only indirectly and incident- 
ally given. In ii. 1-13 are set forth the qualifications 
which must be had by a bishop or deacon; 111. 1 brings 
before us the situation where one desires the office of 
bishop; iii. 10 speaks of the examination which must 
precede entrance into the office; from all which it is to 
be inferred that the rules here laid down are those to 
be observed in connection with the induction of these 
oflicials into office. Since, however, these rules are given 
in a letter to Timothy, who neither is nor will become a 
bishop or a deacon, it follows that Timothy’s influence was 
paramount with reference to these officials, and that he 
was to observe these rules in inducting them into office. 
Of Timothy’s part in the appointment and consecration of 
Church officials, which was certainly one of importance 
and responsibility, we learn only incidentally from the 
warning that he is not to lay hands on anyone in con- 
secration hastily or lightly (v. 22), which does not exclude 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 33 


the co-operation of others, any more than the laying on 
οἵ Paul’s hands excluded those of the presbytery (iv. 14; 
2 Tim. 1.6). Quite as incidentally we learn from v. 19-21 
that among other functions Timothy was to act as judge 
over the presbyters, and to see to it, on the other hand, 
that those presbyters who filled their office worthily 
received the honour due them (v. 17 f.). Further, he was 
to have oversight over the Church’s care of widows, the 
reception of them into the fellowship, and the registering 
of those among them who were active in the service of 
the Church and deserving of special honour (v. 3-16). 
In short, there was no branch of Church life over which 
his authority did not extend ; he is not, however, one of 
the ἐπίσκοποι or πρεσβύτεροι, but he is over them. 

It is to be noted also that Timothy’s office was not 
limited to the local Church. Paul had asked him to 
continue in Ephesus, merely because he had expressed a 
desire to join Paul on his journey (1. 3, above, p. 27 £.), 
The request does not imply that Timothy was not to 
leave the limits of the eity, and that Paul’s instructions 
were to be carried out only in this one Church. We saw 
in connection with ii. 1-15 (cf. also n. 4) that Timothy 
was to put into operation in a number of Churches 
Paul’s principles with reference to pubhe prayer. This 
is still clearer in the instructions regarding the appoint- 
ment of bishops and deacons (iii. 1-13 ; ef. v. 22). Even 
if it be assumed that the time which these instructions 
were meant to cover (iii. 15, iv. 13), ae. the time before 
his own arrival in Ephesus, might be extended over 
two or three years, as Paul thought it might, they are 
altogether superfluous if intended to apply only to the 
local Ephesian Church. In so brief a time’ within one 
Church there could not possibly have been more than one 
or two occasions when the apostle’s regulations would 
have applied. It is quite possible, and the shorter the 
period the more probable it becomes, that during this 


interval there was no occasion in this Church—which had 
VOL. i: 3 


34 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


been organised some time—for the appointment of new 
bishops and deacons, and that no ordinations took place. 
Consequently it must have been a large group of Churches, 
the direction and oversight of which were committed to 
Timothy, in residence at Ephesus, and among them prob- 
ably such as were in process of formation and therefore in 
need of ecclesiastical organisation (n. 5). Without any 
question, these were the Churches of the province of Asia 
(1 Cor. xvi. 19), of which Ephesus was the centre. That 
Paul felt himself responsible, as the founder of the Church 
in Ephesus, for the development of all the other Churches 
in the province, and for the oversight of the same, is 
abundantly proved by the first three letters of his im- 
prisonment, while from Col. i, 7 it is clear that even at 
this time he regarded Timothy, who had been his helper 
in the planting of Christianity in the province of Asia, 
as sharing his relation to this large group of Churches 
(vol. i. 449 f., n. 3). 

The position which Timothy occupied in Ephesus, as it 
is described in 1 Tim., cannot without doing the greatest 
violence to history be called that of a bishop (n. 6); for 
the office of bishop existed also where the one bishop, 
superior to the presbytery, represented the highest expres- 
sion of the common Church life. The office was for life, 
and confined to the local Church. This was particularly 
the case in Asia Minor, where, although as early as the time 
of Revelation and the letters of Ignatius, bishopries were 
numerous and closely adjacent, the office always retained 
its local character. On the other hand, Timothy’s position 
at the head of the Churches of Asia was due to the 
position which he occupied as Paul’s helper in missionary 
work, It was his part in the apostolic calling, as this 
calling involved the oversight of existing Churches. 
Timothy was acting as a temporary representative of Paul 
in his apostolic capacity at Ephesus, as he had done 
earlier in Corinth, and in Thessalonica and Philippi 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 35 


(1 Cor. iv. 17; 1 Thess. ii. 2f. ; Phil. ii. 19-23). His 
relation was not closer to one Church than to the other 
Churches of the province ; its rise and disappearance did 
not affect at all the organisation of the local congre- 
gations. 

Compared with 2 Tim., 1 Tim. contains few personal 
notices (n. 7). But the few that it does contain give the 
impression of genuineness. They show at least that Paul 
did not write the letter prior to his five years’ imprisonment 
in Ceesarea and Rome. | Since, however, Paul is at liberty, 
the letter and the events immediately preceding fall in 
the interval between the first and a second Roman im- 
prisonment, of which we learn in 2 Tim. The journey 
spoken of in i. 3 cannot, as Hug (Hinl.’ ii. 377) assumes, 
be identified with that of Acts xx. 1; for at that time 
Timothy had not been, as is assumed in 1 Tim. i. 8, for a 
considerable time in Ephesus, nor could Paul at that time 
have requested him to continue there, for Timothy had 
just returned to Hphesus from a journey to Macedonia 
and Corinth, and soon afterward accompanied Paul on 
this journey to Macedonia and Greece (2 Cor. ı. 1, 8, 
vil. 5; vol. 1. 316, n. 3). He was also with him on the 
return journey from Greece, through Macedonia, to Troas, 
Miletus, and Jerusalem (Acts xx. 5 ff). Even assuming 
that Timothy remained in Ephesus some time after Paul 
left, following later to Macedonia, or that he left the 
party, say at Troas (Acts xx. 5), and went to Ephesus to 
execute some commissions for the apostle, while Paul and 
the other members of the party did not stop at Ephesus 
(Acts xx. 16f.), neither mpoopeivas (i. 3), nor Paul's 
intention to come shortly to Ephesus (iii. 14), nor the 
tasks referred to in 1 Tim., agree with the representation 
of this journey which we have in Acts. For this reason it 
has been suggested that the letter, and the events presup- 
posed by it as immediately preceding, belong in the period 
of Paul’s labours in Ephesus, which covered approximately 


36 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


three years, more definitely, near the end of his stay 
there (n. 8). Then the journey referred to in 1 Tim. i. 8 
would be the journey of Paul from Hphesus to Corinth 
not mentioned in Acts, but attested by 2 Cor. (vol. 1, 
263, 271 f.), and from this passage we should have to 
assume that on that occasion Paul went to Corinth by way 
of Macedonia, But the assumption which this involves, 
namely, that after having himself been for some time in 
Ephesus, Paul left Timothy behind, charged with the 
tasks mentioned in 1 Tim. 1. 3f., has against it, as has 
been shown (above, p. 271), the language of the passage. 
Besides, there, is nothing to indicate that the prospective 
arrival of Paul in the place where Timothy remains 
(iii. 14, iv. 13), is a return of Paul to his place of 
residence after a temporary absence. It is also difficult 
to understand why Paul should have written Timothy a 
letter like 1 Tim., if in his capacity as Paul’s helper he 
was simply to carry on the work which he had seen the 
apostle do for some time past, when Paul had already had 
ample opportunity, and the most urgent occasion just 
before setting out on his journey, to give Timothy in- 
structions for the time during which he was to be absent. 
During this time Paul would have had no occasion to 
write Timothy except in answer to questions about, in- 
dividual cases that presented difliculty, of which, however, 
there is no suggestion. The instructions of the letter 
would be quite without point unless Paul assumed that 
Timothy would have to remain at his post in Ephesus 
alone for at least, several months. Adding to this the 
time that had elapsed since. the supposed departure, of 
Paul to Macedonia and Corinth, the interruption of Paul’s 
work in Ephesus caused by this journey is drawn, out 
to a length which renders the silence of Acts with refer- 
ence to it not. only very strange, but its representation of 
Paul’s work in Ephesus positively erroneous (xix. 8-10, 
xx. 18, 31). Moreover, the letter assumes the existence in 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 37 


the province of Asia of a considerable group of Churches, 
some ot which at least had been in existence for some 
time. Since a newly baptized person is not to be made a 
bishop (i. 6), there must have been in Ephesus and 
vicinity a number of men who had been for some years 
members of the Church. But even as late as the third 
year after the beginning of missionary work in Ephesus 
there were no persons tested by a long period of Christian 
experience, but only neophytes. This would be even 
more true of the other cities of the province. Furthermore, 
at the time when this letter was written there were in 
these cities persons who had fallen away again from the 
faith (i. 19f., v. 15), and Timothy is informed anew that 
Paul has given these persons over to Satan (i. 20); hence 
it could not have happened while Timothy was in Ephesus, 
nor could Paul have been there at the time when this was 
done. Finally, it is hard to see how, in a Church so 
recently organised as that in Ephesus, and until very 
recently under the personal oversight of the apostle, the 
unprofitable teachers, whom Timothy is especially in- 
structed to oppose, could have secured such a footing ; or if, 
in spite of his influence, they had acquired so much power, 
how in the circumstances Paul could have left Ephesus. 
Then the assumption has against it the close connection 
between 1 Tim. and 2 Tim., which certainly could not 
have been written before 63. The relation of 1 Tim. to 
Titus is closer, and, as will be shown, this letter could not 
have been written before the same year. Between the 
three letters there is an affinity of language, a similarity 
of thought, and a likeness of errors combated, which 
prevents our referring any of them to a period much 
earlier than the others. Certainly this assumption cannot 
be maintained on the ground of Timothy’s youthful age, 
suggested by the statement that he is not to let anyone 
despise him on account of his youth (iy. 12), and by his 
apparent disposition to excuse himself from his duties on 


38 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


this ground (above, p. 29). Paul speaks of Timothy’s 
youth (2 Tim. 11. 22) in the very latest of his letters; 
and in any case, Timothy, who became Paul’s helper in 
missionary work in the year 52, was not in the year 64 
necessarily more than thirty-five or forty years of age, 
and so still a ywvens, who on account of his immaturity 
might be regarded by himself and others as unsuited for 
the office in the Church. described above. His task. was 
really no easy one, especially if there were older men in 
the Churches, whether occupying official positions or not 
(roll); 


1. (P. 27.) Otto, Geschichtl. Verh. der Pastoralbr. S. 48, followed by 
Kölling, Erster Br. an Tim. i. 207-221, translated 1 Tim. i. 3: “Just as (in 
accordance with the fact that) I exhorted thee in Ephesus (1.6. while I was 
staying there), to hold out (to stand fast), so do thou, when setting out on the 
journey to Macedonia, command certain persons not to cleave to strange 
teachers, nor to give heed to endless fables and genealogies.” The grain of 
truth in the elaborate discussions of these theologians is that in Paul’s 
writings καθώς does not have just the same meaning as simple as, ὥσπερ, 
so that, as has been admitted by others, in this respect passages like Gal. i. 9 
are not altogether comparable. Paul points to the earlier request and 
exhortation which he had addressed to Timothy (cf. against Kölling, 211, with 
regard’ to παρακαλεῖν, Matt. vill. 34; Mark v. 17; Luke vin. 41; Acts 
xxvili. 14; 2 Cor. viii. 6) as the standard for what he has now to say to 
Timothy, and for what Timothy has now to do. For this very reason he 
reproduces not only this former request itself, but also its aim and real 
intention (iva παραγγείλῃ ς--ἐν πίστει) ; and the more detailed he makes this 
reproduction, the more natural it seems that with his tendency to anacolutha 
he should leave unexpressed the new request, which was to be expected 
grammatically, but which would have been of essentially similar content and 
of quite the same sense. The προσμένειν here (in distinction from the cases 
where it occurs in connection with a dative governed by the πρός, Matt. 
xy. 32; Acts xi. 23; 1 Tim. ν. 5) is used absolutely =“ to remain steadfastly, 
beyond the measure hitherto attained, still longer to persevere at one’s post” 
(Acts xviii. 18; Herodot. viii. 4). But this cannot in any way prevent us 
from connecting ev ᾿Εφέσῳ with it as the designation of the place where 
Timothy shall longer remain. The case is the same with the essentially 
synonymous ἐπιμένειν, which likewise occurs, sometimes with the dative 
(Rom. vi. 1; 1 Tim. iv. 16), sometimes without such completion of the idea, 
but with the most various determinations of the place (Acts xv. 34, xxi. 4, 
αὐτοῦ; 1 Cor. xvi. 8, ev Ἐφέσῳ ; 1 Cor. xvi. 7; Gal. i, 18, πρός τινα ; Acts 
xxviii. 14, map’ αὐτοῖς), the time (Acts x. 48, xxi. 10, xxviii. 12), or even the 
action in which one perseveres (Acts xii. 16 ; John viii. 7). The position of 
the words as imperatively demands that we connect ev Ἐφέσῳ with προσμένειν, 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 39 


as it forbids our connecting it with παρεκάλεσα, Moreover, it is anıarbitrary 
assumption to claim that πορευόμενος must have stood before παρεκάλεσα, if 
the author’s purpose had been to couple it with that verb as an attendant 
circumstance. In consideration of passages like Acts xix. 9, it would be more 
natural to ask if Paul’s journey to Macedonia or departure thither, though 
in form it is mentioned as the attendant circumstance of παρεκάλεσα, did 
not in fact directly follow this exhortation. The position of these words, 
like the whole sentence structure, is unquestionably careless. It is only as 
an afterthought that Paul characterises the situation at that time by re- 
marking that he was then on a journey to Macedonia, when he requested 
Timothy, against the latter’s inclinations, to prolong his stay and his labour 
in Ephesus. 

2. (P. 31.) The present γράφω, on the one hand (cf. per contra, Rom. xv..15; 
1 Cor. ix. 15; Gal. vi..11;,Philem.,.19,,21,; vol. i, 472, n. 4, 345, n..5), 
and ταῦτα, on the other, forbid referring iii. 14 f. exclusively either to what 
precedes or to what follows. The instructions of i. 3-iii. 13, are followed in 
iv. 6-vi. 21 by others essentially similar. Here, as in 1 Cor, iv. 14, Paul 
stops in the middle of his letter to make a remark bearing upon the essential 
content of the whole Epistle. In both cases the remark is occasioned by what 
has just been said here, because the preceding instructions may have given 
the impression that Timothy must keep the post assigned him inter- 
minably, and that Paul had given up all thought of visiting him and 
releasing him. The σέ after δεῖ is abundantly attested (also Ephrem arm. 
259%); and even if it is a gloss, it is a correct one. Elsewhere, dvaorpé- 
ῴφεσθαι, dvaorpobn may not differ essentially from περιπατεῖν, πολιτεύεσθαι 
(2 Cor. i. 12; Eph. ii. 3, iv. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 12); but the connection with 
ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ here suggests the idea of a manager or overseer engaged about 
the house, and moving hither and thither (cf. Heb. iii. 2-6; Zech. iii. 7; 
Ezek. xxii. 29f.; and for οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ, οἷ, τι. 3); for the member of the 
family as such (the private Church member) does not move about the house, 
but dwells, sits therein. 

3. (P. 31.) The prohibition μηδὲ προσέχειν, i. 4, cannot apply to 
Timothy, for in that case we must have had μηδὲ προσέχῃς continuing the 
construction of ἵνα wapayyeiAns. No further proof is needed. Nor does it 
refer to the Church members as hearers, but rather, like μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, to 
the false teachers, as appears for the following reasons : (1) the very connection 
of the words compels us to take both warnings as addressed to the same per- 
sons, since there is no new dative object opposed to τισίν, (2) οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ, 
ver. 4, for which οἰκοδομήν and οἰκοδομίαν are ancient emendations intended to 
make an easier reading, indicates the exercise of the calling of an οἰκονόμος 
θεοῦ; (cf. Tit. i. 7; 1 Cor. iv. 1, ix. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 10; Eph. 111. 2; Col. i. 25; 
vol. 1. 471, n. 1; Ign. Eph. vi. 1); but this calling is. exercised not by 
the hearing, but by the teaching member of the Church. (3) In Tit. i. 14 
the same thing is said of mischievous teachers, and in 1 Tim, vi. 3, προσέχεται, 
which is most certainly the correct reading (N*, Latini omnes, Ephrem arm. ? 
Theod. Mops. ?), has the same subject as ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ. 

4. (Pp. 32,33.) In1 Tim. ii. 1 we should read παρακάλει with the Westerns 
(DG, Hil.; Ambrosiaster?), with whom the Sahidic also agrees, It was 
natural for the copyists, whose task it was to prepare a text adapted for the 


40 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


edifieation of the Church, to make the apostle himself address this exhorta- 
tion to the Church directly. Besides, a glance at ii. 8 (v. 14), where the verb 
indeed is not the same as παρακάλει; 11. 1, but has the same force and general 
meaning, would mislead them into writing παρακαλῶ. After the somewhat 
digressive remarks of i. 19-20, Paul in ii. 1 directs the thought back to i. 12 
by means of παρακάλει οὖν, and then goes on to describe more in detail the 
commission given to Timothy, there expressed only in general terms. The 
teaching within the Church, with its practical application, consonant with 
the gospel, but by no means identical with it,—for this is what is meant by 
ἡ παραγγελία, i. 5, 18,—is recommended to his faithful care and diligent exer- 
eise. The instructions for guarding against false teachers, which have been 
given even earlier (i. 3f.), do not belong properly to this commission. The 
positive development of its details begins rather in ii. 1. The exhortation 
here is not to assiduous prayer in general, whether in the closet or in the 
family circle, or in public worship (1 Thess. v. 17; Col. iv. 2; Eph. vi. 18; 
Phil. iv. 6; Rom. xi. 12), but simply to prayer in the congregation assembled 
for worship, as is perfectly evident. For (1) the passive expression, “ Exhort 
therefore that above all prayers, ete., be offered for all men, for kings,” ete., 
shows that the regulation under discussion is a public one. (2) In a list: of 
things for which Christians should pray in private as well as in public, we 
should certainly expect to see mention of their own spiritual and ‘bodily 
welfare, and of the good of their fellow-believers. Here, however, we find 
merely directions to pray for all men, the vast majority of whom were still 
unconverted ; and for rulers, who at that time were still heathen ; together 
with elaborate reasons for such prayer. This can be explained only on the 
supposition that the prayer referred to was public. (3) In ii. 8 men are 
spoken of as those who offer this prayer, as'if this were self-evident ; con- 
sequently a kind of prayer must be referred to from which women were 
excluded, 1.6. praying aloud before the assembled congregation. For the 
silent prayer of the individual is plainly a right and a duty of the women 
just as much as of the men, and Paul had not the least intention of excluding 
the women even from praying aloud in family worship (1 Cor. xi. 5, ef. vii. 5). 
It is only in public worship that they are to be silent (1 Cor. xiv. 34-36), ὁ.6. 
neither leading in prayer nor teaching. The very same thing is enjoined 
here, ii. 11 f., in words which clearly recall 1 Cor. xiv. 35; and from this it 
follows again that in this whole context the reference is exclusively to Church 
worship. ‘The man who raises his hands in prayer before the congregation, 
and is selected to voice their prayer, must see to it that the hands which he 
thus stretches forth to God before the eyes of all are pure from all unclean, 
dishonourable, and violent deeds (Isa.i. 15 ; Jas. iv. 8; Clem. 1 Cor. xxix. 1; 
Jos. Bell. v. 9. 4 [Niese, 380, 403] ; Horace, Sat.i. 4. 68; and on ὅσιος, Tit. i. 8 ; 
Heb. vii. 26; Luke i. 75 ; @K, i. 102 f.), and that his heart is free from anger 
at the persecutions inflicted by the heathen, and from questionings as to the 
rightfulness of the civil order, a disposition which would choke sincere prayer 
for all men and for'the heathen rulers. The force of προσεύχεσθαι in ii. 8 
grammatically cannot extend into ii. 9, since γυναῖκας has a predicate of its 
own, korpeiv ἑαυτάς. It does continue the sense logically, but only to this 
extent, that ii. 9-12q still treats of the congregation assembled for prayer. 
The women are not here asked to pray in like manner as the men ; else why 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 41 


the diversity in the two commands, or why at all the separation of those 
praying into men and women ? Such a misunderstanding of the passage has 
led to the insertion of a spurious καί before γυναῖκας. Simple ὡσαύτως does 
not justify ascribing to the women the same function as to the men, indeed, 
not even a similar one. It merely places (otherwise than in iii. 8, 11) the 
commands to the women, which follow on the same plane, with those to the 
men. “In like manner also I desire that the women,” etc. Since this whole 
passage treats only of prayer before the assembled congregation, ἐν παντὶ 
τόπῳ cannot include all the various places where a Christian can pray, as, 
e.g. the closet, the family living-room, and the meeting-place of the congrega- 
tion. Rather, as in 1 Cor. i. 2, 1 Thess. i. 8 (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 14), it means all 
the places where there are Christian congregations, and where Christian 
meetings for prayer are held. Paul will have these instructions carried out 
everywhere, in all congregations (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 17, vii. 17, xi. 16, xiv. 33, 36). 
But why should Paul speak thus universally when requesting Timothy to 
look after this matter in the part of the Church entrusted to ‘his care? The 
only possible explanation is that this part of the Church embraced a number 
of places and local Churches. 

5. (P. 34.) As an illustration, we may take, aside from Tit. i. 5, what 
Clement of Alexandria (Quis dives, xlii.) says of the apostle John: ἐπειδὴ yap 
τοῦ τυράννου τελευτήσαντος ἀπὸ τῆς ἸΤάτμου τῆς vnooV μετῆλθεν ἐπὶ THY Ἔφεσον, 
ἀπήει παρακαλούμενος καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ πλησιόχωρα τῶν ἐθνῶν, ὅπου μὲν ἐπισκόπους 
καταστήσων, ὅπου δὲ ὅλας ἐκκλησίας ἁρμόσων, ὅπου δὲ κλήρῳ ἕνα γέ τινα 
κληρώσων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος σημαινομένων. 

6. (P. 34.) The notion that Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus 
was firmly established even as early as the time of Eusebius (H. E. iii. 4. 6). 
According to the worthless Acta Timothei (ed. Usener, 1877 ; cf. GGA, 1878, 5. 
97-114; Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelyesch. ii. 2.373 ff. ; Ergiinzungsheft, 86), which 
was written probably about 400-500 a.p. under the name of the very venerable 
bishop Polycrates of Ephesus, Paul had consecrated Timothy as bishop during 
Nero’s reign on the occasion of a visit to Ephesus which they made in com- 
pany. Then, under Nerva, Timothy suffers a martyr’s death during a heathen 
festival, and while John is an exile on the island of Patmos ; and it is not 
until after this that John suffers the bishops of Asia to transfer the See of 
Ephesus to him. In Const. ap. vii. 46 nothing is said about the apostle 
John being a bishop, as is in accordance with the method there pursued ; 
but Paul conseerates Timothy as bishop of Ephesus, and (later) the apostle 
John consecrates another John to that office. The Johannine legends have 
altogether ignored Timothy’s labours in Ephesus, and even those of Paul. It 
is a later hand that has inserted in the prolix narrative of Prochorus the 
section about Paul, and about Timothy’s episcopate in Ephesus before John’s 
arrival in that city ; ef. the writer’s Acta Jo. 166f., xxxix. | With better dis- 
crimination the ancient commentators Ephrem, Theodorus, and Theodoret 
recognised in their prologues the exceptional character of Timothy’s position, 
e.g. Theodorus, ii. 67: “S. ap. Paulus beatum Timotheum Ephesi reliquit 
(per contra, above, p. 27), scilicet ut omnem peragrans Asiam universas quae 
illo (=illic) sunt ecclesias gubernaret.” The contents of the letter, however. 
seemed to him useful for every bishop of his time (p. 68). The Vita Pol ycarpi, 
chap. ii., a work ascribed to Pionius, states, as if on good authority, that a 


42 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


certain Stratzas, the first (according to Const. ap. vii. 46 the second) bishop ΟἹ 
Smyrna, was a brother of Timothy; cf. GGA, 1882, 8. 300. In 356 A.». 
the emperor Constantine had what were supposed to be the bones of Timothy 
brought from Ephesus to Constantinople, and deposited in the Church of 
the Apostles (Jerome, Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 195). Nevertheless Ephesus 
continued to be known as the city of John and of Timothy (Acts of the 
“Robber Synod” of 449 a.p., ed. Hoffmann, p. 81. 45). 

7. (P. 35.) The Alexander in i. 20 may be identical with the one in 
2 Tim. iv. 14, and hence to be found in Troas (above, p. 16 f.), in which case 
Hymenzus also must be somewhere in Asia at least (i. 20, cf. 2 Tim. il. 17) ; 
but it does not follow from this that Paul had been lately in Troas, or indeed 
in Asia at all, for Paul could carry out the παραδιδόναι τῷ σατανᾷ even when 
absent in the body (1 Cor. v. 3-5). We should need to assume, however, 
that Paul, if it was on the basis of reports that he had passed such a 
sentence, communicated the same in writing to the persons concerned or to 
the Chureh to which they belonged. This, then, must have been the cause of 
Alexander’s hostility to him when they met later in Troas (2 Tim. iv. 14; 
above, p. 21, n. 3). In any case the association of the names Alexander and 
Hymenzeus, which is lacking in 2 Tim. iv. 14 and is replaced by another 
combination in 2 Tim. ii. 17, is unfavourable to the supposition that one of 
the letters was forged in imitation of the other, or that. both were written by 
the same pseudo-Paul. One of the marks of individuality, which are not 
borrowed from the earlier letters of Paul at any rate, is found in v. 29. 
General truths, such as are elsewhere to be found (Rom. xii. 14, τοῖς 
Eph. v. 18), could have suggested sentences like those in iii. 8, iv. 4, 8, but 
not this medical advice. Paul may have obtained this from Luke, who in 
that case would agree with another physician of his time, Dioscorides (de Mat, 
Med. v. 11), as to the usefulness of wine, especially for the stomach. The 
lack of personal greetings, in which respect this letter is like those directed 
to the Churches of Achaia (2 Cor. xiii, 12) and of Asia (Eph. vi. 28), may 
perhaps be explained on the ground that Paul presupposes that Timothy will 
communicate the contents of this letter to all the Churches under his charge, 
He had difficulties to contend with, his authority needed strengthening 
(iy. 12); so, when occasion required, he could exhibit this letter and read it 
publicly. Indeed, discussions such as those in ii. 1-iii, 13 are put in such 
objective form that they seem originally intended for wide circulation. The 
closing greeting, vi. 21, would point to the same thing were the reading 7 
χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν to be retained. Yet not only is μετὰ σοῦ likewise excellently 
attested, but even the texts without any benediction are worthy of attention 
in spite of the slight external evidence in their favour. Still more suspicious 
is the close of 2 Tim. (iv. 22), where after πνεύματός σου we find the following 
variants: (1) nothing at all (?); (2) ἡ x. μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ; (3) ἡ xX. μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ; (4) ἡ 
x: μετὰ σοῦ ; (5) ἔρρωσο ἐν εἰρήνῃ. 

8. (P. 36.) Wieseler especially, Chron. 311 ff., sought to establish 
this hypothesis, following similar discussions by Mosheim and Schrader 
(Wieseler, 295 ff.). 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 43 


$ 35. THE FACTS PRESUPPOSED IN THE EPISTLE 
TO-TIFUS 


From the first sentence which follows the elaborate 
and solemn greeting of the letter, “For this cause left I 
thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things 
that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I 
gave thee charge,” we infer, first, that not long previous 
to this Paul and Titus had been together on the island ; 
secondly, that Paul had not been able at that time to 
effect such organisation of the Church as he had had in 
mind, the establishment of which was the chief purpose 
for which he had instructed Titus to remain there,—a 
task to which Titus was to devote himself for a con- 
siderable time (iii, 12). Whether Paul himself actually 
began the correction of the condition indicated by ra 
λείποντα, we do not know. At any rate, he here speaks of 
the appointment of elders in such a way as to imply that 
when he left Crete the Christians there were quite with- 
out Church organisation. The very resemblance between 
what follows (i. 6-9) concerning the qualifications for the 
office of headship in the Church, and similar instructions 
in 1 Tim., only serves to emphasise. the different circum- 
stances presupposed in the two cases. Nothing is here 
said of elders already appointed (1 Tim. v. 17-21), of a 
house of God over which the representative of the apostle 
is to exercise oversight (1 Tim. iii. 15), nor of Cretan 
Churches (cf. 1 Cor, xvi. 19); mention is made only of 
persons who had believed (iii. 8, 14, of ἡμέτεροι ; cf. Iren. 
v. 28. 4). Now, when we remember that in Thessalonica 
there were constituted officers of the Church (1 Thess. 
v. 12) after only three weeks of preaching (vol. i. 212, 
n. 5), and recall how promptly in other places the pioneer 
missionary preaching was followed by the appointment of 
elders (Acts xiv. 23), it is clear that Paul’s stay in Crete 
must have been very short, so that he had probably just 


44 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW "TESTAMENT 


been able to proclaim the gospel for the first time in some 
of the cities, leaving Titus to organise the Christians in 
these places into Churches. 

If it had been ‘Titus who some time prior to Paul’s 
coming had brought the gospel to Crete, and if it had 
been to Titus’ work that the Christians in Crete owed 
their conversion, we should expect that to be refered to 
rather than Paul’s own missionary preaching. We con- 
sequently infer that when Paul and Titus came to the 
island there were already Christians there, who may have 
received their faith through Christians who had come 
thither from Corinth or Athens. Since Paul himself was 
hindered by duties elsewhere from remaining for any 
length of time, he commissioned Titus in his stead to 
organise thoroughly the yet unarranged affairs of the 
Christians in Crete. It is taken for granted that, either 
because: of its geographical position or the source from 
which Christianity was received, Paul reckoned Crete 
within his apostolic jurisdiction, although politically Crete 
was connected with Cyrene, not with Achaia. So he had 
done with the Churches of inland Asia, which, without 
personal eo-operation on his part, had been organised 
through influences emanating from Ephesus (vol. 1. 449, 
n. 3). Paul had been long enough in Crete to form a 
definite conception of local conditions, and of the special 
dangers which threatened to hinder the vigorous develop- 
ment of Church life there. Tit. i. 10-16 does not read 
like an echo of reports which Titus had sent to Paul, but 
like instructions to Titus based upon personal observa- 
tion. Paul states his own impressions by quoting a verse 
from the Cretan poet Epimenides, in which the Cretan 
character is unfavourably judged, and expressly aflırms 
that Epimenides’ | testimony is true (n. 1). Here, as ın 
löphesus (above, p: 81 f.), he considers the chief hindrance 
to the vigorous growth and good order of the life of the 
Chureh to be certain persons who persist in teaching 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 45 


doctrine which is unprofitable, unsound, and positively 
harmful. ‘The worst of these persons he represents to be 
those of Jewish origin (i. 10 ἢ, 14-16, iii, 9, n. 1). 
They resist sound doctrine (i. 9), are especially unruly 
(i, 10, 16), and by their teaching and disputation disturb 
the Christian households (i. 11, iii. 9). Some of them 
persist in maintaining their own views even to the point 
of creating schisms in the Church (iii. 10, ef. 1 Cor. xi. 19; 
vol. 1. 284 f.). Those who go as far as this, Titus, after 
repeated warnings, is to leave to themselves and to the 
judgment of their own conscience ; to the others he is to 
set forth strongly and sharply the wrongfulness of their 
action, and to silence them (i. 11, 13, ii: 15). The 
manner in which Paul speaks of these persons is very 
severe, and shows that he is greatly exasperated by them. 
From the character of the greeting which, at the close, 
il. 15, he asks Titus to convey—‘ Salute them that love 
us in faith (or in faithfulness)” —it is to be inferred that 
Paul himself had met with opposition among the Cretan 
Christians, and that by no means all of them had given 
him a kindly reception, or recognised his apostolic rights 
(cf. 3 John 9-10, 15). The fact that he here writes ἡμᾶς, 
thereby including Titus with himself, is fully explained 
by the assumption that Paul had not been in Crete except 
in company with Titus, who therefore had shared: the 
vicissitudes of Paul’s reception. The expression is even 
more natural if Titus continued to encounter the hostility 
of certain Christians after the apostle’s departure... We 
are led to the same conclusion by ii. 8, where, reversing 
the order, Paul includes himself with Titus. Here Titus 
is represented as a teacher both of the younger and older 
members of the Church. In. this capacity he is to be 
himself an example of good conduct; in fulfilling his 
office he is to be incorruptible and dignified, and what 
he teaches is.to be above all criticism. To this descrip- 
tion of Titus’ chief work is added the remark, “ That he 


46 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having ne 
evil thing to say of us.” Now, since non-Christians would 
have only the rarest opportunity to hear Titus’ preaching, 
it is manifest that no reference is here had to the opinions 
of those outside the Christian circle, wnlike ii. 5, 10, 
where the language is very different, and where reference 
is had to conduct that could be observed. Rather must 
these persons be the obstinate teachers (i. 9), who have 
no love for Paul and Titus (111. 15), whose method of 
teaching, mercenary, unsound, and condemned as it is by 
their own consciences (1. 11, 13, 15, iii. 11), is quite the 
opposite of that enjoined upon Titus. These teachers 
were inclined to speak evil of Paul and Titus, and actu- 
ally indulged in such talk. It is mainly because of this 
attitude of theirs toward Titus that Paul adds to his 
injunction that Titus speak, exhort, and reprove with all 
authority, the remark, “ Let no man despise thee,” 2.6. 
assume a contemptuous attitude toward him, as if he had 
said nothing, and had administered no reproof (ii. 15). 
The letter presupposes that the apostle had before him 
a written communication from Titus, in which the latter 
had informed him of the difficulties with which he had to 
contend in carrying out the instructions which had been 
given him, expressing at least doubt as to the possibility 
of carrying out the most important of them. Only on ‘the 
assumption that Paul is writing in reply to expressions 
of this kind on Titus’ part can the strongly emphasised 
τούτον χάριν, with which he begins, be explained (i. 5). 
This, and this primarily, was the purpose for which Paul 
had left Titus there. He is consequently not fulfilling 
his obligation if he is merely endeavouring to help the 
Christians there in his capacity as a teacher, and fails at 
the same time, on account of existing difficulties, to do 
anything appreciable in the way of organising the 
Churches. Just as definite a contrast is presupposed by 
the ἐγώ in the relative sentence, as by the τούτου χάριν, 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 47 


otherwise it is quite without point (cf. vol. i, 526, in 
connection with Phil. 1. 3; ef. also similar sentences else- 
where without ἐγώ, 1 Tim. i. 3; 1 Thess. iv. 11; 1 Cor. 
xvi. 1, xi. 2, vii. 17). In opposition to what is said by 
those persons who create difficulties for Titus, either by 
denying his commission and capacity for organising the 
Church, or by giving him advice concerning the same 
contrary to instructions left him by the apostle; Paul lays 
emphasis upon the fact that he, the apostle, has given 
Titus instructions with reference to this matter which 
Titus is to carry out. The attentive reader observes a 
connection between this ἐγώ and the equally significant 
ἐγώ in 1. 3. It is this contrast, just coming to light in 
i. 5, and expressed in various ways throughout the letter, 
which explains why in the greeting of this letter Paul 
speaks of his calling with a detail and an emphasis not 
observable in 1 Tim. i. 1; 2 Tim. i. 1, and comparable 
only to Rom. i. 1-7. To be sure, he is no lord over other 
Christians and their faith (2 Cor. i. 24), but, like all 
Christians, a servant of God (ef. Rom. i. 1; vol. i. 352); 
indeed, without the faith which all the elect of God have 
(i. 1), and the faith which he has in common with Titus 
(i. 4), he would be nothing. But at the same time he is 
an apostle of Jesus Christ (i. 1), and so personally and in 
special measure, by divine commission, he is entrusted 
with the preaching of that eternal life which has been 
promised of old, but has now become manifest through 
the word of the gospel (i, 2f.). The same is to be said 
with reference to the commission given to Titus by Paul, 
and is to be borne in mind by the Christians among whom 
Titus is to carry out this commission. 

The letter is concluded by a benediction upon all the 
Christians in Titus’ vicinity, which benediction is preceded 
by a personal greeting to Paul’s friends in Crete, the ex- 
pectation being disclosed much more clearly than in either 
1 Tim. or 2 Tim. (above, p. 42, n. 7 end) that Titus will 


48 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


communicate the contents of the letter to the Christians 
there. 

Titus’ position (n. 2) is practically the same as that of 
Timothy in Ephesus; with the difference already noted, 
that the problem in Crete was the primary organisation of 
the Church, whereas in Asia a group of Churches that had 
been already organised was placed under Timothy’s care, 
and only in exceptional cases, such as the organisation of 
a new Church, was he called upon to appoint officers 
(above, p. 34). This difference explains why Titus’ 
office was even more temporary than Timothy’s. ‘Titus 
had gone to Crete with Paul only a short time before, and 
he is to leave again, without any promise on Paul’s part 
to come back, and without the appointment of his suc- 
cessor. Paul does intend, however, to send to Crete a 
certain Artemas, of whom we have no other mention, or 
Tychicus, mentioned so often as the companion and 
messenger of Paul (Acts xx. 4; Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7; 
2 Tim. iv. 12). As soon as one or the other of these men 
arrives Titus is to hasten at once to Paul, going to 
Nicopolis, where Paul plans to spend the winter (ii. 12, 
n. 3). This is the apostle’s intention. At the same time, 
from the fact that he does not set a definite date when 
Titus is to arrive in Nicopolis, apparently intending to 
summon him through Artemas or T'ychicus when he is 
ready, we infer that at the time of his writing Paul did 
not know just when he himself would reach Nieopolis. 

Possibly he intended to utilise the time of his sojourn 
there in extending his work, in verification of certain 
earlier statements of his about the extension of his mis- 
sionary work in this direction (Rom. xv. 19; vol. 1. 
415 £.). It is also natural to suppose that the journey 
of Titus to Dalmatia (2 Tim. iv. 10) was made soon after 
a sojourn of Paul and Titus in the neighbouring pro- 
vinee of Epirus. Still, all that can positively be inferred 
from Tit. iii, 12 is that Paul intended to remain in 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 49 


Nicopolis until the end of winter, and at the opening of 
navigation in March following to set out at once from this 
point upon a sea journey (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 6). The choice of 
Nicopolis as a point of departure shows that this journey 
was to be in a westward direction, and that its ultimate 
destination was Italy. In regard to a certain Zenas, a 
lawyer, and Apollos, who is so well known as to need no 
further designation, Paul makes request that Titus, with 
the help of the Cretan Christians, furnish>all they need 
for a journey and set them on their way (iu. 13 f., n. 4). 
If Paul had meant, as Chrysostom thought he did (xi. 
729), that Titus was to send these men to him, he would 
certainly have said so. That they were with Titus prior 
to the arrival of this letter is unlikely, because in outlining 
Titus’ duties the presence of so distinguished a teacher as 
Apollos could not have been so entirely overlooked had he 
been on the island with Titus at the time. Nor is it clear 
why Paul should have requested the Christians in Crete 
to set Zenas and Apollos on their way, if they neither 
came from him nor were going to him, or to a place he 
had designated. In the last case the place would be 
named. Whence they came and their destination Titus 
would learn from the men themselves; all that we know 
is that they did not arrive after the letter reached its 
destination. The only natural assumption is the one 
pointed out by Theodorus (ii. 256), namely, that Zenas 
and Apollos were the bearers of the letter, and that the 
first stage of their journey took them from the place 
where Paul was to Crete, whence, replenished and set 
forward by Titus, they were to continue their journey to 
some destination unknown to us. 

From what is here said of Apollos, we infer that 
Paul already knew him personally, an acquaintanceship 
formed during the latter part of the apostle’s three 
years work in Ephesus. To the earlier part of this 


period belongs the Corinthian work of Apollos, whom 
VOL. II. 4 


50 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Paul had not then come to know (Acts xviii. 24-xix. 1) 
In the spring of 57 Apollos was in Ephesus with Paul, 
and had been there for some time, being for the pre- 
sent unwilling to leave (1 Cor. xvi. 12). A journey of 
Apollos to Corinth is here certainly spoken of; and it is 
possible that some weeks after 1 Cor. was written, about 
the time that Paul left Ephesus to go to Macedonia (Acts 
xx. 1; 2 Cor. 1. 8, ἢ. 12 f.), Apollos also left and set out 
upon a journey to Corinth, which could have been made 
by way of Crete. Im this case, however, Paul must have 
written Titus during the months that he was in Mace- 
donia. But this is clearly impossible, since at this time 
Paul was planning to spend the winter, not im Nicopolis, 
but in Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 6), and in the following spring 
it was his purpose to journey, not from Nicopolis west- 
ward, but from Corinth to Jerusalem. Both projects were 
earried out practically as he had planned. Furthermore, 
during the period following the composition of 1 Cor., 
Titus was not in Crete, but in accordance with Paul’s 
instructions journeyed from Ephesus to Corinth, whence 
he went to meet Paul who was journeying slowly by way 
of Troas through Macedonia on his way to Corinth, join- 
ing him in Macedonia (2 Cor. u. 12 f., vil. 5-16; vol. i 
326f.). Nor is there any more opportunity for the resi- 
dence of Paul in Crete, presupposed in Tit. i. 3, during 
the months immediately following the events described in 
1 Cor. xvi. 1-9, than there is for the activity of Titus 
there, which followed Paul’s sojourn, Neither can room 
be made for the Cretan sojourn in the three months spent 
in Greece after Paul's departure from Ephesus (Acts 
xx. 3); for these were the closing months of the winter, 
the end of which he intended to await in Corinth (1 Cor. 
xvi. 6). In these circumstances he could not have written 
Titus that he intended to spend the winter in Nicopolis ; 
and although, as we learn from Rom. xy. 25-32, his mind 
was turning toward the West at that time, he did not 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 51 


plan to journey directly thither with the coming of spring 
but held to his original purpose of first visiting Jerusalem. 
From Acts xx. 3-xxi. 17 we know that this plan was 
actually carried out. Im order, therefore, to find a place 
in Paul’s career for Titus, and the facts upon which it is 
based prior to his long imprisonment, one must go back 
beyond the middle of the period of work in Ephesus, and 
assume that Paul stopped in Crete on the occasion of his 
flying journey from Ephesus to Corinth, about which Acts 
is silent, left Titus there, and wrote Titus some time after 
his return to Ephesus. If in addition to the assumption 
that Paul made this journey, which Acts does not men- 
tion, by way of Macedonia,—an assumption made in 
the supposed interest of 1 Tim. (above, p. 35 f.),—it be 
assumed that the apostle also touched in Crete, the 
journey becomes such an important part of the apostle’s 
life-history that the silence of Acts is almost unintelligible. 
Furthermore, it leaves quite unexplained Paul’s intention 
to spend the ensuing winter in Nicopolis ; for at that time 
the important work in Ephesus, covering as it did the 
whole province of Asia,—a work which, when 1 Cor. xvi. 
8-11 was written, was nowhere near completion,—could 
have been scarcely more than begun. But it is altogether 
unlikely that long before actually leaving Ephesus Paul 
should have formed the definite plan of spending a winter 
or part of a winter in Nicopolis, making his way thence 
farther westward, On the other hand, it is very improb- 
able that the plans of which his mind was so full at the 
time of his correspondence with the Corinthians, and 
which were carried out at the beginning of 58, should 
have suddenly displaced the entirely different plans of 
which we learn in Titus. The collection, with which the 
journey to Jerusalem was intimately connected, was a 
matter of long standing, having been carried on for a 
considerable period before Paul left Ephesus (2 Cor. 
vii. 10, ix. 2; vol. i, 318 f.). Finally, it is to be 


52 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


noticed that the resemblance between 1 Tim. and Titus is so 
great that they must be classed together, both as regards 
language and thought, just as Ephesians and Colossians. 
If Paul wrote them at all, he must have written them 
within a short time of each other. The proof that Paul 
could not have written 1 Tim. until after he was liberated 
from his first Roman imprisonment (above, p. 35 f.) is 
valid also for Titus, and vice versa. If the latter was 
written in the interval between the first and second 
Roman imprisonments, then his short residence in Crete 
belongs in the same interval. On the journey from 
Ceesarea to Rome, Paul did not touch at Crete (Acts xxvii. 
7-15), and Titus was not with him at that time (Acts 
xxvii. 2). Furthermore, the manner in which Paul speaks 
in Tit. i. 3 of his residence in Crete and of Titus’ commis- 
sion, precludes the possibility of the intervention of the 
two years spent in Rome, and of several months preceding 
and following these two years, between the sojourn of Paul 
and Titus in Crete and this Epistle. 

The letter gives us, therefore, two more stations of 
that journey in the eastern part of the empire which Paul 
made in the interval between Philippians and 2 Tim., 
namely, Crete and, at least prospectively, Nicopolis. 

1. (P. 44.) Concerning Jews in Crete, ef. 1 Macc. xv. 23 (Gortyna) ; 
Acts ii. 11; Philo, Leg. ad Cai. xxxvi.; Jos. Ant. xvii. 12.1; Bell. ii. 7.1; Vita, 
76 (his last wife an “aristocratic” Jewess from Crete); Soer. H. H, vii. 38 
(concerning a pseudo-Moses, who led the Jews astray, καθ᾽ ἑκάστην τῆς νήσου 
πόλιν). Moreover, the legend that the Jews came originally from Crete, and 
that their name is derived from Mount Ida there (Tac. Hist. v. 2), would 
hardly have arisen if there had not been a considerable number of Jews on 
the island. Homer, Iliad, ii. 649, followed by many poets, calls Crete ἑκατόμ- 
rods ; and even though perhaps it may have become comparatively depopu- 
lated since the Roman occupation, its cities were not few (Strabo, p. 476; 
Ptol. iii. 17).. In the second century we hear of bishops in Gortyna and in 
Knossus (Eus. H. E. iv. 23. 5, 7). According to Jerome (vii. 706, ef, Soer. 
H. E. iii. 16), the verse quoted in Tit. i. 12 is to be found in a book entitled 
Περὶ Χρησμῶν, by Epimenides, a contemporary of Solon. In calling this poet, 
then, a prophet of the Cretans, Paul shows a knowledge of the tradition con- 
cerning him (Plato, Leg. p. 642 ; Plut. Solon, xii, ; Diog. Laert. i. 10. 109-115). 
Theodoret thought mistakenly that Paul was citing from Callimachus, who 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 53 


was a native of Cyrene, not Crete, and who in his “Hymn to Zeus,” ver. 8, 
appropriated only the first half of Epimenides’ hexameter, namely, the charge 
of untruthfulness, a trait of the Cretans which had become proverbial (cf. 
Wettstein’s Sammlungen, ad loc.). Theodoret was misled by Chrysostom, who, 
while he names the right author Epimenides, quotes the words which in 
Callimachus follow ψεῦσται, ver. 8f., as if they came from Epimenides 
(xi. 744). Theodore is the first Father from whom we are able to ascertain 
clearly what is only hinted at in Chrysostom and Jerome, namely, that the 
heathen opponents of Christianity (Porphyry? Julian ?) inferred from this 
passage that Paul agreed with the poet in his defence of the eternal deity of 
Zeus against the lies of the Cretans, who thought that Zeus’ grave was on 
their island. Consequently these heathen writers, too, must have been 
thinking not of Epimenides, but of Callimachus, who did actually ap- 
propriate part of the older poet’s verse with this very end in view. And 
some of the Christian apologists and commentators have followed them. 

2. (P. 48.) Titus is called bishop of Crete by Eus. H. E. iii. 4. 6; 
Ambrosiaster, p. 313, in his Prologue; Const. ap. vii. 46. More guarded 
and more nearly correct are Ephrem, 269 ; Theodorus, ii. 233, ef. p. 122; 
Theodoret, 698. With regard to mistaken identifications of Titus with 
Titius Justus and with Silvanus, see vol. i. 208, 266. Beside the state- 
ments in Gal. ii. 1-3; 2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6-14, viii. 6, 16, 23, xii. 18; 2 Tim. 
iv. 10, we have no reliable testimony concerning Titus, except perhaps the 
assertion of Acta Thecle, cc. ii. iii., that he was staying with Onesiphorus 
in Iconium when Paul came thither for the first time. Possibly the Zeno 
mentioned there and called the son of Onesiphorus may be the Zenas of Tit. 
iii. 13. Concerning later fabulous tales, which are referred to a Vita Titi 
written by Zenas, cf. Lipsius, Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. part 2, 401 ff. ; also the 
passages of the Vita Titi published by M. R. James in JTAS. vi. 549 ff. (July 
1905) are without historical value. 

3. (P. 48.) Of the numerous cities which were named Nicopolis in 
commemoration of a victory, some must be excluded in a consideration of 
Tit. iii. 12 on account of their location, some on account of their late origin. 
(1) The Nicopolis in Armenia (Strabo, 555 ; Ptolem. viii. 17. 40) is ruled out 
on this ground, as also (2) the one in Egypt, near Alexandria (Jos. Bell. iv. 11. 
5); (3) Emmaus in Palestine, not called Nieopolis until the third century ; (4) 
the one founded by Trajan on the Danube, which still retains the name ; and 
(5) another in the Heemus (Ptolem. iii. 11. 11, ef. Forbiger, iii. 750, A. 66, S. 
753 ; Mommsen, Röm. Gesch. v. 282, who, however, identifies No. 4 with No. 5 ; 
C. 1. L. iii. p. 141). (6) Likewise the Nieopolis on the Nestus (Ptolem. iii. 11. 
13) which was founded by Trajan (Forbiger, Pauly, RE, v. 637, under No. 2; 
Mommsen, op. cit. 281). This must have been the city meant by those writers 
who remarked, in commenting on Tit. iii. 12, that it lay in Thrace (Cramer, 
Cat. vii. 99). (7) A city of this name in Bithynia (Plin. H. N. v. 32. 150 ; 
Steph. Byz. sub verbo) offers no point of connection forany probable conjectures. 
(8) Similarly, the Nicopolis in the north-east corner of Cilicia (Strabo, 675 ; 
Ptolem. v. 8. 7) is not to be thought of ; for no reason can be conceived which 
could have induced Paul to spend the winter in this out of the way mountain 
town rather than in a large community like Antioch ; or, if rest were his 
aim, in his native city, Tarsus, or in some place from which he would have 


54 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


abundant opportunities to continue his journey in the spring. The only one 
remaining 15. (9) the Nicopolis founded by Augustus at the outlet of the 
Ambracian Gulf as a memorial of the victory at Actium, by far the most 
important and famous city of this name, and a generation later the chief scene 
of Epictetus’ labours as a teacher. Tacitus, Ann. ii. 53 (for the year 18), calls 
it urbem Achaie ; on the contrary, Epictetus, Diss. iii. 4. 1, speaks of an 
ἐπίτροπος ᾿Ηπείρου residing in Nicopolis and governing the land from thence ; 
ef. ©. I. @. No. 18135 (add. p. 983); C. I. L. iii. No. 536 (Ὁ) ; about the year 
150, Ptolemy, iii. 14. 1, 15. 1, distinguishes Epirus, in which Nicopolis is 
situated (xiv. 5), from Achaia as a separate province. Our information as to 
these changing conditions is not very clear (Mommsen, op. cit. 234; Marquardt, 
i, 331). Jerome (Vall. vii. 686, 738) considered it self-evident that this 
Nicopolis was meant ; and even those who called it Nicopolis Macedonie (see 
Tischendorf’s apparatus on the subscription) could hardly have had another 
in mind ; for no other of the cities mentioned above was in Macedonia proper, 
not even No. 6. Jerome, 686, assumed mistakenly, with many Greeks and 
Syrians, that the letter was written from Nicopolis. Wieseler, Chron. 353, 
sought to prove, on the ground that Nicopolis belonged to Achaia, that Tit. 
iii, 12 is simply a more definite statement of the purpose expressed in 1 Cor. 
xvi. 6. But this is impossible, since 1 Cor. is addressed solely to the local 
Church at Corinth, and not, like 2 Cor., to all the Christians of Achaia. And 
even in 2 Cor. πρὸς ὑμᾶς would mean “to” or “in Corinth.” 

4. (P. 49.) In itself, νομικός, 111. 13, cf. Luke vii. 30, x. 9 Ξε νομοδιδάσ- 
καλος, Luke v.17; Acts v. 34--ἰ γραμματεύς, Luke v. 21, vi. 7; 1 Cor. i. 20, 
could denote a rabbi (ef. Ambrosiaster, p. 317, “quia Zenas hujus professionis 
fuerat in synagoga, sic illum appellat”). But since the Jewish scribe who 
became a Christian by that very act separated himself from the rabbinic body, 
and since the retention of rabbinic methods and ways of thinking was any- 
thing but a recommendation in Paul’s eyes (1 Tim. i. 7), Zenas is here 
characterised not as legis (Mosaice) doctor, but as juris peritus. The word 
denotes not an office, but usually the practical lawyer, through whose assist- 
ance, e.g. a will is made (Epict. Diss. ii. 13. 6-8 ; Berl. dig. Urk. No. 326, vopuxds 
‘Pwpaixds, No. 361, col, iii. 2, 15), or a lawsuit carried on (Artemid. Oneiroer, 
iv, 80, cf. iv. 33, νομικοὶ νομικὰ ἢ ἰατροὶ ἰατρικὰ. . . λέγουσιν). Plutarch 
(Sulla, 36) applies this name to the renowned jurist Mueius Scaevola. — mpo- 
πέμπειν means here, as elsewhere in the N.T., to speed the departing traveller 
on his way, whether he is just setting forth on his journey or is passing 
through the place. Occasionally this consisted simply in accompanying him 
a short distance (Acts xx. 38, xxi. 5); as a rule, however, and here also, if 
we may judge from what follows, it includes equipping him with all things 
needful for the journey, ef. 3 John 6 (Rom. xv. 24; 1 Cor, xvi. 6, 11), and 
is almost synonymous with ἐφοδιάζειν, Jos. Bell. ii. 7.15 Ant. xx. 2.5. For 
an illustration, cf, Acta Petri cum Simone, ed. Lipsius, 48. 1-18. 


§ 36. THE END OF PAUL'S LIFE. 


If we were certain that Paul was put to death at the 
end of the Roman imprisonment. in which we find him 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 55 


when he wrote Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Phil- 
ippians, it would be necessary to reject as forgeries the three 
letters which have been inappropriately called the Pastoral 
Epistles (n. 1). This belief, which has long been one of 
the principal grounds of objection to the genuineness of 
these Epistles, and which has been a source of insufferable 
violence done to the Epistles by those defending their 
genuineness, either wholly or in part, does not rest upon 
the foundation even of ancient, to say nothing of trust- 
worthy tradition. It is simply an hypothesis, which has 
strong historical evidence against it, and nothing in its 
favour (n. 2). An expectation of early release so definite 
as that expressed by Paul in Phil. 1. 19, 25, 11. 24, is not 
likely to have failed of fulfilment, since this expectation 
is based not upon desires, conjectures, and inferences, 
which, judging from Acts xxv. 18, 25, xxvi. 31f, xxvill. 
15, 18, pointed in that direction from the first (ef. Philem. 
22), but primarily upon the actual course of the trial, 
which after protracted delay had been actually begun. 
Moreover, it was not Paul’s personal opinion alone, but 
the judgment of all who followed the course of his trial, 
even of non-Christians, that it would shortly terminate 
in his release (vol. i. 540 ff.). For this reason we are 
not justified in comparing the repeated οἶδα of Philippians 
with the οὖδα which Paul used at Miletus shortly before he 
was arrested in Jerusalem (Acts xx. 25, 88) to declare his 
expectation that the elders and the Church in Ephesus 
would see his face no more (n. 3). It is to be observed, 
first of all, that we do not have here, as in Phil. i. 19, 25, 
11. 24, Paul’s own language, but at most only a saying of 
the apostle’s as Luke, his companion, remembered it. 
But, leaving that out of account, the later “I know,” in 
which is expressed the hope of reunion with the Phil- 
ippian Christians and the Christians in the East generally, 
would quite annul the “ I know” spoken five years before, 
when reunion with the Christians in Ephesus seemed quite 


56 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


impossible. Then it must be remembered that in the 
prophetic utterances on the basis of which Paul made this 
statement, — being careful to note that it is only his 
personal conviction (xx. 25),—nothing is said of his death, 
but only of chains and persecution (Acts xx. 23, xxi. 11), 
and that Paul simply explains that he is ready, if neces- 
sary, even to die in Jerusalem, expressly stating, however, 
that he does not know what awaits him there (Acts xx. 
22, 24, xxi. 13, cf. Rom. xv. 31). The expression of 
this indefinite feeling of Paul’s, accompanied by the 
acknowledgement that all is uncertainty, that possibly his 
life might end where on three different occasions later it 
was actually threatened (xxi. 31, xxiii. 12-15, xxv. 3), 
refers only to Jerusalem and Palestine. According to 
Acts, he was desirous of seeing Rome, and it did become 
later the scene of the labours for which he was rescued 
from all dangers (xix. 21, xxiii. 11, xxv. 10-12, xxvii. 
24, xxviii. 5, 15, 30, 31); so that, in view of the con- 
nection in Acts, it is hardly likely that the author intended 
the passage in the 20th chapter of Acts (xx. 25) to bea 
prophecy of Paul’s martyrdom in Rome. By a more 
careful consideration of the text, the meaning of the ex- 
pression seems to be only that the personal intercourse, 
often broken off, but always taken up again, which had 
existed between Paul and the Eastern Churches up to the 
present time had at last reached its end, since Paul, in 
ease he should not lose his life in Jerusalem, purposed 
now to go to the West. But even assuming that when 
he left Miletus Paul was confident that he would never see 
the elders of Ephesus again, this is no reason for assuming 
that he never did. Paul never claimed to be able to pre- 
dict the future, and insisted particularly that statements 
of his with reference to his future plans should not be 
considered irrevocable (2 Cor. i. 15-17; vol. i. 344, n. 2). 

It is, of course, possible that Paul was deceived in his 
expectation of an early release, so confidently expressed 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 57 


in Philippians ; but this is not at all likely, because of the 
facts upon which this expectation was based. Events en- 
tirely unforeseen must suddenly have given an unfavour- 
able turn to the trial, which, when Philippians was written, 
was as good as ended. The Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, which 
for nearly three years (from the hearing before Festus. in 
the latter part of the summer of 60 a.p. to the writing 
of Philippians, which did not take place until after the 
spring of 63) had made no effort to renew the charges 
against Paul before the imperial court (n. 4), are not 
likely to have done so after so long an interval, par- 
ticularly since under Albinus (62-64), Festus’ successor 
in the procuratorship, there were things enough in Jeru- 
salem to keep them occupied (cf. Schürer, i. 583 [Eng. 
trans. IL i. 188]). Moreover, after their experiences in 
Palestine (Acts xxiv.-xxvi.), the Sanhedrin could have 
entertained very little hope of accomplishing anything 
against Paul in Rome. The assumption that before the 
trial was entirely ended, the favourable outcome of which 
in the near future Paul expected when he was writing 
Philippians, the persecution of the Roman Christians 
under Nero broke out, and that Paul was one of the 
victims of the same, is improbable on chronological 
grounds. If Paul reached Rome in March or April of the 
year 61 (Part XI. vol. iii.), and if soon after the spring of 
the year 63 the trial began, which, according to Philippians, 
gave rise at once to confident expectations of a successful 
outcome, it is impossible to understand what could have 
protracted it until the summer, or rather the autumn, of 
the following year 64. Such, however, must have been 
the case if Paul was one of those Christians who, according 
to Tacitus’ account (Ann. xv. 44), were executed for the 
burning of Rome, since Nero did not accuse the Christians 
until he had availed himself of every other means of avert- 
ing from himself the suspicion of having burned the city. 
This accusation was probably not made before October 64 


58 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(n. 5). It is thus easily understood why those who feel 
that Paul’s execution must be associated with the whole- 
sale execution of Christians which took place in the latter 
part of the summer or in the autumn of the year 64, are 
inclined to date Paul’s arrival in Rome in the spring of 
62, and the composition of Philippians at the beginning 
of the summer of 64 (see per contra, Part XI. vol. iii.). 
But the particular presupposition which is the main 
reason for a change of date, namely, that Paul was exe- 
cuted shortly after the writing of Philippians, and that he 
was one of a number of Christians to suffer martyrdom, and 
hence must have been put to death in the year 64, gets 
no certain support in ancient tradition. The only thing 
that can be directly inferred from Acts xxvii. 30 f. is that 
the author knew what it was that terminated the situa- 
tion which is there briefly described, and which he says 
lasted for two whole years. Why does he: fail to state 
what this was? Whether we assume that Acts xxvii. 
30 f. is the conclusion of the work as Luke planned it, or 
whether he intended to complete the work in a third 
book, in either case—in the former case even more than 
in the latter—his silence about the event marking the 
close of the two years is inexplicable, if the trial whieh 
ended with the apostle’s execution occurred at this time. 
Neither the book nor the whole work could have had a 
more fitting close than the account of the martyrdom of 
the apostle upon whose history the attention of the reader 
has been kept constantly fixed from the thirteenth chapter ; 
and certainly a writer who was able in three lines to 
convey to the reader an idea of the great work which 
Paul did during two years in the eapital of the empire, 
was able just as briefly and just as skilfully to tell of the 
glorious ending of this work, and of the apostle’s career. 
The author could not leave the reader to guess this end, 
because after all the deliverances and consolations through 
which Paul had been brought to Rome (Acts xxi. 31-30, 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 5S 


xxii. 10—30, xxv. 3, xxvil. 24,42. 44, xxviii. 5, 15), and after 
the opinions expressed by the highest ofticials concerning 
the charges made by the Jews (Acts xxv. 2-8, 18-20, 26 f., 
xxvi. 81 ἢ, xxvii. 18), the death-sentence of Paul would 
be the last thing that the reader would expect. The only 
plausible inference to be drawn from the sudden breaking 
off of the narrative in Acts xxviii. 30f. is that these two 
years were followed by another period in Paul’s life his- 
tory and missionary work of such considerable length 
that it could not be treated in Luke’s second book without 
making this disproportionately long compared with the 
first. 

Now, even assuming that the Epistles to Timothy and 
Titus are spurious, they furnish important evidence that 
Paul’s life continued beyond the two years in Rome and 
beyond the time when Philippians was written ; for, as has 
been shown, they presuppose that after his acquittal by the 
imperial court at Rome, and after his liberation from his 
imprisonment in Rome, which had lasted until then, Paul 
visited his eastern Churches in Macedonia and Crete, 
Miletus and Troas, probably also in Corinth and Ephesus ; 
and, on the other hand, engaged in missionary work in 
regions lying westward from Rome, probably in Spain. 
If all this were told in the letters, or even clearly stated as 
information, we might assume that it was forged, either 
with a view to enlarging the history of Paul’s life or 
supplying the Epistles with a historic background. But, 
as a matter of fact, the most of these events and those of 
greatest importance are simply taken for granted, as we 
should expect them to be in genuine Epistles. What we 
are compelled to infer from incidental hints, and that 
rather vaguely, e.g. the fact that he was in prison when 
2 Tim. was written, and how he came to be there; the 
missionary work carried on after he was set free from his 
first Imprisonment in regions hitherto unvisited by him ; 
what took him to Crete ; why he planned to go to Nieo- 


60 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


polis,—all this and much more must have been known to 
the readers, whose knowledge of the situation the author 
took for granted. If this author were Paul himself, then 
these letters are standards by which every other account 
of this period, inside the Canon and out of it, is to be 
judged, and any additional evidence is superfluous. If the 
author was a pseudo-Paul belonging to the period between 
the years 70 and 140,—the latest possible date for the 
composition of the letters, —the tradition of which he 
made use must have existed in such clear outlines and 
have been so generally known, that it required only the 
slightest reference and the most casual connections to 
recall to the readers’ minds the course of events and 
induce them to accept this forgery, which was based thus 
upon recognised historical facts. 

Evidence of the existence of such a tradition regarding 
the closing years of Paul’s life, covering the period after 
the close of Acts, but independent of the Pastoral Epistles, 
is furnished by the letter sent by the Roman Church to 
the Church in Corinth of which Clement of Rome is 
commonly regarded as the author (n. 6). | Since Clement's 
letter was written certainly not later than the year 96, 
and expressly mentions the apostles Paul and Peter as 
heroes and sufferers of the then living generation, it is 
evident that Clement and the Roman Church were not 
wholly dependent for their knowledge concerning the close 
of the apostle’s life upon written sources, which so far as 
we know were not yet in existence, but made use of trust- 
worthy oral traditions. An officer in the Roman Church 
in the year 96, who would certainly have been a man of 
years, would have been a younger contemporary of Paul's, 
and could recall the time when the apostle’s death took 
place. It is quite possible, as Irenaus testifies (iii. 3. 3), 
that Clement had had personal intercourse with Paul and 
Peter. Certainly he possessed independent information 
about Paul’s history, as is evidenced by his statement 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 61 


that Paul was bound with chains seven times (n. 6). His 
other somewhat rhetorical statements in praise of the two 
apostles seem to take for granted acquaintance with the 
eventsin question on the part even of his younger readers. 
However, although not acquainted with the events, we of 
to-day may recognise the following points :—(1) Peter and 
Paul died in Rome as martyrs. (2) Paul had preached 
the gospel in the most western portion of the then known 
world, 1.6. in Spain. (3) As regards the order of events, 
Peter’s martyrdom seems to have preceded that of Paul; 
for, otherwise, the name of Paul would be mentioned first, 
since he is praised more at length, and with more high- 
sounding phrases, than is Peter, and seems to have been 
regarded by the author as the more important personality, 
either in general or in this particular regard. As the text 
stands, however, Paul’s name is inserted between that of 
Peter, of whom Clement says little, and the mention of 
a large number of Christian martyrs, men and women, 
whose sufferings are summarily referred to, without names 
(chap. vi.). Even if we did not know independently that 
Paul had not been in Spain prior to his imprisonment in 
Uxsarea and Rome, of which account is given in Acts, so 
that this journey, if it took place at all, must have followed 
his release from this imprisonment, and his martyrdom, if 
suffered in consequence of a judicial sentence, must have 
followed a second arrest after the Spanish journey,—in 
any case we should infer from the order of Clement’s 
sentences that Paul's Spanish journey took place at the 
very end of his life, and that he was arrested and brought 
before the authorities subsequent to the Spanish journey. 
Clement's general statement that these events happened 
within the memory of the generation living at the time 
when the letter was written (96 A.D.), agrees with the other 
traditions which place them in the reign of Nero; and this 
agreement is still further confirmed by the fact that from 
earliest times the impression could not be avoided that 


62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the sufferings of Christian men and women in Rome, the 
story of which Clement relates immediately after the ae- 
count of the martyrdom of the two apostles, were the same 
as those described by Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44), and hinted at 
by Suetonius (Nero, xvi). The most that can be inferred 
from Clement’s statements is that the martyrdom of Peter 
aud of Paul, and the persecutions of the year 64, belong 
to the same period, and that is all that is affirmed by the 
earlier traditions (n. 8). Almost without exception, in 
this earlier tradition, the name of Peter precedes that of 
Paul, as in Clement, which would indicate that Peter's 
death preceded that of Paul; thus contradicting the view 
which arose after the middle of the fourth century, that 
the two apostles suffered martyrdom on the same day of 
the same year, the 29th of June. It can be shown that 
this story grew out of a Roman festival commemorative 
of the removal of the remains, or what were supposed to 
be the remains, of the two apostles to the Appian Way in 
the year 258 (n. 9); so that it can be left out of account 
in any attempt to determine the real date of the apostles’ 
death. The only thing which can be definitely concluded 
from the establishment of this festival in or near the year 
258, is that up to the middle of the third century the 
Roman Church had no definite tradition regarding the 
exact date of the apostles’ martyrdom (n. 8). 

On the other hand, the memory of Paul’s journey to 
Spain lingered long (n. 7). In the Muratorian Canon 
Paul’s journey to Spain is put on exactly the same footing 
as the martyrdom, the circumstance that these two facts 
are not mentioned in Acts being adduced as proof that 
Luke confined his narrative in Acts to what he himself 
had experienced (n. 7). Although the fragmentist may be 
dependent, here as elsewhere, upon apocryphal accounts, 
he takes for granted that in the year 200 these two facts 
were commonly accepted in the eirele to which he belonged, 
i.e. in the Roman Church, or a Church closely associated 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 63 


with the same. The Acts of Peter, which were certainly 
not written in Rome, and which embody Gnostic tendencies, 
are some thirty or forty years older. According to these 
legends, Paul, who had remained until then a prisoner in 
Rome, journeyed to Spain to preach the gospel there in 
consequence of a vision. During his absence in Spain, 
which did not cover a period of more than a year (ed. 
Lipsius, p. 46. 3), Peter came from Jerusalem to Rome, 
and after successful contests with Simon Magus was cruci- 
fied head downwards. Although in this account Peter’s 
departure from Jerusalem is set twelve years after the 
beginning of the apostolic preaching (p. 49. 22), Nero is 
declared to be the emperor in whose reign Peter worked 
and died in Rome (pp. 100. 15, 102. 2,103. 2). Likewise 
the martyrdom of Paul, which took place later than that 
of Peter, and which is referred to occasionally in these 
legends, is dated still in the reign of Nero (p. 46. 8). 
The testimony of the Acts of Paul, which show a catholie 
tendency, and are evidently of later date than Leucius’ 
Acts of Peter and John, is not so clear, and at this point 
the newly found Coptic fragments, which have been 
recently published, do not furnish any more light (n. 10). 

That as time went on the tradition concerning Paul’s 
liberation from his first protracted imprisonment, the 
resumption of his missionary work, and another arrest 
shortly before his execution, should gradually die out, is 
not to be wondered at. There was no connected account 
of these events which was regarded as trustworthy. In 
the West, confusion was caused especially by the Roman 
legend about the simultaneous martyrdom of Paul and 
Peter. This legend certainly made it difficult to find a 
place for so important a period of Paul’s career subsequent 
to the time when Philippians was written as was required 
by the tradition of the first and second centuries. The 
testimony of this earlier tradition is, however, quite 
independent of that which we have in the Epistles to 


64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Timothy and Titus. The latter tell us of extended journeys 
which Paul made in the East (Crete, Macedonia, Miletus, 
Ephesus (?), Corinth (?), Nicopolis), after he was freed from 
his first imprisonment. There is only one passage which 
would indicate any considerable extension of Paul’s mis- 
sionary work at this time, namely, 2 Tim. iv. 17; and 
from this passage it must be inferred that Paul pressed 
westward from Rome in order to do missionary work. 
On the other hand, in the tradition traced from Clement 
to the Muratorian Canon nothing is said of a tour among 
the Churches in the East after Paul was released from his 
imprisonment, while the fact that after being set at liberty 
Paul preached in Spain—a fact which we learn from 2 Tim. 
iv. 16 f. only after careful interpretation and correct infer- 
ence—is clearly stated. Taken together, these two entirely 
independent witnesses furnish a trustworthy historical 
picture. Such a relation subsisting between documents 
which at latest must have been written at the beginning 
of the second century, and a tradition first vouched for by 
a witness living at the end of the first century, proves that 
both rest upon yet older foundations, namely, upon an 
account of the close of Paul’s life which was circulated 
in the decades immediately following his death. To 
suppose that this account was drawn from Rom. xv. 
24, 28, rather than from fact, is unreasonable on several 
grounds, (1) No one could help but recognise that the 
hopes which Paul there expresses remained in large part 
unfulfilled. At that time Paul hoped in the following 
summer to journey from Palestine to Italy, and after a 
short stay in Rome to visit Spain. Instead, he reached 
Rome in the spring of the year 61 a prisoner, and remained 
there for years; so that no one would have felt tempted 
by Rom. xv. 24, 28 to invent the story of his subsequent 
visit to Spain. Only let it be remarked in passing that if 
the chapter in which this passage is found was appended 
to Romans in the interval between Paul’s death and 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 65 


the time of Marcion (vol. i. 379 f.), the passage is strong 
proof that Paul did actually go to Spain, For, while 
it is perfectly natural for Paul himself to talk of plans 
and hopes which were never carried out nor realised, it 
is inconceivable that statements of this kind should be 
put into his mouth after his life had ended, without his 
having gone to Spain. (2) There is not the slightest sug- 
gestion in Rom, xv. which would occasion the invention 
of the later journeys in the Hast presupposed in the 
“ Pastoral Epistles.” If these journeys were invented on 
the strength of Phil. i. 25f., 1, 24, Philem. 22, we should 
find mentioned in the ‘ Pastoral Epistles” Philippi and 
Colossee, not Crete, Miletus, and Nicopolis. (3) It is 
inconceivable that Clement and the other younger con- 
temporaries of Paul, especially Romans of their generation, 
should have formed their conception of the last events in 
the apostle’s life from a very arbitrary interpretation of 
one or more passages in Paul’s Epistles, rather than from 
their own recollection of the events. In view of all this 
we are led to conclude that Paul was set at liberty by 
the imperial court, as he so confidently expected when he 
wrote Philippians, and not long after this letter was written 
visited the East again and preached the gospel in Spain, 
before he was arrested a second time in Rome and put 
to death. Regarding the order of these events we can 
do no more than make conjectures. The consideration 
suggested (vol. i. 547 f.) in favour of the view that Paul 
visited the Churches in the East in the summer of 63 
shortly after he was released, preaching in Spain later, 
must give way before the stronger reasons which make the 
reverse order seem probable. The statements of 2 Tim. 
iv. 13, 20 would seem to be in the highest degree un- 
natural, if between the events there mentioned, namely, 
the sojourn of Paul in Miletus (Corinth?) and Troas and 
the writing of 2 Tim., there intervened not only the winter 
in Nicopolis (Tit. ui. 12), a second arrest in Rome, and 
VOL, II. 5 


66 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the journey of Onesiphorus to Rome (2 Tim. i. 16), but 
also missionary work in Spain, which must have occupied 
at least several months. Assuming, as we must from 
Phil. ii. 19-23 (vol. i. 547 £.), that when his trial was 
completed Paul did not leave Rome at once, but awaited 
the return of Timothy, whom he did not send to Philippi 
until his ease was deeided, at the very earliest he could 
not have gone to Spain until the autumn of the year 63. 
Possibly he did not reach his destination until the spring 
of the year 64. In neither case could the winter which he 
planned to spend in Nicopolis at the close of his extended 
journeys in the East (Tit. iii. 12) have been the winter 
of 63-64, hardly that of 64-65; for in the latter case it 
would be necessary to compress the missionary work in 
Spain and the tour of the Eastern Churches all into a 
single year, from autumn 64 to autumn 65, if indeed it 
be not necessary to crowd both these extended journeys, 
which lay in opposite directions and required much time 
for the fulfilment of their objects, into the summer of 64. 
If for this reason the winter spent in Nieopolis could not 
have been prior to 65-66, then the winter 66-67 is the 
earliest winter at the beyinning of which the imprisoned 
Paul could have hoped to have Timothy with him in 
Rome (2 Tim. iv. 21). If events happened as Paul ex- 
pected they would when he wrote his last letter, he was 
still alive at the beginning of the winter of 66-67, but 
suffered martyrdom not very long afterward. In accord- 
ance with the results of the preceding investigations, the 
following is suggested as the probable order in which the 
events following the imprisonment recorded in Acts took 
place. If Timothy returned to Rome from Philippi in 
the autumn of 63, Paul set out upon his journey to Spain 
either immediately or at latest in the spring of 64. If the 
statement of the Acts of Peter, that his work in Spain 
covered a year, be accepted, he left there at the earliest 
in the autumn of 64, or possibly in the spring of 65, in 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 67 


order to carry out the other part of his plan—the promised 
visiting of his Eastern Churches. Whether he stopped 
in Rome, where in the autumn of 64 the Christians there 
suffered such severe persecution (above, p. 57 f.), or passed 
by Rome on his way to the East, going possibly to Apol- 
lonia and thence to Philippi by the Via Eenatia, no one 
knows. Nor can it be determined with any degree of 
probability in what order he reached the various points 
visited upon this last journey (Corinth (?), Crete, Mace- 
donia, Troas, Ephesus (?), Miletus). 

Since Timothy had been for some time in Ephesus 
when Paul made this journey in the summer of 65 (above, 
p- 57 f.), he apparently did not accompany him to Spain, 
but during this time was engaged in carrying out Paul’s 
commission in Ephesus. The winter of 65-66, or the end 
of it, Paul and Titus seem to have spent in Nicopolis. 
When Paul started in the spring of 66 from Nicopolis 
for Italy, Titus may have set out from the same point 
on his preaching tour in the neighbouring district. of 
Dalmatia. Paul’s second arrest after his return to Rome, 
the journey of Onesiphorus to Rome, and the writing of 
2 Tim., belong in the summer of 66. Paul was beheaded 
on the Ostian Way not before the end of the year 66, but 
at the latest before the death of Nero (June 9th, 68). 


1. (P. 55.) Aceording to Heydenreich, Pastoralbr. i. 7 (anno 1826), the 
name “ Pastoral Epistles” has been applied to the letters to Timothy and Titus 
“from the remotest times.” But the present writer cannot find the name 
in either Bengel, J. D. Michaelis, Semler, Schleiermacher (1807), or Planck 
(Bemerkungen über den 1 Tim. gegen Schleiermacher, 1808) ; on the contrary, 
it appears first in P. Anton, Exeget. Abh. der Pastoralbriefe S. Pauli, 2 Teile, 
Halle, 1753, 1755, then in Wegscheider, Der 1 Tim. 1810, S. vi; Eichhorn, 
Einl. iii. 315 (1812). In a measure it is appropriate for 1 Tim. and Tit., but 
not at all for 2 Tim. In the ancient Church, passages like 1 Tim. iii. 1-7 and 
Tit. i. 5-9 were read on the oceasion of the choice and ordination of bishops 
and elders (Polycarpi vita, by Pionius, xxii.; ef. the Jacobite liturgy in the 
Revue de ?Orient chretien, i. 2 [1896], p. 10). Bengel, in the Gnomon, on 
1 Tim. i. 2 still follows the isagogies of the aneient Church (GK, ii. 75 tf.), and 
groups together rather the four letters which Paul addressed to individuals. 

2. (P. 55.) In reference to the last events of Paul’s life, ef. especially 


68 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Hormann, NT, v. 3-17; Sprrra, Zur Gesch. u. Liter. des Urchristentums, i, 1- 
108 ; STEINMETZ, Die zweite röm. Gefangenschaft des Ap. Paulus, 1897 ; also the 
remarks of RAnkE, Weltgesch. iii. 1. 191f.; Erpes, Die Todestage der Apostel 
Paulus und Petrus, 1899 (Texte τι. Unters., N. Folge, iv. 1), treats the Biblical 
accounts and those of the early Church in a manner so defective, high-handed, 
and superficial, that the present writer must here forego a refutation of his 
position. 

3. (P. 55.) Acts xx. 25, 38 was turned to account by Baur long ago as 
an argument against a release from the first Roman imprisonment (Pastoral- 
briefe, 92 ff.). The emphasis here is not upon the contrast between what Paul 
does not know (xx. 22) and what he really knows, but between the vague 
suggestions of prophetic utterances (xx. 23) and what Paul himself (ἐγώ must 
not be overlooked) knows. He knows what his future relation to the 
Ephesians will be; he does not know what will befall him in Jerusalem. 
The former, then, must be independent of the latter, and οὐκέτε ἔψεσθε 
κτλ. holds good even if he loses neither freedom nor life in Jerusalem. 
Besides, this phrase does not mean that none of the elders of Ephesus will 
ever see him again; Paul makes this statement not of them, but of all the 
Christians of those regions among whom he had gone about during the last 
years. Now the prediction that none of these many Christians would ever 
see him again before his death would certainly not be put in the apostle’s 
mouth ex eventu; for Christians from Asia, eg. Tychicus, Epaphras, and 
Onesiphorus, did actually see Paul when a prisoner in Rome, Then οὐκέτι 
has not the same meaning as οὐ πάλιν, but implies that an end has now come 
to the personal intercourse which Paul has kept up for years, though not 
uninterruptedly, with the Christians of Ephesus and with the Churches of 
the province of Asia. At the same time nothing at all is said as to how 
long a time the negative shall retain its force, and the possibility is in no 
wise excluded that a time will come again when Paul will resume personal 
intercourse with the Churches of Asia. Cf. John xvi. 10 and xvi. 19. All 
that is said is that what has existed so long now terminates. It is a parting 
for a long time, but not necessarily for ever. 

4, (P. 57.) According to Acts xxviii. 21, the Sanhedrin had done noth- 
ing to secure the co-operation of the Jews in Rome in its prosecution of Paul 
up to his arrival in that city. These Jews were ready enough at other times 
to lend a hand in affairs of this kind, cf. Jos. Ant. xvii. 11. 1; Bell. τὶ. 6.1; 
Vita, 3; Philo, Leg. ad Cat. xxiii, 

5. (P. 58.) The conflagration began in the night of July 18-19, was 
extinguished six days later (July 24), but then broke out afresh and burned 
several days longer (Tac. Ann. xv. 38-41 ; Suet. Nero, xxxviii.; Bus, Chron, 
anno Abr, 2079, incendia mulia). Then followed, according to Tacitus’ de- 
scription, several things which must have taken time before the Christians 
were attacked (Tac. Ann. xv. 44), e.g. care for the homeless, beginning of the 
rebuilding, religious expiatory rites (ec. xlii-xliv. mid-year, ef. chap. xlv. 
“ interea,” chap. xlvi. “per idem tempus,” chap. xlvii. “fine anni”). All this, 
however, falls within the year 64. 

6. (P. 60.) After recounting a number of Biblical examples of righteous 
men who had to suffer from the jealousy of the unrighteous, Clement writes, 
chap. v. 1: ἀλλ᾽ va τῶν ἀρχαίων ὑποδειγμάτων παυσώμεθα, ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τοὺς 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 69 


ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς" λάβωμεν τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν τὰ γενναῖα ὑποδείγματα. 
2. διὰ ζῆλον καὶ φθόνον οἱ μέγιστοι καὶ δικαιότατοι στύλοι ἐδιώχθησαν καὶ ἕως 
θανάτου ἤθλησαν. 3. λάβωμεν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ἡμῶν τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς ἀποστόλους. 
4. Πέτρον, ὃς διὰ ζῆλον ἄδικον οὐχ ἕνα οὐδὲ δύο ἀλλὰ πλείονας ὑπήνεγκεν 
πόνους, καὶ οὕτω μαρτυρήσας ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης. 
5. διὰ ζῆλον καὶ ἔριν Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον ἔδειξεν. 6. ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ 
φορέσας, φυγαδευθείς, λιθασθείς, κῆρυξ γενόμενος ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ 
δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν. 7. δικαιοσύνην διδάξας 
ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν 
ἡγουμένων, οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου καὶ εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη, 
ὑπομονῆς γενύμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός. With regard to this, we may 
remark; (1) The text here given, which, aside from slight changes of 
punctuation, follows Gebhardt-Harnack (cf. Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 25, and 
Spitta, Urchrist. i. 51, 57), is confirmed in all essentials by the Latin trans- 
lation since discovered, though it cannot be decided from the ostendit of the 
Latin translation whether we should read ἔδειξεν (Cod. ©), or ὑπέδειξεν, or 
possibly ἐπέδειξεν (cf. Clem. Alex. in Cramer’s Cat. vii. 426, and Euthalius, 
ed. Zacagni, 522, ἐπιδείξασθαι, in a similar connection). (2) Since in phrases 
like λαμβάνειν, ἔχειν, τιθέναι πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν (Polyb. ii. 35. 8; Epict. Diss. i. 
16. 27, iv. 10. 31; Iren. iii. 3. 3), and in all similar expressions (ev χερσίν, 
πρὸ ποδῶν), the Greeks are not accustomed to append a possessive genitive of 
the personal pronoun, it is exceedingly improbable that Clement intended 
the ἡμῶν of 8 3 to be taken with ὀφθαλμῶν. Rather, he calls Peter and Paul 
“our good apostles”—the apostles of the Romans and likewise of the 
Corinthians, whom he is addressing (chap. xlvii. 3f.; Dion. Corinth., quoted 
in Eus. H.E. ii. 25. 8; Iren. iii. 1.1, 3. 2,3; GK, i. 806, A. 4), And he 
gives ἡμῶν an emphatic position before τοὺς... ἀποστόλους (cf. per contra, 
chap. xliv. 1, of ἀπόστολοι ἡμῶν), because he wishes to single them out as 
the apostles who stood in closest relation to the Romans (and Corinthians). 
They are οἱ ἔγγιστα γενόμενοι ἀθληταί in the first place with regard to time 
(τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν), and also with regard to the place where they received the 
victors prize for their patience, namely, Rome. Likewise the ev ἡμῖν in 
chap. vi. 1 (cf. lv. 2) is meaningless, unless we are to understand Rome as 
the place where the Christian martyrs who followed Peter and Paul were 
put to death. If Clement is here bidding the readers picture to themselves 
the whole body of apostles, it is incomprehensible why he should say 
nothing of the execution of James the son of Zebedee (Acts xii. 2), of John’s 
exile, and of other sufferings of the apostles about which tradition gives us 
less certain knowledge, or at least why he should not indicate by a com- 
prehensive καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι that these are meant. The construction 
and interpretation given above of ἡμῶν τοὺς ἀποστόλους, and that alone, 
explains this silence. He is speaking only of the two apostles of whom, at 
the outset, he bade the readers think as “our good apostles,” (8) That 
Clement possessed information about Peter and Paul not derived from books 
is clear from his own historical position (above, p. 60), and is also confirmed 
by the ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας. It is hard to see why this number should 
point to the existence of a comprehensive written account from which it was 
taken (so Spitta, Urchrist. i. 51). Paul found occasion once, while writing, 
to express the repetition of similar experiences in numbers (2 Cor. xi. 24f.) ; 


70 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


but there is no reason why he may not have done the very same thing in orai 
narratives, and his friends likewise. At any rate, the statement is not drawn 
from sources preserved to us. Adding the five scourgings by the Jews 
(2 Cor. xi. 24) to the two imprisonments in Cxsarea and Rome does not 
give seven imprisonments, as Zeller, ThJb, 1848, S. 530, thought (cf. also 
Hilgenfeld, Clem. Ep. ed. 2, p. 90). With just as good reason the thrice 
repeated beating with rods (2 Cor. xi. 25) could be transformed into three 
imprisonments to help along such addition. In 1900, without any idea that 
Mommsen (Z4/NTIV, 1901, 8. 84, A. 1) would really work it out, the present 
writer published the suggestion, that the seven imprisonments of Clement 
were to be explained as due to the addition of πεντάκις and τρίς, at the same 
time assuming a confusion of seven and eight. Blass, Ν᾿ ΚΖ, 1895, 8. 721, 
elaims that these seven imprisonments are to be found in Acts, namely, (1) 
in Philippi (Acts xvi. 23) ; (2) in Jerusalem ; (3) in Caesarea under Felix ; 
(4) under Festus; (5) on the voyage ; (6) in Rome; and in addition to these 
(7) the second Roman imprisonment, from which 2 Tim. dates. But this 
cannot be even artificially done. Nos. 2-6 represent only a single period in 
which Paul bore chains continuously, except for very brief interruptions (Acts 
xxii. 30, and perhaps xxvii. 42-44), which Acts touches upon only lightly, or 
leaves altogether to conjecture. There is no basis either in the text of Acts 
or in the nature of the case for distinguishing Nos. 3, 4, 5. Nor is it correct 
to hold that Clement presupposed on the part of the Corinthians an acquaint- 
ance with these facts, which in its turn would imply that Acts was the 
common source of the knowledge then extant in Rome and Corinth. In this 
case Clement would have contented himself with a general statement about 
Paul’s imprisonments, as he has done in all the other particulars. The faet 
that he writes ἑπτάκις and not πολλάκις proves independent knowledge of 
Paul’s life history. According to 2 Cor. xi. 23 (ev φυλακαῖς ὑπερβαλλόντως), 
Paul had suffered, even before his arrest in Jerusalem, several imprisonments 
of no trifling kind beside that in Philippi. If Clement regarded the 
confinement beginning in Jerusalem and ending in Rome as a single 
imprisonment, and if he knew of a second Roman imprisonment ending 
with death, there are still five left which Paul may have had in mind in 
2 Cor. xi. 23. Of these we know only the one in Philippi (Acts xvi.). 
(4) The word μαρτυρεῖν in Clement does not by itself mean “to die a 
martyr’s death,” as it does not infrequently after the middle of the second 
century (Mart. Polye. xix. 1, ef. Lightfoot, op. cit, 26), but rather “to bear 
witness.” This is proved by the added phrase, ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, ὃ 7, 
which, since it designates no particular persons as the rulers at that time, 
cannot be intended to indicate the date, like ἐπὶ Κύρου βασιλέως, ἐπὶ 
Πεισιστράτου ἄρχοντος, or like ἐπὶ Tovriov Πιλάτου (ma@dvra or σταυρω- 
θέντα) in the Apostles’ Creed, Its meaning is rather coram magistratibus 
which does not suit the act of execution, but is appropriate enough in de- 
scribing a spoken testimony and confession (ef. 1 Tim, vi. 13). As far as this 
expression itself goes, it might include each and every confession which Paul 
had ever witnessed before any magistrates, whether in Philippi, Jerusalem, 
Csesarea, or Rome (so Hofmann, v. 71; Spitta, i. 57). The context, how- 
ever, makes it plain that Clement here has in mind the last confession of 
both apostles, the confession which resulted immediately in their execution. 


THE LAST THREE; EPISTLES OF PAUL 71 


Even earlier, in $ 2, ἕως θανάτου does not mean “as long as they lived,” in 
which case it would stand before ἐδιώχθησαν, but characterises the death of 
the apostles as the culmination of sufferings undeserved but patiently 
endured, 2.e. as martyrdom (ef. Phil. ii. 8). Paul’s death is the theme of the 
very first sentence which treats of him (§ 5), and forms the closing thought 
in both of the sentences co-ordinated with this, §§ 6, 7. Further, in § 4 we 
have two parts: First, a summary reference to Peter’s sufferings ; second, an 
account of his entrance into glory. These parts are separated by οὕτως, which 
implies that the former is the presupposition of the latter. μαρτυρήσας, then, 
since it follows οὕτως, is so closely connected with the statement about Peter’s 
death that it is best to translate; “And so (at the end of a life of such 
suffering and because of it) did he, bearing witness, proceed to the well- 
deserved place of glory.” In the corresponding statement about Paul, 
indeed, while οὕτως, as before, brings to an end the description of his life, 
and indicates this life experience as the presupposition of his death, 
μαρτυρήσας precedes this adverb instead of following it. The “ testimony 
before the rulers” seems therefore to be viewed as an incident in the course 
of his life, not as a circumstance connected with his death. But (1) it is 
the very last incident in his life story. And (2) οὕτως necessarily refers in 
particular to that event in Paul’s previous life last mentioned : “So (£.e. not, 
therefore, without having first borne witness before the rulers) was he re- 
leased from the world.” (3) The meaning of μαρτυρήσας must be the same in 
$7asin$4. While (4) ἡγούμενοι is used of all persons who have a share in 
the government (Acts vii. 10; Clem. 1 Cor. xxxii. 2, xxxvii. 2; in Ixi. 1 the 
emperor himself is included, though in xxxvii. 3 he is mentioned separately), 
even within the community of the Church (Acts xv. 22; Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24; 
Clem. 1 Cor. i. 3); where, however, as here, there is no definite specification, 
local or otherwise, οἱ ἡγούμενοι can refer only to the supreme authority in 
Rome (Clem, 1 Cor. Ixi. 1; Altertümer von Pergamum, viii. 2. 347, Inscription 
No. 356, and the inscription cited there from the Bull. de Vor. hellen. ix. 75). 
At the same time, if Clement had known of a personal meeting between Paul 
and Nero on the occasion of Paul’s second legal defence, he certainly would not 
have failed, when speaking of the magistrates with whom Paul as the accused 
had to do, to mention the emperor (cf. xxxvii. 3, li. 5, lv. 1; Mark xiii. 9; 
1 Tim. ii. 2; 1 Pet. ii. 14, 17, but particularly Acts xxvii. 24). With reference 
to chap. vi., ef. the commentaries of Lightfoot and Harnack, and above, p. 60. 
It is true that τούτοις τοῖς ἀνδράσι... συνηθροίσθη πολὺ πλῆθος ἐκλεκτῶν 
means not only that these many, like the apostles, have died as martyrs or 
entered into blessedness, but also that this great multitude have joined them- 
selves to the apostles—have gathered about them (cf. 1 Kings xi. 24; 1 Mace. 
i. 55). This could be said all the more aptly of the victims of the Neronian 
persecution, if one of the two apostles, namely, Peter, was actually a victim 
of this persecution (§ 39); but even if this were not the case, it would be 
appropriate in a comprehensive retrospect like this if the death of Peter and 
of Paul only fell somewhere within the time of Nero. Just as for the German 
nation the years 1813-1815, with their triumphs, heroes, and victims, form 
the one epoch of the War of Liberation, although a period of peace divides 
this war into two unequal parts, so to the Christians of the year 96 the 
martyrdoms of 64-67 meant a single group of struggles and sufferings, upon 


72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which a peace of thirty years had ensued. (5) Anyone who divides the 
then known world or the Roman world empire into East and West, as 
Clement does here, must necessarily assign Italy and Rome to the West ; for 
the Adriatic and Ionian Seas formed the natural boundary between the two 
parts of the empire, and were actually regarded as the boundary (Monu- 
mentum Ancyr. v. 31, ef. Mommsen, Res geste Augusti?, p. 118; ‘Treaty of 
Brundisium between Antony and Octavian, 40 B.c., in which Scondra 
[Seutari] was established as the boundary, Appian, Bell. civ. v. 64; Plut. 
Antonius, xxx.). Clement could have said, then, simply with reference to 
Paul’s preaching in Rome, that he had preached in the West as well as in 
the East (v. 6; ef. Ign. Rom. 11. 2; pseudo-Clement, ad Jac. i.; Jul. Afrie. 
Chron. ; Routh, Rel.2 v. 264. 7), and perhaps also, considering the rhetorical 
character of the passage, that Paul had taught the whole world righteous- 
ness (v. 7). But when Clement goes even beyond this last expression, and 
adds, plainly in order to define it more closely, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως 
ἐλθών, he evidently means that Paul carried his preaching beyond Rome, 
where Clement is writing, to the very limit of the western half of the then 
known world, or, in other words, to the westernmost boundary of the lands 
bordering the Mediterranean, i.e. to Spain. The boundary of the West is the 
Atlantic Ocean, cf. Appian, Bell. civ. v. 64, τὰ δὲ ἐς δύσιν τὸν Καίσαρα (ἔχειν) 
μέχρι ὠκεανοῦ. The situation of Gades is described by Vell. Patere. i. 2, as 
in ultimo Hispanie tractu, in extremo nostri orbis termino ; by Philostr. vita 
Apoll. v. 4, a8 κατὰ τὸ τῆς Εὐρώπης τέρμα. Cf. Strabo, pp. 67, 106, 137, 169, 
170; Appian, procem. iii; Hispan. i.; Eus. v. Const. 1, 8. 2-4; Credner, 
Gesch. d. Kan. 53; Gams, Kirchengesch. Spaniens, i. 11-16; Lightfoot, Clement, 
ii. 30. Paul had come from the East, and so from this standpoint Clement 
could not possibly have called Rome the (as respects the East) limit of the 
West (so Hilgenfeld, Apost. Väter, 109) ; for τέρμα denotes, not the point or 
line where something begins, but the point or line where something ends ; 
ef. Polyb. xl. epil. 14, mapayeyovores ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα ὅλης τῆς mpayparelas=ro 
τέλος, opp. to ἀρχή ; Epiph. Her. xxix. 8, ἦλθεν ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς βίβλου, Or in 
a geographical connection, Herod. vii. 54, ἐπὶ τέρμασι τοῖσι ἐκείνης (sc. τῆς 
Εὐρώπης), in contrast to the Hellespont, the crossing of which marked Xerxes’ 
first entrance into Europe. Besides, on Malta and in Puteoli, Paul was 
already in the West before he came to Rome. It is equally impossible for 
τὸ τέρμα to mean the goal of Paul’s life, or of the course set before him, so 
that τῆς δύσεως would merely signify that this goal was in the West, de. in 
Rome (essentially this view is held by Baur, Pastoralbr. 63 ; Paulus, i. 264 ; 
Hilgenfeld, Einl. 349 ; Otto, Gesch. Verh. der Pastoralbr. 167). Since it was 
unavoidable that every unbiassed reader would take the genitive with τὸ 
τέρμα as the designation of the territory of which it was the boundary, 
Clement must have expressed such a thought in other language, possibly by 
καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τοῦ βίου (τοῦ δρόμου) ἐλθών. Further, to take τῆς 
δύσεως attributively (=rö ἐν τῇ δύσει) would force upon us the absurd idea of 
a western, in contradistinction to an eastern, end of Paul’s life. Nor can it 
avail here to recall to mind the circus with its double meta ; for Clement 
must have said that the world is a circus, and that the second meta, the goal 
of the race, lies in the western part of this circus, if he wished to be under- 
stood, There is no better ground for the claim, which Lipsius seems to 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 73 


have made up to the very end of his life (Apokr. Apostelgesch. ii. 1. 13 : alse 
Hesse, Hirtenbriefe, 247), that “the boundary of the West” must denote the 
same place as that in which Paul “bore witness before the rulers,” and in 
which he “ was released from the world.” In reaching the limit of the West, 
Paul did not necessarily reach at the same time the end of his life also. He 
may quite well have turned back, and, so far as this phrase is concerned, 
may have died in Jerusalem. The participles διδάξας, ἐλθών, μαρτυρήσας, just 
like the participles in § 6, describe what Paul did or suffered before his 
death, without placing the individual acts in any more definite relation to 
one another. 

7. (P. 62.) Can. Mur. line 37, “sicuti et semote (-ta) passionem (-ne) 
Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem (-ne) Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam 
proficiscentis” ; ef. GK, ii. 6, 56 f., 141; Spitta, Urchrist. i. 60-64. - Con- 
cerning the Gnostic Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius, pp. 45-103), ef. GK, 
ii. 832-855. The approximate date of its composition can be determined 
only on the presupposition—which is hardly to be contested, however—that 
it is very intimately connected with the Acts of John, and was written, if not 
by the same author, then at least by one of similar views, and at the same 
time a fellow-worker ; such a view is supported both by the similarity of 
their content and by the general consensus of tradition; cf. GK, ii. 839 ff., 
858, 860; James, Anecd. apocr. ii. (Texts and Studies, vol. v. Cambridge, 
1897) pp. xxivf., 151f. The new fragments of the Acts of John, published 
partly in the book just cited, pp. 1-25, and partly by Bonnet (together with 
the earlier known passages in Acta Apost. apoer., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. 
part 1, pp. 151-216), show, as in spite of many objections the present writer 
still maintains, that the alleged author “ Leucius” was a Valentinian, who, 
however, considered it advisable to speak the language of his school openly 
in only a few passages. The date of composition, then, is probably as deter- 
mined by the present writer, circa 160-170 A.D. (cf. GK, ii. 864; NKZ, 1899, 
S. 210-218). With regard to the probable dependence of the Can. Mur. 
upon the Acts of Peter and of John, see GK, ii. 36-38, 844, 862 f. According 
to the Acts of Peter, Paul’s release from his first imprisonment was not the 
result of a judicial decision, but the jailer, Quartus, who had become a Chris- 
tian, * permansit (read permisit) Paulo ut ubi vellet iret ab urbe” (Lipsius, 
45. 6). Paul received the direction to go to Spain through a vision after 
having fasted three days (“ jejunans triduo,” 45. 8; cf. 63. 11, and Can. Mur. 
line 10). As soon as the Roman Christians besought Paul not to forget them 
and not to stay away long (“ut annum plus non abesset,” p. 46. 3), there 
came the voice from heaven with regard to Paul: “inter manus Neronis .. . 
sub oculis vestris consummabitur,” p. 46.8. Many accompanied him to the 
place of embarkation, and two youths sailed with him to Spain (p. 48. 8, 17). 
Reference is made to this journey also in a later passage (51. 26, “ Paulus 
profectus est in Spaniam,” ef. 45. 10, “qui in Spania sunt”; 45. 12, “ut 
proficisceretur ab urbe”; ef. Can. Mur. ]. 38); there is also an allusion to his 
return to Rome after Peter’s death (p. 100. 13). It should be added that at 
about the time of Paul’s journey to Spain, Timothy and Barnabas set forth 
from Rome for Philippi on a commission from Paul (p. 49. 9), which is 
elearly an elaboration of Phil. ii. 19. Concerning the Acts of Paul, see 
below, n. 10. This ancient tradition is confirmed also by the words ἐλθόντος 


74 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


eis τὴν Ῥώμην τοῦ ἁγίου Παύλου ἀπὸ τῶν Σπανιῶν (pp. 118. 3, 120. 12), at the 
beginning of the combined Acts of Peter and Paul, according to which both 
apostles die as martyrs on June 29th of the same year (Lipsius, 176. 5). Thie 
work has not only lost track of the original significance of the festival on 
that day, but proceeds to invent tales on the basis of a misinterpretation of 
the inseription, “ad catacumbas,” which the bishop Damasus caused to be put 
upon the common tomb of the two apostles (p. 174, see below, n. 9). It could 
not, therefore, have been written earlier than 400 A.D. Origen (quoted in 
Eus. A. E. iii. 1) deseribes Paul’s missionary activity in the apostle’s own 
words, Rom. xv. 19; but naturally it does not follow from this that he knew 
nothing of the journey to Spain, or that he gave no credence to the story. 
We might conclude with as much reason that Origen intended by this use of 
Rom. xv. 19 to give the lie to the statements in the N.T, about Paul’s preach- 
ingin Rome. Whether or not Origen refers to the Spanish journey in Hom. 
xiii. in Gen. (Delarue, ii. 95), as Spitta, i. 84, thinks, is not quite clear. Of the 
later writers who speak definitely of the journey to Spain may be mentioned : 
Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xvii. 26, probably in dependence upon Clement’s 
letter, with which he was acquainted ; ef. Cat. xviii. 9; Spitta, i. 55); Epiphanius 
(Her. xxvii. 6); Ephrem Syr. (Expos. ev. concord. 286, “ Paulus ab urbe Jeru- 
salem usque ad Hispaniam [predicavit]); Chrysostom, who had read the Acts 
of Paul several times and placed confidence in it (GK, ii. 886) (de laud. Pauli 
hom. vii. ; act. ap. hom. lv. ; 2 Tim. hom. x. ; epist. Hebr. hypoth., Montfaucon, 
ii. 516, ix. 414, xi, 724, xii. 2) ; Theodoret in Phil. i. 25 and 2 Tim. iv. 17. 
The Acta Xanthippe et Polyxene (Apocr. anecd., ed. James, 1893, i. 58-85), 
which, at the very outset, is clearly dependent upon the Gnostic Acts of Peter 
(Lipsius, 45. 10), makes Paul go from Rome to Spain and stay there several 
months at least, while Peter journeys from the East to Rome to thwart 
Simon Magus (James, op. cit. 75. 6). The groundlessness of the opinion that 
the tradition of the Spanish journey and of the second Roman imprisonment 
has arisen from Rom, xv. 24, 28, can be seen from the fact that important 
defenders of the view that Paul was twice imprisoned in Rome do not men- 
tion Spain at all, but merely speak in general of a resumption of missionary 
preaching in the interval between the two imprisonments; so Kus. H. E. 
ii. 22, 2 (see below, n. 8), the real Euthalius, circa 350, who reckoned the in- 
terval at ten years (Zacagni, 532), and Theodore (Swete, i. 116 f., 205 f., ii. 191, 
231). Jerome also, who in the main follows Eus. H. E. ii. 22, only hints 
indefinitely at Spain in the words “in oceidentis partibus” (Vir. Il. v. ; ef. 
the Prologue in Thomasius, ed. Vezzosi, i. 382f.). In his commentary on 
Isa. viii, 23, ix. 1 (Vall. iv. 130), Jerome is not giving his own view, but is 
reporting in direct discourse the view of the Nazarenes, who saw a fulfilment 
of that prediction in Paul’s extended preaching activity (“in terminos 
gentitum et viam universi maris Christi evangelium splenduit”). If Jerome 
reports them correctly, these Jewish Christians, removed from the world as 
they were, certainly knew that Paul travelled as far as Spain. Jerome gives 
this as a matter of personal knowledge in his comment on Isa. xi. (p. 164, 
“ad Italiam quoque et, ut ipse seribit, ad Hispanias alienigenarum portatus 
est navibus). The “ ut ipse seribit” can refer only to Rom. xv. 24, 28, not to 
2 Tim. iv. 17. Jerome says the same thing again, tract. de ps. 1xxxiii, (Anecd. 
Maredsol. iii, 2. 80) after giving a free rendering of Rom. xv, 19-21: “deinde 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 75 


dicit, quod de urbe Roma) ierit (al. iturus sit) ad Hispaniam.” In his 
careless fashion he mistakes the expression of the purpose for an attestation 
of its execution. But this is occasioned and in a measure excused by the 
contrast to the Hcclesiasticw historia (p. 163), in which we are told of the 
journeys of other apostles to Persia, India, and Kthiopia, The tradition 
about the Spanish journey finds its starting-point in Paul’s own words. 
Concerning ὁ. Helvid. iv., see Spitta, i. 92, But Jerome (Vir. Ill. i., v.), by 
accepting the Roman tradition of the simultaneous martyrdom of the two 
apostles on June 29th of the same year (below, n. 9), helped to spread an 
error which, by its contradiction of the older tradition, must have had a con- 
fusing effect ; since it necessarily led to a lengthening of Peter’s stay in Rome 
in a way quite unhistorical ($ 39, n. 5), or to a shortening of the last part of 
Paul’s life in a manner equally disregardful of the facts, Particular] y those 
who, like Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii. 28, 29), connected the alleged simultane- 
ous martyrdom of the two apostles with the burning of Rome in 64, could 
hardly withstand this temptation. Furthermore, the Roman Church had a 
political interest in the matter ; for in the year 416 Innocent 1. (Epist. xxv. 2) 
denied that any beside priests ordained by Peter or his successors had founded 
Churches in Italy, Gaul, Spain, or Africa, or in Sicily and the other islands 
of the West ; and he formally challenged those who claimed that another 
apostle had founded the Church in any one of these provinces to prove this 
by written records. It is plain that Innocent knew of such claims, The 
Spanish Church could not take up his challenge ; its literature begins with 
the Biblical poems of Juvencus, 330 a.p. No more than the Churches of Gaul 
and Africa did it possess a tradition concerning its origin based on documents. 
Since Rome had spoken and Spain had made no reply, Gelasius in 495 could 
State as a fact that Paul had never carried out his purpose of going to Spain, 
using this statement in defence of changes in the papal policy (Zp. xxx. 11, ed. 
Thiel, i, 444 ; cf. the opinion of the same Gelasius as to the time when the 
two apostles died, below, n. 9). Consequently it is almost a matter of sur- 
prise that not only Spaniards, like Isidorus (de Ortu et Obitu Patrum, chap. 
Ixix,, ed. Arevalus, v. 181), but also Gregory of Rome (Moral. xxxi, 103), 
ventured to speak again of Paul’s journey to Spain as an historical fact. 

8. (P. 62.) Dionystus of Corinth, in his letter to the Romans and the 
bishop then in office, Soter (about 166-174 ap. ; Eus. H, E. ii. 25. 8; cf. iv, 
23. 9-12) writes in terms not exactly elegant : ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς τοσαύτης 
νουθεσίας τὴν ἀπὸ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου φυτείαν γενηθεῖσαν Ῥωμαίων τε καὶ 
Κορινθίων συνεκεράσατε" καὶ γὰρ ἄμφω καὶ εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν Κύρινθον φυτεύσαντες 
ἡμᾶς ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιταλίαν ὁμόσε διδάξαντες ἐμαρτύρησαν 
κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν. The present writer trauslates the last sentence : “ For 
both of them, planting (or founding a Church) also in our eity of Corinth, 
taught us (Corinthians) in like fashion (in a similar manner, in mutual agree- 
ment and harmony) ; and in like fashion (in the same harmonious manner) 
they taught also in Italy in the same place, and suffered a martyr’s death at 
the same time.” The words φυτεία, Purevew refer to 1 Cor. iii. 6 fF. ; cf, Acta 
Petri, ed. Lipsius, 88. 19. . The better known fact, and the one generally 
admitted, seems to be that Peter and Paul were the founders of the Roman 
Church. His emphatic claim that the same two apostles founded the Church 
in Corinth is perhaps based only on 1 Cor. i. 12, iii, 22. The repeated ὁμοίως 


76 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


must naturally have the same meaning in both sentences. Therefore ὁμόσε 
certainly cannot mean “labouring together, working hand in hand,” a 
possible translation in other connections. This thought would presuppose, 
indeed, that they laboured at the same time, but that has been expressed 
already by ὁμοίως. We must take it rather in its original local sense as a 
reinforcement of eis τὴν Ἰταλίαν, and, so far as Italy is an extended territory 
containing various places, as a closer definition of it. εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην might 
be substituted for it. With regard to the thrice repeated use of a phrase of 
direction to indicate place in which, cf. Mark i. 39, xiii. 10, xiv. 9; Acts 
xxiil. 11 ; 2 Cor. x. 16. Whether both apostles preached at the same time is 
not the question in regard to Rome any more than in regard to Corinth. 
Besides, only a very heedless reader could find in the words of Dionysius any 
reference to a journey of the two apostles to Rome in company ; cf. Spitta 
i. 82. It is their deaths which are said to have oceurred at about the same 
time, nothing more. IreN&us regards the time when Peter and Paul were 
ergab in preaching the gospel at Rome, and in founding and building up 
the Church there, as a continuous period, which serves him as a time for 
dating the Gospel of Matthew. In speaking of the writing of Mark, he also 
makes a combined reference to the death of the two apostles (iii. 1. 1, 
3. 2, 3). If he assumed a long interval between these two deaths, both 
statements would be impossible. No more can be inferred from it, however, 
than from a remark about the time when Hegel (1818-1831) and Schleier- 
macher (1810-1834) were teaching in Berlin, followed by another, in which 
reference is made to the time “after the death of the two great teachers.” 
The statement in a work about Peter and Paul, falsely attributed to Symeon 
Metaphrastes (Acta SS. Jun. v. 411 ff. ; ef. Lipsius, Ap. AG. ii. 1. 8-11; 217- 
227), deserves attention. The unknown author appeals to many ancient writ- 
ings, correctly, e.g. (414), to Justin and Irenzus with reference to the statue 
of Simon Magus in Rome; to Eusebius not quite precisely (422), since the 
citation comes through Euthalius, who is not mentioned ; incorrectly (423) 
to Caius, Zephyrinus, and Dionysius. He writes, p. 4230 : λέγουσι δέ τινες 
προλαβεῖν μὲν τὸν Πέτρον ἐνιαυτὸν Eva καὶ τὸ μακάριον ἐκεῖνο καὶ δεσποτικὸν 
δέξασθαι πάθος, τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν προβάτων προθέμενον, ἀκολουθῆσαι δὲ τούτῳ τὸν 
μέγαν ἀπόστολον Τ]ὰαῦλον, ὡς Ἰουστῖνος καὶ Εἰρηναῖός φησιν, ἐφ᾽ ὅλοις ἔτεσι 
πέντε τὰς συνάξεις καὶ τὰς ἀντιθέσεις mpd τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν ἀναλύσεως καθ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς 
ποιουμένους, καίγε τούτοις ἐγὼ μᾶλλον πείθομαι. If we understand aright these 
words, which are misinterpreted by Erbes (64) in such ineredible fashion, 
Ireneeus is adduced, along with Justin, as a witness not only for the fact that 
Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome one year later than Peter, which reminds 
us of the one year between Paul’s first and second Roman imprisonments in 
the Acts of Peter (above, p. 73, line 12 from end), but also for the further fact 
that the period during which Peter and Paul laboured at laying foundations 
in Rome (Irenaeus’ assumption, as we have seen above) lasted full five years in 
all. If Paul came to Rome in the spring of 61, he must have been executed 
in the spring of 66, and Peter a year earlier, ö.e in the spring of 65, 
This ealeulation is not far astray from the probable dates, especially if we 
may take the one year as a round number for a year and several months, 
TerruLiran is the first writer of repute who expressly assigns Peter's 
erucifixion and Paul’s beheading to the time of Nero, who, according to 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 77 


Apol. v., was the first perseeutor of the Christians (Scorp. xv.; cf. Marc 
iv. 5; Preser. xxxvi.; Apol. xxi., discipul without mention of names ; more: 
over, Bapt. iv., Peter baptizing in the Tiber ; Preser. xxxii., Clement ordained 
by Peter). Tertullian hints in Scorp. xv. that he derived these faets from 
writings, the trustworthiness of which is by no means universally recognised. 
The words “quae ubicumque jam legero pati disco” cannot relate to the 
instrumenta imperit and the vite Cesaruwm, to which he has previously 
referred the heretics who doubt the duty of martyrdom (Prodieus, Valentinus ; 
ef. Heracleon, as quoted in Clem. Strom. iv. 71); for such details about the 
martyrdom of Peter and Paul are to be found not in these writings, but in 
the Acts of Peter and Paul, in distinction from the absolutely trustworthy 
canonical Acta which he has previously cited. Concerning Caius, see the 
following note. Hıproryrus, who was acquainted with the Acts of Paul 
(Comm. in Dan. 111. 29 ; ef. Niceph. H. H. ii. 25; GK, ii. 880; Bonwetsch, 
Stud. zu εἰ. Komment. des Hipp. 1897, 8. 27), touches upon the last part of the 
apostles’ life but once, and then only to say that Simon Magus in Rome 
opposed “the apostles,” z.e. Paul and Peter (Refut. vi. 20). ORIGEN 
(quoted in Eus. 4. E. iii. 1) knows that Peter was crucified head down- 
wards in Rome, and that Paul likewise suffered martyrdom in Rome under 
Nero. The author of the work de Rebaptismate, written in Cyprian’s name, 
had read in a book, which he entitles Predicatio Pauli—probably the Acts of 
Paul—of a meeting of Paul and Peter in Rome (Cypr. Opp., ed. Vindob. 
Append. 90; GA, ii. 881 ff. ; but also ThLb, 1899, col. 316). Lactantius, 
Inst. iv. 21 (GK, ii. 884) probably draws from the same book his account of 
the preaching in Rome, and of the execution of both apostles by Nero. 
With regard to the latter event, he speaks more precisely in de Mort. 
Persee. ii. ; “cumque jam Nero imperaret, Petrus Romam advenit. ... (Nero) 
Petrum cruci affixit et Paulum interfecit.” Peter, bishop of Alexandria, says 
the same thing, and emphasises the fact that both apostles died in the same 
city, without, however, expressing himself more definitely as to the time 
(Epist. Canon. chap. ix.; Routh, lel. 5.2 iv. 34). Eusepius, who, in A. E. 
ii. 25. 5, iii. 21. 1, 31. 1, puts Paul before Peter, nevertheless follows the 
usual order at other times when he is speaking of their martyrdom or 
their tombs in Rome: Demonstr. Evang. iii. 5. 65; Theoph. Syr. iv. 7 (see 
following n.); v. 31 (not correctly translated by Lee, p. 315; the proper 
rendering is: “ Moreover, Simon Peter was crucified in Rome head down: 
wards [κατὰ κεφαλῆς}, and Paul was put to death, and John was con: 
signed to an island”). Cf. also the translation by Gressmann, $. 241, 25. 
After he has followed Paul’s history up to the end of Acts, he continues 
(H. E. ii. 22. 2): τότε μὲν οὖν ἀπολογησάμενον αὖθις ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ κηρύγματος 
διακονίαν λόγος ἔχει στείλασθαι τὸν ἀπόστολον, δεύτερον δ᾽ ἐπιβάντα τῇ αὐτῇ 
πόλει τῷ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τελειωθῆναι μαρτυρίῳ. On the occasion of this second 
Roman imprisonment he wrote 2 Tim., which confirms this tradition by its 
reference to the first defence, as a result of which he was rescued from the 
clutches of Nero, ete. In his Church History, Eusebius refrains from making 
any more definite chronological statement, except to say that Paul’s death, as 
well as Peter’s, falls in Nero’s reign; and Theodore went too far when he 
claimed (Swete, i. 115)—plainly relying upon the arrangement of the material 
in Eus. H, E. ii, 25, 26—that Paul was executed at the time when the Jewish 


78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


War broke out. In his Chronicwm, also, Eusebius shows that he has no more 
exact tradition at his command. According to the Armenian version 
(Schoene, ii. 156), he remarks under anno Abrah. 2083 (67 A.D.) : “ Nero super 
omnia delicta primus persecutiones in Christianos excitavit, sub quo Petrus et 
Paulus apostoli Rome martyrium passi sunt.” Jerome in his rearrangement 
of this work under anno Abrah. 2084 (68 A.D.), instead of the italicised words, 
writes persecutionem ... in qua, and in Vir, Ill. i. and v., puts the death of 
both apostles in the fourteenth year of Nero, which in the Chronicum eoin- 
cides with anno Abrah. 2084; but this must have been through a misunder- 
standing, or a forcing of Eusebius’ very carefully chosen expression. The same 
must have been the case with the real Euthalius earlier, about 350 a.p., when, 
appealing to Eusebius’ Chronicwm (Zacagni, 529), he places the death of Paul 
in the thirteenth year of Nero (p. 532), anno Abrah. 2083. Perhaps also it 
was in this way that Epiph. Her. xxvii. 6 came to make the statement that both 
apostles died in the twelfth year of Nero. Eusebius himself knows no more 
than what he says, namely, that Peter and Paul died under Nero, and does 
not intend that 67 shall be regarded as the year in which both apostles died, as 
is proved also by his remark at the year preceding (anno A brah. 2082= 66 A.D,), 
that Linus succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome. It was onlv his way of 
looking at the history, according to which the slaying of the Christians was 
the climax of Nero’s crimes (Eus. H. E. ii. 25. 2-5), that caused him im his 
Chronicum to place the persecution of the Christians at the end of that 
emperor’s reign. And even so, by speaking of persecutiones in the plural, he 
also acknowledges that what he has in mind is not a single event confined to a 
definite year. He puts the burning of Rome under anno Abrah. 2079 =63 A.D. 
(Jerome, anno Abrah. 3080 -- 64 A.D), and mentions Paul’s death incidentally 
under anno Abrah.2083=67 A.p. But since he could not make out a definite 
year for Paul’s death, either from tradition or by an artificial computation 
of the bishops’ terms of office, which perhaps served in Peter’s case, he con- 
tented himself with jotting down under the heading, “ Nero the Persecutor 
of the Christians,” that Paul, as well as Peter, suffered martyrdom under 
this emperor. 

9. (P. 62.) The earliest information concerning 29th June as “ Peter 
and Paul’s Day” is found in the Roman Depositio martyrum of the year 
336 (Lib. Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, i. 11); “iii, Kal. Jul. Petri in Cata- 
eumbas et Pauli Ostense Tuseo et Basso cons.” (258 a.p.). Alongside of 
this confused statement of the calendar should be placed rightly the 
statement, in itself also but slightly illumining, of the so-called Martyrol. 
Hieron. (ed. Duchesne et de Rossi, Acta SS. Nov. tom. ii. part 1, p. [84]: 
“iii, Kal. Jul. Roma Via Aurelia, Natale sanctorum apostolorum Petri 
et Pauli, Petri in Vaticano, Pauli vero in via Ostensi, utrumque in 
Catacumbas, passi sub Nerone, Basso et Tusco consulibus.” This clearly 
distinguishes three places at which the 29th of June was celebrated as 
Nutale,—the commemoration-day of Peter and Paul, as martyrs (ef. the 
Depos. Mart.; “xviii. Kal. Octob. Cypriani Africa, Rome celebratur in 
Callisti”). The three places are the Vatican Basilica, as specially connected 
with Peter, the St. Paul’s Church on the voad to Ostia, as connected 
with Paul, and the cemetery, called ad Catavewmbas by the Church of St. 
Sebastian, on the Via Appia in memory of both apostles. A hymn bearing 
the name of Ambrosium (cf. Dreves, Ambros. als Vater des Kirchengesangs, 8. 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 79 


139, No. 15. 7) gives evidence that the processions on 29th of June visited 
all three places. The year 258, indieated by the consuls named in the 
Depositio and in the Martyrol. Hieron. is, of course, not the time of the 
apostles’ death, or of their first interment, but, just as in both of the in- 
stances, in which the Depositio designates a definite year by naming the 
consuls (xiv Kal. Jun. und x Kal. Oct.), denotes the time of a later trans- 
ference of the bones of the martyrs. Consequently we may regard it as 
certain that in the year 258 and, indeed, on the 29th of June of this year, 
the bones of both apostles were placed ad Catacwmbas, and that this has been 
the reason for the celebration of that particular day. For the month in the 
date given cannot be separated from the year. The former comes first, and 
the year, separated from it, forms the end of the statement. This is the 
simple and necessary result of the fact that the Depositio and the Martyrol. 
Hieron. are festival calendars for all years. Through a metrical inscription 
of the Pope Damasus (366-384) we know that the alleged or actual remains 
of the apostle rested for a long time ad Catacwmbas (Damasi Epigr. 26, ed. 
Ihm, p. 31; ef. Liber Pontif., ed. Duchesne, pp. 84, 85, 212). This inscription 
and the buildings erected there by Damasus, as well as the continued cele- 
bration of the 29th of June ad Catacumbas, at a time when the bones of Peter 
had long rested in the Vatican, and those of Paul on the road to Ostia, prove 
that their temporary common interment ad Catacwmbas had left a deep 
impression. This interment cannot have been for a short period, and the 
question arises, When did it end? As evident fables are to be rejected, the 
statements of Liber Pontifi. (pp. 66, 67, 150) that Pope Cornelius (251-253 A.D.) 
transferred the bodies of the two apostles from ad Catacumbas to their final 
resting places on the Via Ostia and in the Vatican ; and the traditions in the 
Syriac Acts of Sharbil (Cureton, Anc. Docum. 61 f.) that this occurred under 
Pope Fabian (236-250 a.p.) are untrustworthy ; for, according to the reliable 
date of the Depositio, the interment ad Catacumbas did not take place until 
258, under Pope Sixtus τι. Just as worthless is the statement of a letter of 
the Areopagite, translated into Syriac and other languages, about the discovery 
of the head of Paul during the papacy of Sixtus (Xystus), but according to 
a Latin version during that of Fabellius (!), Pitra, Analecta, iv. 245, 267, 270, 
cf. Salomo Bassor. trans. by Schönfelder, p. 79). Depending solely on a mis 
understanding of the inscription of Damasus (cf. V. Schultze, Archäol. Stud. 
S. 242 ff; Lightfoot, S. Clement, ii. 50), the author of the Catholic Acts of 
Peter and Paul makes the fantastie statement that the bodies of the apostles 
were interred on the Via Appia immediately after their death, but pro- 
visionally only for a year and seven months, while a worthier burial place 
was being built (Acta apost. apocr., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, 1. 174, more accu- 
rately in the accompanying Latin text, cf. also the second Greek recension, p. 
221, where one year and six months are given). More reliable seems the 
account of the ancient Itineraries, that the remains rested for forty years 
ad Catacumbas (de Rossi, Roma Sot. i. 180). Since forty is a round number, 
one might always add a few years more to 298 (258 and 40), and find here 
the tradition that at the beginning of the fourth century the bodies were 
removed, one to the Vatican, and the other to the Via Ostiensis. This at all 
events is pretty near the historical truth. On the other hand, the opinion of 
Erhes is not tenable (Die Todestage der Apostel. 118, von de Wall, Koma Sacra, 


So INTRODUCTION TO ΤῊΝ NEW TESTAMENT 


S. 85 et al), namely, that at the time of the Depositio of 336, and also of the 
chronographer of 354, who introduced the Depositio into his collected work, 
the remains of Peter still rested ad Catacwmbas, while the bones of Paul had 
already been transferred to the Ostian road. This view depends solely on 
the uncorrected text of the Depositio, which at all events does not state this 
clearly. Moreover, it has against it not only the later text, according to 
which Constantine the Great had the bones of Peter interred in St. Peter’s 
at the Vatican, and those of Paul in St. Paul’s on the Via Ostiensis (Liber 
Pontif. pp. 78, 79, 176, 178, 193-195 ; de Rossi, Inscr. Christ. ii. 20, 21, 345 f.), 
but most of all the testimony of Eusebius (t+ circa 340). Besides the less 
clear statements of his Church History (ii. 25, 5, iii. 31. 1), what Eusebius 
has to say in his Theoph. written about 330-340, and preserved only in Syriac, 
should not always be overlooked (ef. Lightfoot, Dict. of Christ. Biog. ii. 333 ; 
Gressmann, TU, N. F. viii. 3; also Theoph. Griechische Christliche Schrifteller, 
Eusebius, 2te Hälfte, 3te Bd., ed. Gressmann, p. xx*). In iv. 7 of this work 
Eusebius relates of Peter (inaccurately translated by Lee in the English 
trans. p. 221, more correctly by Gressmann, 8. 170) ; “His memory among 
the Romans up to the present time is greater than that of those who 
lived earlier ; so that he was honoured also with a magnificent mausoleum 
outside the city, and countless multitudes from all over the Roman Empire 
hasten to it as toa great sanctuary and temple of God.” (Cf. Jerome, Vir. 
Til. i: “Sepultus Rome in Vaticano juxta viam triumphalem, totius orbis 
veneratione celebratur”). After some remarks about the writings of John 
and about his grave, Eusebius continues : “So in like manner the writings 
of the apostle Paul also are made known throughout the world and enlighten 
the souls of men; moreover, the martyr-character of his death, and the 
mausoleum over him, are extraordinarily and splendidly praised in the city 
of Rome until this day.” From this it is evident (1) that about 330-340 
Peter and Paul were no longer resting together, 1.6. ad Catacwmbas, but each 
had his own particular memorial church in separate places. (2) Eusebius, 
who of course knew of the Basilica Petri at the Vatican, built by Constantine, 
can have meant nothing else than this by the memorial church which he so 
pompously described. He certainly could not have referred to the unpre- 
tentious tombs of both apostles on the Via Appia. Moreover, St. Peter’s at 
the Vatican stood “outside the city.” (3) Constantius, while he was ruling 
in the West (351-361), may have added so much to the adornment of St. 
Peter’s, built by his father, that he could pass for the finisher of the edifice ; 
it was, however, not at that date that the remains of Peter were interred in 
the Vatican basilica, but before the writing of the Theoph., in fact, according 
to the description of Eusebius, considerably earlier, therefore certainly before 
330. Accordingly, the text of the Depositio is badly mutilated, and is to be 
corrected by other traditions; an et Pauli has fallen out after Petri, and 
similarly, by an ocular error—a mistake more casily explainable—a Petri in 
Vaticano has fallen out before et Pauli, and, further, an in via before Ostense. 
Moreover, even after such a restoration of the text, this statement of the 
calendar gives evidence of a misunderstanding of the tradition which it con- 
tains. It is quite impossible for the reader to see which of the facts stated 
concerns the date “June 29... under the consuls Tuseus and Bassus,” 
while the author himself seems no longer to have known it. At least the 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL δὶ 


chronographer of 354, who inserted the calendar of martyrs in his compila- 
tion, takes the 29th of June (naturally not of the year 258, but of the year 
55) as the common date of the death of Peter and Paul, both in the catalogue 
of Roman bishops—the so-called Oatalogus Liberianus—and in the Fasti 
Consul. (Mommsen, Chron. minora, i. 57, 73). While the chronologists give 
varying dates for the year of the apostles’ death (Jerome, Vir. Ill. i. v., cf. 
above, p. 78, gave the year 68), yet since the middle of the fourth century 
at the latest there prevailed in Rome the tradition that both apostles died at 
the same time, ὁ.6. on the 29th of June in the same year. In the so-called 
Decretum Gelasii (Epist. pontif., ed. Thiel. i. 455), the opinion that Peter and 
Paul died at different times is condemned as heretical twaddle (sicut heretic 
garriunt). It is not impossible, though not demonstrable, that this part of the 
Decretum, as also others (GK, ii. 259-267), had been already discussed at a 
Roman Synod under Damasus. Once the 29th of June had become in the 
West the memorial day for both apostles, the older tradition, according to 
which Peter died a considerable time before Paul, could maintain itself only 
in a modest form by allowing that both indeed died on the 29th of June, but 
that Paul died a year later than Peter (here following ancient tradition, 
above, pp. 73, 76). So Prudentius (Peristeph. xii. 3-6, 11-24), and even in the 
sixth century, Gregory of Tours (Glor. Mart. i. 29), and the Roman deacon, 
Aratus, at the end of his metrical version of Acts (Migne, Ixviii. 246). 
Augustine assumes a rather critical attitude toward the Roman tradition in his 
sermons on “ Peter and Paul’s day” (Serm. cexev.-cexeix. ecclxxxi.), e.g. Serm. 
cexev. (ed. Bass. vii. 1197: “quamquam diversis diebus paterentur, unum 
erant. Preecessit Petrus, secutus est Paulus”), and Serm. ecelxxxi, (vii. 1508 : 
“Petri et Pauli apostolorum dies, in quo triumphalem coronam devicto 
diabolo meruerunt, quantum fides Romana testatur, hodiernus est . . . Sicut 
traditione patrwm cognitum memoria retinetur, non uno die passi sunt per 
ceeli spatia decurrente. Natalitio ergo Petri passus est Paulus ac per hoc ita 
singuli dies dati sunt duobus, ut nunc unus celebretur ambobus ”). Cf. also 
the pseudo-Augustinian Serm. οὖν. (Bass. xvi. 1209), and another given by 
Lipsius, Ap. AG. ii. part 1, 240, The celebration of the 29th of June 
arose from an event in the local church history of Rome, and for a long 
time also was confined to Rome. The true Euthalius, who belongs to the 
period before 390 (NKZ, 1904, S. .388 f.) knows of the celebration as one 
peculiar to Rome (Zacagni, Monum. coll. i. 522), and does not say, like the 
author of the Martyriwm, falsely ascribed to him (Zac. 536), that Paul suffered 
martyrdom on the 29th of June, but simply that the Romans celebrate his 
memory and his martyrdom annually on that day. Outside of Rome this 
Peter and Paul’s Day” was not widely observed. The Calendar of Martyrs, 
preserved in Syriac in a MS. of 412 (ed. Wright, p.1; Acta SS. Nov. ii. p. 
lii.), puts the martyrdom of both apostles on the 28th of December ; but 
this has no more significance than the assignment of the death of Stephen, 
the first martyr, to the 26th of December, and of James and J obn, the sons 
of Zebedee, to the 27th in the same calendar. In fact, there was no tradition 
concerning either the day or the year of the death of the two apostles, Also 
in Rome during the third century there existed no such tradition ; otherwise 
how could the interment of the remains of both apostles ad Catacumbas on 
the 29th of June 258 have become the only memorial day of the great 
VOL. II. 6 


82 INTRODUCTION 'TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


martyred apostles of Rome! The question where the alleged or actual 
bones of the apostles rested before the 29th of June 258, is of. less 
significance for our knowledge concerning the end of Paul’s life than for 
our criticism about Peter in Rome (§ 39). It receives the same answer 
whether we start from what was believed forty years before, or from what 
happened sixty to seventy years afterward. Since the interment beside the 
Via Appia was a late and temporary expedient, it seems almost self-evident 
that when, perhaps sixty years after their lodgment there, the apostles’ 
remains were again removed, it was that they might be buried, not at 
random, but in the places already hallowed by their memory, £.e. that they 
were brought back to the very places whence they were taken in 258. The 
final interment of Paul on the Via Ostiensis, and of Peter in the Vatican, 
attests the fact that it was believed that they were buried there originally. 
But we are led to the same conclusion by what the Roman Caius under the 
bishop Zephyrinus (199-217 a.D., ie. about forty to fifty years before the 
Depositio by the Via Appia) certifies in his dialogue with the Montanist 
Proclus (Eus. H. E. ii. 25. 7): ἐγὼ yap τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχω δεῖξαι" 
ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσῃς ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Barıkavov ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ᾿Ωστίαν, εὑρήσεις 
τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Im contrast te the 
authority of the apostles and their followers, to whose labours and graves in 
the province of Asia the Montanist had appealed (Kus. H. E. iii. 31. 4, ef. 
v. 24, 1-6, iii. 31. 3), the Roman names the authority of his Church, its 
apostles and their graves, which could still be pointed out. Eusebius, with- 
out hesitation, took τρόπαια to mean the graves and monuments of the 
apostles (H. H. ii. 25. 5f., iii. 31. 1); the later writers for the most part under- 
stood by it the places where they were executed (Hofmann, v. 10, vii. 1. 205 ; 
Lipsius, Ap. AG. ii. part 1, 21; Erbes, 68 ff.). Taken by itself, the word has 
neither of these meanings, but denotes a token commemorating some victory 
won, set up on the spot where the enemy was turned to flight—originally a 
bundle of captured weapons hung up on a tree or a pole (Pauly, RE, 
vi. 2165 f.). The memory, however, of the martyrs and other illustrious 
dead always clung about their graves. It was not the place where Polycarp 
was burned, but where he was buried, that was considered sacred (Mart. 
Polye. xvii. xviii. ; cf. the letter of Polyerates quoted in Eus. H. E. v. 24. 4, 
and Pionius, Vita Polycarpi, chap. xx., concerning the grave of Thraseas of 
Eumeneia at Smyrna). In particular cases it may have been actually true, or 
at least so preserved in people’s memory, that the place of death and that of 
burial coincided altogether or nearly so. John expires in the grave which he 
himself has ordered to be dug (Acta Joannis, ed. Zahn, 250). In Jerusalem, 
in Hegesippus’ time, there was pointed out, near what was once the temple, a 
pillar which marked the spot where James was said to have been slain and 
buried (Bus. H. E. ii. 23, 18 ; see vol. i, 108, n. 4). This may have been so 
also in the case of Peter and Paul. The Gnostic Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius, 
100. 8) show the greatest indifference as to his burial, putting this sentiment 
in the mouth of Peter himself, and contain no statements at all about the place 
of his erucifixion and interment (pp. 90, 100). The same is true with refer- 
ence to Paul in the ancient Acts of Paul (pp. 112-117). Both writings lack 
every trace of Roman loeal tradition, and certainly arose in the Kast (GK, 
ii. 841, 890). But from all analogies it would seem clear that the tradition 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 83 


in Rome during the second century about the death of Peter and Paul and 
their graves must have been connected with certain definite spots, even if 
this fact were not also attested by Caius about 210 and, indirectly, by the 
two later transferences of the remains. Previously, Erbes (Z/K@, vii. 33) 
assumed that suddenly in 258, perhaps as the result of a pretended revela- 
tion, the remains were found in some corner or other where up to that 
time they had lain negleeted and hidden. He has now himself given up 
this view (1899, S. 132), and claims that Paul lay buried on the Via Appia 
from the very first, and that Peter’s bones were likewise to be found there 
after about 200. But on this supposition the separation of the remains of 
the two apostles, who were so intimately connected in the tradition, and their 
removal from the Via Appia, where they had been honoured so long, to their 
separate tombs on the Via Ostiensis and in the Vatican, seems an act arbitrary 
in the extreme. The tradition that Peter was executed in the one place and 
Paul in the other, would not be a sufficient motive for such an act. The 
writer at least knows of no case in which the body of a martyr was sub- 
sequently removed from his grave to the place where he was executed. Rather 
those who separated the remains of Peter and Paul and buried them in places 
wide apart—and this was accomplished before Constantine’s death in 337— 
must have believed that they were restoring the original conditions. The 
interment ad Catacumbas, which must have arisen out of the necessities of the 
times, was from the first intended to be only a temporary entombment. In 
view of all this, we are probably to understand by the τρόπαια of Caius, as 
Eusebius did, the tokens marking the places where the two apostles were 
buried. Nevertheless, as in the case of James, these may very well have 
been regarded as marking at the same time the places of execution. That 
they were actually so regarded is attested by the later tradition, accord- 
ing to which both apostles were buried near to where they died; cf. with 
reference to Peter, Linus, Martyr. Petri, x. ed., Lipsius, 11. 16; the Catholic 
Acts of both apostles, 168. 8, 172. 13, 177. 1, 212. 12, 216. 15, 221. 6; cf. 
with reference to Paul the Mart. Pauli, likewise ascribed to Linus, 
38. 21, 41. 10 (outside a gate of the city); the Catholic Acts of both 
apostles, 170. 3, 177. 1, 213. 6, 214. 8, 221. 8; cf. with reference to both, 
Lib. pontif. under Cornelius (Duchesne, i. 150). The tokens to which Caius 
refers need not have been monuments erected by Christians in the apostles’ 
honour ; such tokens could be any objects whatever which were supposed to 
date from the time of the events in question, e.g. a pillar, as that which 
marked the spot where James was killed and buried (Eus. ii. 23. 18), or a 
tree, as the myrtle on the grave of Thraseas at Smyrna (Pionius, Vita 
Polye. xx.), or the vine which grew on the spot where the blood of the 
martyr Philip fell to the earth (Acta apocr., ed. Tischendorf, 92, 94), or the 
plane-tree under which Simon Magus was supposed to have taught while in 
Rome (Hippol. refut. vi. 20). As a matter of fact we read in one of the 
recensions of the Catholie Acts of Peter and Paul (Lipsius, 214. 9), that Paul 
was executed near a cembra (stone-pine) or pine, and in both recensions that 
Peter was buried under a terebinth on the Vatican (pp. 172. 13, 216.15). The 
expressions ὑπὸ τὴν τερέβινθον and (214. 9) πλησίον τοῦ δένδρου τοῦ στροβίλου 
refer in each case to a well-kuown tree which can be seen αὖ ἃ distance, It 
is not impossible that this terebinth was the ancient oak on the Vatican, of 


84 INTRODUCTION TO ΤῊΝ NEW TESTAMENT 


which Pliny, H. N. xvi. 44, 237, gives an account; cf. Erbes, Z/K@, vii. 12 
A.2. Concerning the genus pine, ef. Erbes, 1899, S. 92. 

10. (P. 63.) The recovery and publication of the Coptic Fragments of 
the Acts of Paul (Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger Koptischen Papyrus Hs. 
Nr. 1 Herausgeg. von C. Schmidt, Uebersetzung, Untersuchungen und Kop- 
tischer Text, 1904) has given us much new information, corrected old mis- 
takes, and happily confirmed certain conjectures, though it has thrown no 
new light on the presentation of the close of Paul’s life which this legend 
contains. These Fragments have removed every doubt as to the fact that 
the Martyrdom of Paul, which has come down to us in the original Greek 
and in several translations as an independent writing (Lipsius, pp. 104-117; 
Schmidt, 8. 85-90) formed the concluding portion of the entire work. But 
we know now, no more than formerly, what immediately preceded this con- 
clusion, though this is the point of especial interest. The wholly arbitrary 
way in which that elder in the province of Asia, who around 170 to 190 
wrote the Acts of Paul, made use of the material of Acts and the Pauline 
Epistles for his fabrication, renders uncertain every conjecture concerning 
the progress and content of his narrative where the text is in doubt. The 
Martyrdom which closes with the execution of the apostle begins with his 
arrival in Rome ; for it begins with the statement that Luke, who had come 
thither from Gaul, and Titus from Dalmatia were awaiting him, and the 
meeting with these friends had rejoiced and,enheartened him. From this it 
would seem to be out of the question that this should have been preceded 
by an account of any intercourse between Paul and the Roman Christians 
and of other important events following his arrival in the city. On the 
contrary, his expectant friends were in all probability the first ones whom 
he greeted. The only thing that could have preceded it is an account of 
his journey to Rome. At first Paul finds himself at liberty in the eity, and 
only after a lapse of some time is arrested together with many other Chris- 
tians. There is not the slightest intimation of a contemporaneous presence 
of Peter in Rome. Especially of any meeting of Paul and Peter, concerning 
which old authors always have something to say on the authority of the 
Acts of Paul (above, p. 77), not only is there no intimation, but there is 
really no room in this connection for stating it, The inference is conse- 
quently to be drawn that the Acts of Paul are here narrating a second 
arrival of Paul in Rome, having recorded in a previous passage an earlier 
presence and imprisonment of the apostle in the city, As the statement 
that Paul hired a barn and carried on there a successiul ministry of preach- 
ing (Lipsius, p. 104, 4 ff.), calls to mind Acts xxviii. 16, 30, so the statement 
regarding Titus and Luke suggests 2 Tim. iv. 10f. The friends, who at the 
time of an imprisonment of the apostle had gone to Gaul and Dalmatia 
(Luke instead of Crescens), had returned from these joarneys to Rome 
before the arrival of Paul, whose liberty of action was in no wise impaired. 
An earnest consideration is due the conjecture of M. R. James (JIThSt— 
January 1905, p. 244 ff.), who is the best informed scholar of the Christian 
apocryphal literature—that the Acts of Paul did not interpolate its fabrica- 
tions at all into the gaps of Luke’s Aets of the Apostles, but appended them 
to the canonical Acts, 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 85 


$ 37. THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLES TO 
TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 


The confident denial of the genuineness of these letters 
—which has been made now for several generations more 
positively than in the ease of any other Pauline Epistles 
(n. 1)-—has no support from tradition. The fact that 
Marcion did not include them in his collection does not 
prove that he was unacquainted with them: on the con- 
trary, according to tradition, he knew and rejected them, 
stating his reasons for so doing (GK, i. 834). Traces’ of 
their circulation in the Church before Marcion’s time are 
clearer than those which can be found for Romans and 
2 Cor. A strong argument in favour of their genuine- 
ness is the large number of personal references which 
they contain,—references that can be explained neither 
as derived from other probable sources nor as growing 
out of the idea under the influence of which the letters 
might have been forged. This is especially true in the 
case of 2 Tim., least so in the case of 1 Tim. : although, 
comparing the letters as a whole with those which in the 
second century and later were attributed to Paul and: the 
other apostles, all three of them furnish proof of their own 
genuineness (n. 2). What was said above (p. 60 f.) in 
connection with the discussion concerning the historical 
value of the letters, even if spurious, about the way in 
which facts presupposed are handled in all three letters, 
especially in 2 Tim., also goes to prove their genuineness 
(n. 3). Historical facts which a forger finds it necessary 
or advantageous to invent he is wont to state clearly 
and expressly for the benefit of his reader, who, of course, 
cannot know these facts beforehand. F urthermore, these 
facts are generally borrowed from older sources which are 
genuine or supposed to be genuine, which in this case 
would have been the other Pauline Kpistles and Acts. 
Now the whole group of facts presupposed in these letters 


86 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


carry us beyond the period dealt with in Acts and veri- 
fied by references in the earlier Epistles of Paul. More- 
over, these facts, which are new to us, are everywhere 
incidentally referred to in a manner intelligible only to 
readers already familiar with the actual situation. The 
majority of the persons introduced in these letters are 
not mentioned anywhere else in the N.T., nor in the post- 
apostolie literature not dependent upon these Epistles; 
as, for example, Hymenzeus, 1 Tim. i. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 17; 
Philetus, 2 Tim. 1. 17; Phygelus and Hermogenes, 2 Tim. 
i. 15; Lois and Eunice, 2 Tim. 1. 5; Onesiphorus and his 
house, 2 Tim. i. 16, iv. 19; Crescens, Carpus, Eubulus, 
Pudens, Linus, Claudia, 2 Tim. iv. 10, 13, 21; Artemas 
and Zenas, Tit. ui. 12 f.; Alexander, 1 Tim. i. 20, 2 Tim. 
iv. 14. Even if the last named person could be identified 
with the Alexander mentioned in Acts xix. 33 (against this 
identification cf. above, p. 21, n. 3), this latter passage does 
not account for the reference in the Epistles to Timothy ; 
for the Alexander in Acts is described simply as a Jew, 
without any indication of the relation which he sus- 
tained to Paul and Christianity ; whereas in 1 and 2 Tim. 
he is represented as a Christian, hostile to Paul and his 
doctrine, fallen from the faith, put under the ban by the 
apostle, and not an ἀργυροκόπος, as we should expect if the 
passage were dependent upon Acts (Acts xix. 24), but a 
χαλκεύς (2 Tim. iv. 14). These sixteen new names are by 
no means mere names, the introduction of which can be 
explained by the necessity which the writer felt of giving 
his forgery the appearance of a genuine letter by putting 
in personal notices, a necessity, let it be said, which other 
writers who forged Apostolic Epistles in the second cen- 
tury seem hardly to have experienced (n. 2). They repre- 
sent real persons. Even though this may not be said of 
the Roman Christians, who in 2 Tim. iv. 21 send greet- 
ings, the fact that no one of their names is taken from 
tom, xvi. does argue in favour of their historicity. The 


THE LAST THREE: EPISTLES OF PAUL 87 


diftieulty of gaining definite ideas from the statements 
about Onesiphorus (above, p. 20, n. 1), Lois and Eunice 
(p. 22, n. 4), Crescens (above, p. 11 f.), Hymenzeus and 
Philetus, Phygelus and Hermogenes, Alexander (above, p. 
21, n. 8), Zenas (above, p. 54, n. 4), Carpus and the 
articles which Paul left with him (above, p. 16), is that 
which is natural in connection with such notices found in 
genuine letters belonging to the remote past. On the 
other hand, what is said is of such a character that it is 
difficult to believe it to be invented. This is true also of 
statements about the persons mentioned elsewhere in the 
N.T. A pseudo-Paul might have taken the name Demas 
(2 Tim. iv. 10) from Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24; but what 
could have influenced him to set the conduct of Demas in 
such sharp and unfavourable contrast to that of Luke when 
he is mentioned in Colossians and Philemon along with 
Luke as one of Paul’s honoured helpers? What led him 
to associate Demas with Thessalonica? The forger might 
have been influenced by Eph. vi. 21 to speak of the send- 
ing of Tychicus to Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 12), 1.6. if the 
Epistle was already provided with the false title πρὸς 
‘Edeciovs. But even if no account be taken of the fact 
that the whole of 2 Tim. introduces us to a period in Paul’s 
life considerably later than the composition of Ephesians, 
it would have been very much more natural for him to 
speak of the sending of Tychicus to Coloss&, and almost 
inevitably there would have been some trace of the influ- 
ence of Eph. vi. 21 f. or Col. iv. 7 f. ; but no such influence 
is discernible ; indeed, in Tit. 11. 12 we find Tychicus on 
his way to Crete with an unknown person named Artemas. 
To be sure, Apollos (Tit. iii. 13) was a distinguished name ; 
but there is not the slightest hint which would remind 
the reader of the well-known and thoroughly individual 
character of this person as he appears in 1 Cor. and Acts, 
while here, too, he appears in company with a person 
otherwise unknown, on a journey to Crete. From Acts xx. 


88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


4, 15, xxi. 29, one might learn that Trophimus had once 
been at Miletus with Paul; but in order to invent the 
further statement that Paul had left him there sick (2 Tim. 
iv. 20), it would be necessary directly to contradict what is 
there said about him. That Erastus’ home was Corinth 
might be inferred from Rom. xvi. 23 (cf. xvi. 1); but any- 
one writing in dependence upon Rom. xvi. would not be 
likely to represent him as a traveller stopping in Corinth 
instead of continuing his journey beyond that point (2 Tim. 
iv. 20). These various statements are not derived from 
earlier writings which have come down to us, nor are they 
due to the influence of ideas which we can detect in the 
Epistles. Both Timothy (1 Thess. ΠῚ. 2; 1 Cor. iv. 17, 
xvi. 10; Phil. ἢ. 19-23) and Titus (2 Cor. vii. 6-15, 
viii. 6, xii. 18) had occasionally performed functions as 
the apostle’s representatives in the Churches organised 
by Paul. Therefore it was not unnatural to conceive of 
them as having been temporarily at work in the same 
way in Churches other than those mentioned in the 
earlier Epistles, and to give literary currency to his 
wishes with reference to the organisation of Church life 
in the form of letters from Paul to them. But it is 
inconceivable that a pseudo-Paul, who with this purpose 
in view wrote these letters on the basis of the earlier 
Epistles, should have presented to the readers such a 
very unfavourable picture of Timothy, whom the real 
Paul praises so often and so highly (e.g. Phil. ii, 20-22). 
All the legendary tales of the ancient Church were lauda- 
tory in spirit, and all the unfavourable judgments which 
became current in the second century concerning persons 
mentioned with honour or praise are either due to ten- 
dencies opposed to the N.T. tradition and the tradition of 
the early Church, e.g. in Marcion and the pseudo-Clemen- 
tines, or are to be regarded as historical testimony of a kind 
that could not be invented, and of value because supple- 
menting our imperfect knowledge of these times and 


THE LAST THREE) EPISTLES' OF PAUL 89 


personalities, e.g. the unfavourable stories about Nicolaus 
Now there can be no idea of any intention on the author’s 
part to present Timothy in an unfavourable light, since by 
the very act of addressing to him two letters of Paul he 
accords him special honour, and in spite of all the defects 
of his character which we discern in the Epistles, repre- 
sents him as being tenderly beloved by the apostle. Con- 
sequently this picture of Timothy and the letters in which 
it is found must be considered genuine. It is hard to 
understand how anyone can feel this critical argument 
weakened by the sentimental consideration that, if the 
Epistles to Timothy are accepted as genuine, the image of 
a saint is destroyed. 

At this point the question arises as to the purpose of 
the alleged forgery, which must be satisfactorily answered 
before anyone acquiesces in the judgment that the letters 
are spurious. The principal motives of the forger have 
been found in what is said in 1 Tim. and Titus concerning 
the regulation of the life of the Church and in all three 
letters in opposition to certain doctrinal errors. 

With reference to the first point, it is to be remarked 
at the outset that the pastoral office described above (pp. 
29 ff., 43 f£), which Titus temporarily occupied in Crete 
and ‘Timothy in the province of Asia over large groups of 
Churches, is quite without parallel in the organised Church 
life of the post-apostolicage. It grew out of the unique and 
general relation of the apostolate to the establishment and 
oversight of the Churches, a function which these helpers 
of Paul exercised under his commission and as his tem- 
porary representatives. Now if, following the misleading 
precedent of interpretation in the ancient Church (above, 
p- 41, n. 6, and p. 53, n. 2), and influenced by certain im- 
perfect modern analogies, anyone is inclined to consider 
their position, that of a bishop, he ought at least to regard 
Timothy not as a bishop of Ephesus, but as a bishop of 
Asia, and Titus as a bishop of Crete ; and then perhaps it 


90 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


will be recalled that while there were bishops of Ephesus, 
Smyrna, and Laodicea in the province of Asia, and 
bishops of Gortyna and Knossus in Crete, there were 
never any bishops of Asia and of Crete. The local 
Churches of the post-apostolic and early catholic age were 
autonomous corporations ; the monarchical episcopate was 
the highest office in this local Church, and lasted for 
life. And so it remained up to a time prior to which 
the ‘Pastoral Epistles” must certainly have been 
written, when it became customary to look upon bishops 
as successors to the apostles, and more and more to regard 
as peculiarly theirs certain Church functions. Although 
the personal distinction of individual bishops like Ignatius 
and Polycarp, or the historical dignity of the Churches 
over which they presided, may have given them the moral 
right to reprove and to advise Churches other than their 
own, in the second century no bishop of Ephesus, or even of 
Rome, could have exercised in any Church save his own so 
much authority over the organisation, and so determina- 
tive an influence in regulating the details, of the Church 
life as that which Timothy and Titus were instructed to 
exercise over all the Churches scattered through wide 
regions; and, as a matter of fact, no bishop ever did 
assume such authority and influence. Therefore it is in- 
conceivable that between 70 and 170 a pseudo-Paul should 
have written 1 Tim. and Titus, in which the whole Church 
life of entire districts is represented as being under the 
determining influence of a form of personal government 
which in his time was not even in existence, and of the 
working of which, in the apostolic age, there is hardly the 
least suggestion in the rest of the N.T. 

Furthermore, with regard to offices in local Churches, 
there is not to be found anywhere in the Epistles an 
enumeration of the officials and a description of their 
functions, such as might give the impression that a 
definite number and order of officers is recommended or 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL ΟἹ 


introduced, over against another system then in vogues 
On the contrary, a fixed order is presupposed, and the 
qualifications are mentioned necessary for the election and 
installation of officers in the Church, also the qualities 
which these officers must show in performing their fune- 
tions. Consequently it is impossible to derive from the 
letters a definite answer to the question as to the number 
of officers in the Church, for this is always presupposed. 
If we had only 1 Tim. we might infer from 111. 1-13 that 
the officers of the Church were simply one ἐπίσκοπος and 
a number of διάκονοι. The error of this conception we 
should immediately discover, however, from the fact that 
in both apostolic and post-apostolic times, whenever these 
two titles are used comprehensively to denote the officers 
of the local Church, several ἐπίσκοποι as well as several 
διάκονοι are mentioned (n. 4). A form of government in 
which all the official service in the local Church was 
performed by one bishop and a number of deacons never 
existed. Moreover, in a different connection but in the 
same letter (v. 17-22), we learn of Church officials called 
πρεσβύτεροι. That there were several of these officers in 
every Church we would naturally assume, even if special 
mention were not made of those elders who devoted 
themselves to teaching (v. 17), and of the individual 
elder against whom a charge may be preferred (v. 19), 
and if we did not read in iv. 14 of the πρεσβυτέριον of 
Timothy’s home Church as a corporation acting as a unit. 
Evidently the name is derived from the office, for there 
could not be πρεσβύτεροι in the clear sense here intended, 
namely, “ruling elders,’ without a presbytery, any more 
than there could be senators without a senate (n. 5). 
Being members of the body which administered the 
affairs of the Church, the individual elders were officers 
in the Church. From the connection in which 1 Tim. 
v. 22 stands, there can be no doubt that when persons 
became members of the presbytery hands were laid upon 


92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


them, and they were set apart to this position and work 
by the prayer of the Church, just as were other members 
of the Church who were appointed to perform special 
service and to occupy a special position in the Church. 
Consequently the only difference between them and the 
ἐπίσκοπος in 111. 1-7 is a difference of name; for the care of 
the Church which the latter is to exercise is described as 
προΐστασθαι, προστῆναι (111. 4 f.), as is also the office of the 
elders (v.17). The fact that the latter are not mentioned in 
the apparently complete list of the officers of the Church 
in ill, 1-13, can be explained only if the same persons 
were sometimes called πρεσβύτεροι, sometimes ἐπίσκοποι. 
The fact that in one place Paul calls them πρεσβύτεροι is 
explained by the circumstance that in the preceding 
context he has been exhorting Timothy to proper conduct 
in relation to the older members of the Church (n. 6). 
From among the πρεσβύτεραι (v. 2) special mention is 
made of the widows (v. 3-16); from the class πρεσβύτεροι, 
in the wider sense (v. 2), the προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι are 
distinguished (v. 17-19); so that he is thinking of their 
official position only as that which gives them a place of 
honour and determines the treatment they are to receive. 
On the other hand, where the special point under discussion 
is their office proper and the qualifications necessary in order 
to its assumption, they are very properly called ἐπίσκοποι 
and their office ἐπισκοπή (iii. 1f.). That this was really 
the relation subsisting between elders and bishops 18 
positively proved by Tit. 1. 5-9; for no exegetical device 
can obscure the fact that in this Epistle the identity of 
ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος is taken for granted (n. 7). ‘Titus 
is to appoint elders in every city in Crete, 2.e. to provide 
the local Church with a presbytery. When, now, we find 
that the statement of qualifications necessary in order 
to the appointment of an elder is confirmed by a state- 
ment as to the requirements which are to be made of a 
bishop, it follows, not only that the elder was a bishop, but 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 92 


also that there was no official with the title ἐπίσκοπος who 
stood at the head of the presbytery. It is the same sort 
of Church organisation which, according to Acts, existed 
in the Churches of Asia Minor in Paul’s lifetime ; accord- 
ing to the Epistle of Clement, in Rome and Corinth at 
the close of the first century; and, according to the 
Epistle of Polycarp, in Philippi as late as the beginning 
of the second century (n. 8). Now, however, from Revela- 
tion, the Epistles of Ignatius, and the tradition concerning 
the disciples of John, we learn that by the close of the 
first century the monarchical episcopate had been gener- 
ally introduced and firmly established in the Churches 
of Asia Minor, which was the destination of 1 Tim., and 
that after the middle of the second century this form of 
government became more and more common in the 
Churches of Europe. How could a pseudo-Paul, writing 
in the year 100 or 160 with a view to exerting some 
influence upon the system of Church organisation in his 
time, ignore so completely the Church life which he 
observed about him, and present Paul and his helpers so 
entirely in the dress and language of 50-70 in all that 
affected the essential forms of Church organisation 2 
The aim on the forger’s part in this way to avoid all tell- 
tale anachronisms would directly contradict. his other 
purpose, namely, in Paul’s name to influence the Church 
of his own time ; while everyone acquainted with ancient 
literature, particularly the literature of the ancient Church, 
knows that a forger or fabricator of those times could not 
possibly have avoided anachronisms. 

No objection can be raised on the ground that in these 
letters alone Paul discusses specifically the arrangement 
of offices in the Church and the duties of chief officers and 
deacons, whereas in the other letters he limits himself to 
indefinite hints and incidental references (1 Thess. v. 12; 
L Cor. xii. 28, xvi. 15 f.; Rom. xii. 7f., xvi. 1 ; Gal. vi. 6; 
Eph. iv. 11; Col. iv: 17; Phil. 1. 1); for the reason that 


94 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


there are no other Epistles of Paul in which the external 
conditions are the same as in Titus and 1 Tim. Evenin 
2 Tim. nothing is said about bishops, deacons, elders, and 
widows, nor about Timothy’s pastoral relation, he being 
represented simply as an evangelist, and as a sharer of 
the apostle’s preachmg and teaching office (above, pp. 
5f., 291}. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that an in- 
terest in the official organisation of the Church, such as 
Paul himself did not feel, is a peculiarity of the author 
of the Pastoral Epistles. Effort to supply the Churches 
which had just come into existence in Crete with officers 
by the apostle’s express command (Tit. 1. 5)'may not 
be in accordance with certain fancies of constructive 
historians, but agrees perfectly with Acts (Acts xiv. 23; 
ef. n. 7), and with the Epistle of Clement (chaps. xlii. 4— 
xliii. 1, xliv. 1-3), the earliest sources which we have that 
deal with the development of the organisation of the 
Gentile Christian Churches, as well as with the fact that 
a few weeks, or at most a few months, after it came into 
existence, the Church in Thessalonica had officers charged 
with arduous duties (1 Thess. v. 12). According to the 
most probable interpretation of 1 Tim. ii. 11, female 
διάκονοι are mentioned; but this does not take us beyond 
Paul’s own time (Rom. xvi. 1). The obscurity to us of 
the instructions with regard to widows (1 Tim. v. 3-16), 
particularly their relation to the deaconesses, is due solely 
to the meagreness of the reports that have come down 
to us. » Two points are of critical importance—(1) The 
explicitness and exactness which in very marked degree 
distinguish these instructions from those concerning 
bishops and deacons (e.g. v. 9), show that the distine- 
tion given to certain widows in the Church is an 
arrangement not nearly so old nor so well established 
as the episcopate (oftice of presbyter) and diaconate. 
(2) No traces are found here of that development of 
this arrangement, testified to by Ignatius, by virtue of 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 95 


which unmarried women were reckoned among the 
widows (n. 9). 

It would necessarily be a cause of suspicion if the 
conception of the spiritual office that appears in these 
letters were different, not only from Paul’s, but also from 
that of the N.T. generally. Such would be the case if a 
higher kind of morality were demanded of the ‘clergy ” 
than of ordinary Christians, e.g. if they were forbidden to 
marry a second time. This ancient interpretation of Tit. 
i. 6, 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12 is proved to be false by the fact 
that the μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ is simply one of the duties 
and virtues—the first mentioned—that become every 
Christian. A, writer with any other idea must have 
regarded the remarriage of widowers as an exceedingly 
heinous sin. But that our author did so regard. it is 
impossible to believe; since the re-marriage of widows, 
which has always been regarded as more objectionable 
than that of widowers, is not only declared allowable, in 
accordance with 1 Cor. vii. 39, but in the case of the 
younger widows it is even commended (1 Tim. v. 14); 
while in general the writer seems to look with favour 
upon the married life (1 Tim. 11. 15, iv. 3). The main 
question that Paul asks with reference to overseers and 
deacons seeking installation, and with reference to widows 
claiming special honour from the Church, is whether their 
married life has been, and is, pure, untainted by unlawful 
sexual intercourse (n. 10). Only when the rule is so 
interpreted is it possible to see the connection between it 
and the other requirements that follow and are directly 
connected with it, especially the requirement that before 
being installed as an officer in the Church a man must 
have proved himself efficient in managing his own house- 
hold and in bringing up his own children (Tit. i. 6; 1 Tim. 
ii. 4f.,.12; cf..v. 7, 10, 14). 

While these personal qualifications, without which no 
one may assume any oflice in the Church, are very care- 


96 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


fully enumerated, positively and negatively, the functions 
of the different officers are nowhere named, it being 
constantly assumed that they are known. Hence it could 
have been no part of the author's purpose to broaden the 
scope of their offices, to increase their authority, or to 
introduce any change whatever in the relation between 
the Church and its officers. The difference in this respect 
between these letters and the Epistles of Ignatius, and 
even those of Clement and Polycarp, is very marked. 
Any member of the Church may offer prayer in the public 
gatherings (above, 40, n. 4). Teaching is not limited to 
an office. This is evident as well from the whole impres- 
sion of the letters as from the teaching done by Titus 
and Timothy, who held no office in the local Church, but 
are engaged in teaching as representatives of Paul and 
sharers of his apostolie vocation, which included not only 
inissionary effort among those ‘who did not yet believe, 
but also the instruction and guidance of existing Churches. 
From the fact that women are forbidden to teach publicly 
in the congregation (1 Tim. ii. 12, above, p. 40 f.), while 
they are permitted, especially the older women, to teach 
other women by word and good example (Tit. ii. 3), it is 
to be inferred that every man had the right to engage in 
teaching. Only on this presupposition is it possible to 
understand what is said in 1 Tim. i. 3-7, vi. 3-5 about 
ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες, and in 2 Tim. 11]. 6-9, Tit. i. 10-14 
about persons of a worse character. They are not blamed 
for teaching without having the proper authority to do 80. 
Consequently they are not official teachers who have made 
improper use of their office and are to be deposed, but 
simply members of the Church who, believing themselves 
to possess unusual insight and special ability to teach, 
have put themselves forward as teachers in the Churches 
and homes in a perverse or even injurious manner, whose 
activity Timothy is to forbid and Titus strenuously to 
oppose. The same conditions are here presupposed that 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 07 


we observe in Jas. ni. 1; Rom. xu. 7; 1 Cor. xü.-xiv. ; 
Col. iii. 16. There is nothing said in 2 Tim. 11. 2 which 
would imply that teaching was an official function: It is 
true that among the elders officially appointed those who 
engage in the arduous work of speaking and teaching are 
especially mentioned, and with special warmth commended 
to the support of the Church (1 Tim. v. 17 f.; ef. Gal. 
vi. 6; 1 Cor. ix. 6-14). Because of the large number of 
teachers who do harm, special care is also to be exercised 
in choosing persons who are to be at the head of the 
Church ; they are to hold the true Christian doctrine, and 
must be able with sound doctrine to exhort the members 
of the Church and to controvert those who oppose it (Tit. 
i. 9). In this sense ability to teach is mentioned as one 
of the necessary qualifications of the head of a Church 
(SSaxrexos, 1 Tim. iii. 2; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 24). But it is to 
be observed that in the latter passages nothing is said 
about public addresses before the congregations, and 
from the one first quoted it is clear that an elder (1.6. a 
bishop) could exercise his office satisfactorily without 
teaching at all. That frequently the head of the Church 
should be also a teacher is certainly no innovation of the 
post-apostolic age (vol. 1. 465, with reference to Eph. 
iv. 11); it is rather the natural presupposition of the later 
development, when the heads of the Churches came to 
be also regularly its teachers (Clement, 2 Cor. xvii. 3-5 ; 
Just. Apol. i. 67). 

In addition to this quiet work of the teacher, an 
important role was still played in the life of the Chureh 
by prophecy. In the passages where Paul makes predic- 
tions concerning the future of the Church, he depends 
not upon written prophecies, nor upon some special revela- 
tion made to himself, but upon the prophetic spirit present 
in the Church and expressed in the utterances of indi- 
vidual prophets (1 Tim. iv. 1; ef. 2 Tim. iii. 1; below, p. 


110). Propheey within the Church must have been the 
VOL. II. 7 


98 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


determinative influence in the selection of Timothy to 
assist the apostle in preaching and in his endowment 
with the necessary qualifications for the office (1 Tim. 
1.18, iv. 14; above, .p..23; n..5).;.In 1 Tim. iv..14 this 
endowment is directly attributed to prophecy, the laying 
on of the hands of the presbytery being mentioned as a 
concurring circumstance, while in 2 Tim. i. 6 the laying 
on of the hands of the apostle himself is declared to be 
the means by which Timothy became possessed of the 
charisma, the use of which is the same as the exercise of 
his calling. The fact that in one instance the laying on 
of the apostle's hands is mentioned, in the other, of the 
hands of the presbytery, is due to the different point of 
view from which Timothy’s work in the Church is con- 
ceived in the two letters. Where Timothy is thought of 
as overseer and director of the life of the Church in the 
province of Asia, he is reminded of the fact that the 
officers of the Church to which he originally belonged had 
a part in calling him to service in the Church. But where 
he is thought of as an evangelist, having part in. the 
apostle’s preaching vocation, emphasis is given. to the 
laying on of the apostle’s hands. Between endowment 
by prophecy and endowment by the laying on of hands 
there is no more contradiction than between the fact that 
in one instance Paul, in the other the presbytery, laid 
hands upon Timothy. The author did not find the two 
contradictory ; why should we? We have the same repre- 
sentation in Acts xin, 2-4 (cf. Clement, 1 Cor. xhi. 4, 
above, p. 41, n. 5). It would be extremely arbitrary to 
declare the passages in a book which attribute to the Holy 
Spirit the installation of officers in the Church, or the 
appointment and commissioning of missionaries (Acts xx. 
28, xiii. 4; cf. Ignatius, Philad. address), to be im con- 
tradietion to other passages in the same book whieh speak 
of the choice of officials by the Church (Acts vi. 5), or of 
the installation of such by missionaries engaged in organ: 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 99 


ising Churches (Acts xiv. 23). Neither can it be argued 
that in 1 Tim. iv. 14, v. 22, 2 Tim. i. 6 the ordination was 
regarded as a sort of sacrament with magic effect, because 
the laying on of hands is used as an abbreviated technical 
expression without mention of the petition and the con- 
secrating prayer, which probably were always accompanied 
by the laying on of hands, symbolising the bestowment 
of the desired gifts, since in other passages the abbrevi- 
ated expression (Acts vill, 17-19, ix. 17, xix. 6; ef. Mark 
vi. 5, vill. 23, 25; Luke xi.13; Heb. vi. 2) is found as 
well as the longer one (Acts vi. 6, xii. 33; cf. xxviii. 8). 
From cases of this kind it can no more be inferred that 
magic powers were attributed to the laying on of hands, 
quite apart from prayer and faith, than it can be inferred 
from cases where only prayer is mentioned, without the 
laying on of hands (Acts i. 24; in cases of healing, Jas. 
v. 14; Acts ix. 40), that the latter was omitted. 

Evidence of the late date of these Epistles and one of 
the main motives for their composition have been found 
ın what is said in them about false teachers and false 
doctrines (n. 11). If one is to avoid making the spuri- 
ousness of the Kpistles—which is the point to be proved 
the presupposition of the argument, it is necessary at the 
outset to distinguish between what Paul says about certain 
phenomena existing at that time, and: phenomena which 
he expects to appear in the future ; also between persons 
who have forsaken the faith and have separated them- 
selves from the Church, or who have been expelledpand 
others who are still within the Church, but either teach 
in a manner positively harmful or countenance such 
teaching. In the nature of the case there are various 
points of connection between these groups, in partieulär 
the prophecy of future degeneracy is suggested by existing 
phenomena ; but this does not justify us in treating these 
distinctions as if they were merely negligible differences 
in the form of the presentation. The persons, the oppos- 


100 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ing of whose harmful activity is Timothy’s chief business 
in Ephesus (1 Tim. i. 3, n. 12, and above, p. 39, n. 3), 
are members of the Church, subjeet to its confession and 
discipline; for Timothy is not directed to warn the 
Churches under his care against them, but is to command 
them to refrain from teaching. What Paul says in de- 
scribing their work as teachers is manifestly designed 
not only to open Timothy’s eyes and convince him of the 
peril to which the Church is exposed through them, but 
to furnish him. with the truths by the presentation of 
which he is to influence them to leave off their harmful 
activity. These persons are not yet αἱρετικοί, v.e. they 
have not yet separated themselves from the worship and 
fellowship of the Church ; persons of this character are to 
be left to their fate (Tit. iii. 10; ef. 1 Cor. xi. 19). Only 
in case of persistence in their work, in spite of the repri- 
mand of Timothy or Titus, is it expected that they will con- 
tinue outside the organised Church what they are forbidden 
to carry on within the same. This conclusion, namely, 
that until now these persons had remained in the Church, 
follows not only from the fact that Timothy is to com- 
mand them to cease teaching, but also from the fact that 
individuals belonging to this party who had gone farther 
than the rest had been subjected to Church discipline by 
Paul (1 Tim. i. 20; ef., however, 1 Cor. v. 12). From Tit. 
i. 9 it appears, further, that the opposition to sound doe- 
trine by these persons was made within the sphere of the 
same Church life as that affected by the teaching and 
exhortation of the teaching bishop. For Titus to have 
sharply controverted and stopped the mouths (Tit. 1. 11, 
13) of these persons would merely have exposed him to 
ridicule had they been non-Christians. Moreover, the pur- 
pose of this interference on Timothy’s part, namely, that 
the persons in question might become sound in the faith, 
very clearly takes it for granted that they in some degree 
possess the faith and have confessed it publicly (ef. Tit. 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL IOI 


i. 16). They are described as unbelievers (Tit. 1. 15), 
if not, indeed, as worse than unbelievers (1 Tim. v. 8), 
because they do not hold the true doctrine taught by 
Jesus and His Church, and, following the unhealthy ten- 
dencies of their minds, set forth things both foolish and 
worthless (1 Tim. vi. 3 f.; ef. Col. ii. 19; above, pp. 31 f,, 
39, n. 8). 

The function of teaching had not yet come to be 
associated with a churchly office’ (above, p. 97); still 
there were διδάσκαλοι, persons who made teaching in the 
Church their chief business (Eph. iv. 11; 1 Cor. xu. 28 ἢ; 
Rom. xii. 7; Acts xiii. 1;/Didache xii. 15; cf. 2 Tim. 
ii, 2, iv. 2). Besides the apostles, upon whom there de- 
volved, in addition to preaching the gospel to unbelievers, 
the duty of teaching within the Church (1 Cor. 11. 6-1. 8, 
byes Coli BBigqh Dis 7 Bi μαι 58} Ly jo Actas 
42), and Paul’s helpers, who had part in this work (above, 
pp. 31f., 46), such teachers were to be found both among 
the officers of the Church and outside of this circle (above, 
p. 97). But if these ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες had been elders 
or bishops there would certainly be some trace of it, either 
in the passages which discuss the ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, or in 
those dealing with the officers of the Church. Consequently 
these are to be sought among the “laity.” On the other 
hand, the teaching in question is not the deliverance of a 
single discourse (1 Cor. xiv. 26), but teaching work regularly 
practised, as is evidenced by the word ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν 
(n. 12). From 1 Tim. vi. 3-10 it is clear that these 
persons made a profession of teaching in the technical 
sense, for which they took compensation, realising con- 
siderable profit (n. 18). It is not simply their incidental 
purpose of profiting from their work, nor their overween- 
ing sense of superior knowledge of the Scriptures and of 
Christianity (1 Tim. vi. 4, 20, 1. 7), that Paul condemns, 
but he twice describes their commercial method of teach- 
ing as ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, which would imply, not that they 


102 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


set forth a false doctrine differing from Christian doc- 
trine and the gospel of Paul, but that they worked like 
false teachers, played the réle of false teachers,—in other 
words, used abnormal and wrong methods (n. 12). This 
error would not, of course, be serious if it were only some 
defect of delivery, without reference to what they taught. 
That, however, their presentation of the fundamental 
truths of Christianity was not regarded by Paul as false 
and deceptive, is evident. Such an error, above all, would 
not be left unmentioned. Paul himself would surely have 
indicated the character of its contents, and have directly 
condemned it; still more would this have heen done by 
a pseudo-Paul, who in Paul’s name was endeavouring to 
check the spread of these false doctrines. These teachers 
are charged, rather, with paying attention to matters that 
sive rise to disputations and do not promote the exercise 
of his calling on the part of a steward of God (1 Tim. 
i. 4, above, p. 39, n.'3), whereas they should hold fast 
the sound words and teachings revealed by Jesus Himself, 
and the pious doctrine which has since existed in the 
Church (1 Tim. vi. 4). They are accused of an unwhole- 
some disposition to engage in disputes and strife of words 
(vi. 4), disputes just as profitless and worthless (Tit. ii. 9) 
as are the subjects to which they are fond of paying atten- 
tion. To be sure, they do discuss the law,—and only the 
Mosaic law can be meant,—claiming to be its correct inter- 
preters, on the ground of their fundamental acquaintance 
with it (1 Tim. i. 7). For this reason the discussions 
which usually followed in the wake of their teaching are 
called strifes about the law (Tit. ii. 9). But they 
make no attempt to set forth the moral purpose of law 
(1 Tim. i. 5), or to unfold its typical and prophetic signi- 
fieance, which, according to 1 Tim. i. 8 (ef. 2 Tim. iii, 15 £), 
they would be entirely right in doing; but they prefer 
rather to discuss unauthentieated fables and endless gene- 
alogies (1 Tim, i, 4; Tit. iii. 9), with Jewish (Tit. i. 14), 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 103 


v 


profane, and old wives’ fables (1 Tim. iv. 7). To attempt 
to identify these μῦθοι and γενεαλογίαν with the fantastic 
speculations of the second century, particularly with the 
gradations of zons of the Gentile-Christian gnosis, as has 
been done, is much less natural than to suppose that men 
like Ireneeus and Tertullian in their contest with the 
Valentinians used phrases of Paul’s in describing his 
system (n. 14). Even if it were not expressly stated in 
Tit. i. 10 that the chief persons to be opposed were 
teachers of Jewish origin, and in Tit. 1. 14 that these 
persons occupied themselves with ’Iovdaikot μῦθοι, and in 
Tit. ii. 9 that they occasioned νομικαὶ μάχαι, all this, which 
is formally expressed in these passages would be clear 
from their claim to be νομοδιδάσκαλοι (1 Tim. 1. 7),—a 
designation elsewhere given to the rabbis (Luke v. 17; 
Acts v. 34; cf. Rom. ii. 17-23). Although some of these 
ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι may have been Gentiles by birth, who 
either had beeome Jewish proselytes before their conversion 
to Christianity, or had become acquainted with Judaism 
after they became members of the Church, there can be 
no doubt that the whole movement represented by the 
“false teachers” had its roots in Judaism, more specifically 
in rabbinie Judaism. Consequently the fables and gene- 
alogies which they were so fond of discussing can be no 
other than those discussed by Jewish scribes. These 
legendary traditions and endless genealogies were, in all 
yprobability, based upon the text of the Pentateuch, or, 
Isinee νόμος, from which νομοδιδάσκαλος is derived, signifies 
rthe entire O.T. (1 Cor. xiv. 21; John x. 34), upon the 
‘text of the O.T. generally (n. 15). Even if the Pastoral 
‘ Epistles are spurious, every word here used proves that 
‘they have nothing to do with the gradations ‘of sons and 
syzygies of the gnostic systems. In’ contrast to the 
language of the ecclesiastical opponents of these teachings, 
who regarded them as blasphemous obscurations of the 
one true God, and shunned their authors as creators of 


104 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


idols (Iren. 1. 15. 6), all that is here said against the gene- 
alogies is that they are endless (1 Tim. i. 4) and foolish, 
as are also the disputations about them (2 Tim. ii, 23), 
and the wranglings about the law with which these dis- 
putations are connected in Tit. ui. 9. The fables, of 
which, according to 1 Tim. i. 4, the genealogies seem to 
have been a part, are not only described as Jewish (Tit. 
i. 14), which of itself would be nothing against them, but 
are also called βέβηλοι καὶ ypawdes ( 1 Tim. iv. 7). The 
latter is certainly an opprobrious term, but at the same 
time is proof ‚positive that the errors here under dis- 
cussion are not destructive in character; the former term, 
which is employed to describe all the teachings of the 
ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι (1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. 11. 16), when used 
of things, is simply the opposite of ἱερός. While the 
orthodox teacher derives his truth from the ἱερὰ γράμματα 
(2 Tim. i. 15), which accordingly has to do only with 
things relating to the religious life and to salvation, and 
so is holy, these teachers handle profane subjects and set 
forth doctrines which, while they may have their starting- 
point in the Holy Scriptures, really lie quite outside the 
sacred sphere within which the orthodox teacher moves. 
Both teachers and doctrines are spoken of with a great 
deal of contempt. The knowledge of which they boast 
cannot properly be called such (1 Tim. vi. 20). In reality 
they know nothing of the things about which they speak, 
and do not understand the scope of their own claims 
(1 Tim. 1. 7, vi. 4), The very questions which they and 
their hearers discuss prove their lack of common sense and 
want of real culture (2 Tim. 11. 23). Their teaching is 
described as vain words (1 Tim. i. 6, ματαιολογία ; Tit. 
i, 10, ματαιολόγοι ; cf. Tit. 11.9, μάταιοι), words without 
meaning (1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. ii. 16, κενοφωνίαι), and both 
directly and by contrast as worthless (Tit. i. 9, ἀνωφελεῖς ; 
cf, ὠφέλιμος, Tit. iii. 8; 1 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Tim. iii. 160) It 
is called worthless because it contributes nothing to the 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 105 


intelligent fulfilment of the Christian teacher’s office, 
giving rise only to fruitless investigations and strifes 
about words (1 Tim. 1. 4, vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 14, 23), More- 
over, Paul’s helpers are ee not to permit themselves 
to become involved in these useless and profane teachings, 
investigations, and disputations (1 Tim. iv. 7, vi. 20; 
2 Tim. ii. 16; Tit. ii. 9). The very language in which 
these warnings are expressed, and the suggestions of the 
warning not to make their teaching a means of profit 
(1 Tim. vi. 5-11; ef. 2 Tim. ii. 4) as do these teachers, 
together with the exhortations rather to be zealous in the 
presentation of the real truth (1 Tim. 1. 18, iv. 6, vi. 2, 20 ; 
2 Tim. ii. 1-15, 1. 14-iv. 5; Tit. 1.1, i. 1-8), prove that 
these warnings to Timothy and Titus are very seriously 
intended. In the mouth of a pseudo-Paul, whose purpose 
was in the name of the apostle to combat the known 
errorists of the second century, such language would be 
proof of the utmost stupidity, as it would be in the case of 
Paul himself, if he were dealing with teachers who denied 
any of the fundamentals of the faith of the Church. 

The same conclusion follows if we look at these pheno- 
mena from a side other than that indicated by their 
designation as μῦθοι and yeveadoyiaı. It stands to reason 
that persons who called themselves teachers of the law 
handled the legal contents of the Torah, and from 1 Tim. 
i, 8-11 it is clear that, contrary to the spirit of the 
gospel, they considered. certain requirements of the 
Mosaic law binding upon Christians. But if, after the 
manner of the Galatian Judaisers, they had made the 
observance of the Mosaic law, or even only of essential parts 
of it, a condition of salvation, thereby denying the 
gospel of Paul, neither Paul nor a pseudo-Paul could have 
passed it by, nor have spoken in the above manner of 
their absurd and profitless teaching. Nothing is said of 
circumcision, the Sabbath, or similar legal requirements. 
But from Tit. i. 14-16 we learn that they developed out 


106 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of the law and on the basis of it all sorts of regulations 
concerning things “clean and unclean,” and from the 
deseription in this passage of these regulations as com- 
mandments of men (ef. Col. 1. 22; vol. 1. 465), we infer 
that they preseribed ascetie rules with reference to foods 
and the whole manner of living which went beyond the 
obligations of the Mosaic law. This conclusion is con- 
firmed by the manner in which this warning against pro- 
fane and old wives’ fables is coupled with the exhortation 
to prepare for a life of piety upon earth and for the glory 
of the life to come, not by bodily asceticism, but by a dis- 
eipline of the inner self (1 Tim. iv. 7-10); since Timothy 
is repeatedly warned himself not to follow the false 
tendencies of these persons, possibly we are to infer from 
1 Tim. v. 23 (cf. Rom. xiv. 21) that they forbade the use 
of wine. While from what has been said these teachers 
seem not to have been of any great importance, at the 
same time Paul does not conceal either from himself or 
from his disciples the harm which they are doing in the 
Church, and the danger in which they themselves are 
involved. Being quarrelsome and dogmatic, it is ditheult 
to correct them; they are insubordinate and disobedient 
(Tit. i. 10, 16); puffed up by their imaginary knowledge, 
they resist the representatives of genuine Christianity 
(Tit. i. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 25). In Crete, particularly, Paul 
seems to have had unfortunate experiences with these 
persons (above, p. 45). And indeed ‘Timothy also is in- 
structed not to enter into discussion with them, but simply 
to command them to desist from their work (1 Tim. 1. 3, 
ef. iv. 11). However, in one passage, where evidently the 
same or similar persons are referred to (2 Tim. ii. 14-16, 24), 
Timothy is exhorted not to act unkindly in dealing with 
them, always bearing in mind the possibility of their 
conversion to true knowledge (2 Tim. ii. 25f). "Titus, 
on the other hand, is emphatically told to silence them, 
and to reprimand them sharply and authoritatively 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 107 


(1. 11, 13, ef. ii. 15), and then if they withdraw from the 
Church, to whose diseipline they will not submit, after 
exhorting them once again, or at most twice, he is to 
leave them to their fate (iii. 10). Consequently the whole 
tendency of the movement must have been away from the 
Church. In proportion as they were prevented from 
teaching publicly in the assembles of the Church, they 
must have made an effort to mtroduce their ideas into 
homes; though it is to be observed that this feature of 
their work is mentioned in Tit. i. 11 and not in 1 Tim. 
Concerning 2 Tim. i. 6, see below, p. 114 f. 

Not only were these persons injurious to the Churches, 
but they themselves were in great danger. Paul considers 
their condition diseased (1 Tim. vi. 4; Tit. 1. 13), as proved 
chiefly by his regular designation of the true doctrine, 
which they do not hold, and which on that account is to 
be preached with all the greater zeal as sound (n. 16). 
Their spiritual life therefore is in peril, and, unless they are 
converted, they must remain the prey of Satan (2 Tim. 
u. 25f.). The harmful effects of their departure from the 
real truth and their capricious meddling with questions 
entirely secondary, morally unfruitful, and without re- 
ligious value, are already apparent in their moral life. 
While prescribing all sorts of ascetic rules for themselves 
and others, they are the victims of covetousness, and 
really deny the God whom they profess to know (1 Tim. 
vi. 3-10; Tit. 1. 13-16). Here again it is apparent that 
they did not teach an immoral doctrine of God, as did 
the “ Gnosties” according to the unanimous testimony of 
the Church of the time, but accepted, formally at least, 
the God of the common Christian faith. 

The question now arises as to the relation between these 
ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι and those who are described as having fallen 
from the faith and as being outside the Church. According 
to 1 Tim. vi. 21, some of those who belonged apparently to 
the party or the movement represented by the ἑτεροδιδάσ- 


τοῦ INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


καλοι had missed the mark with regard to the faith, and sc 
had gone astray, from which it is to be inferred incidentally 
that this was by no means true of them all. From the 
context of 1 Tim. vi. 3-10 it appears that those who had 
erred from the faith in consequence of their love of money 
belonged to the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλο. A certain connection 
seems to exist also between the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι described 
in, 1 Tim. i. 3-7 and the two men mentioned in 1. 20; 
for while the former have disregarded the great underlying 
principle of every commandment, namely, love, which pre- 
supposes a pure heart, a good conscience, and an unfeigned 
faith (cf. also Tit. i. 15), the class of whom Alexander and 
- Hymeneeus are mentioned as terrible examples have com- 
pletely abandoned or ‘thrown overboard” (Hofmann) a 
good conscience, in consequence of which their faith has 
suffered shipwreck... They had reached the point where 
they reviled that which was holy to the Christians, and 
Alexander at least, if he be the same as the Alexander 
spoken of in 2 Tim. iv. 14 (above, p. 21, π᾿ 3), had 
gone so far as openly to oppose the apostolic preaching. 
If Paul had) given them over to Satan for correction, 
he had not done so without communicating with the 
Church to which they belonged, and so not‘ without 
their excommunication from the same. ‘The blasphemous 
doctrines which they confessed may have been as 
various as the conduct by which they showed that 
they had renounced obedience to their own conscience. 
That the two cases were not entirely alike is evident from 
2 Tim. ii. 17, where Hymen:eus’ name is not coupled with 
that of Alexander, but with that of a certain Philetus, it 
being declared that the two had proclaimed the doctrine 
that the resurrection was past already, and had secured 
some following. Here again things are said in the pre- 
ceding context which seem to connect these persons with 
the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι (ii, 14-16); although both the lan- 
guage and the contents of the passage render impossible 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 105 


the assumption (ef. Hofmann, vi. 257) that Hymenseus and 
Philetus are mentioned as examples of this group, so that 
everything is true of the latter which is said of the former. 
This identification is impossible, because in all the passages 
which have been considered (1 Tim. i. 3-20, vi. 10, 21), 
those who had openly fallen from the faith are distin- 
guished from the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι, and the latter are never 
accused of godlessness, blasphemy, and destructive errors, 
Besides, if this were the case, it would not be enough for 
the apostle to say that Timothy, in view of the anticipated 
progress of this godless teaching, is to proclaim the word 
of truth fearlessly and urgently, and not to occupy his 
attention with strifes about words and the unspiritual 
scholasticism of these teachers—poor weapons, indeed, 
agi.nst such serious errors! From the analogy of the 
other passages, we conclude that the relation between the 
ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι and those who had openly fallen from the 
faith of the Church, some of whom, like Alexander, 
Hymenzeus, and Philetus, had already been excommuni- 
cated, was genetic. Not a few of these apostates must 
have come from the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι, and served to illus- 
trate the harmful character of this method of teaching, 
which overlooked and diverted attention from the funda- 
mentals of Christianity. It does not necessarily follow 
that Alexander, Hymenzsus, and Philetus were Jews by 
birth, for this was not uniformly the case with the érepo- 
διδάσκαλοι (above, pp. 44, 103). Connection with Judaism 
is, however, proved from extra-Biblical traditions. Accord- 
ing to these traditions, the doctrine in question, which, of 
course, never consisted solely of the bald contention that 
the resurrection is already past, existed in a twofold form. 
According to the one form of the doctrine, a man experi- 
enced a resurrection in his children. According to the 
other, the resurrection in which the Church believed meant 
the rise of the new man from the old in conversion and 
baptism (n. 17). As the authors and earliest representa- 


110 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tives of the latter view, which seems to have been 
suggested by conceptions of Paul’s (Eph. u. 5f., iv. 23; 
Col. ii. 12£., ii. 1, 10), are mentioned the Antiochian 
proselyte Nicolaüs (Acts vi. 5), who seems eventually to 
have gained a following in the Churches of Asia Minor 
(Rev. ii. 6, 15), and the Samaritan Menander, a follower 
of Simon Magus, who was half-Jewish, had been cireum- 
cised, and lived in Antioch (Just. Apol. i. 26). The former 
view, which was suggested by Jewish expressions, such as 
“to awaken seed or children,” according to an early legend 
was disseminated by disloyal followers of Paul in the 
apostle’s lifetime. The cruder forms of the doctrine are 
probably the earliest, and nothing is more natural than to 
suppose that it was taught first by teachers of pure Jewish 
blood, and that the doctrine was given its more refined 
and spiritual form by half-Jews like Nicolaiis and Men- 
ander, whence it passed in this form into. the various 
systems of the Gentile Christian gnosis. 

That Paul expected these abnormal phenomena which 
existed in the Church of his time to affect the future, is 
evidenced not only by the way in which he expresses) his 
expectation that the doctrine of Hymenzeus and Philetus 
will spread like a gangrene, attacking other members of 
the Church, and that those who hold it will become more 
and more godless (2, Tim, ü. 16-18, ef. iii. 13), but also 
by the manner in which, on the basis of prophecy, he pre- 
dicts new facts, which, while they may and do have 
their prelude in the present, really belong to a future, 
indeed, to the final age. The τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει ὅτι 
«Tr. in 1 Tim. iv. 1 is not quoted as scripture (Heb. iii. 7), 
neither is the tense used historical (Acts i. 16), from which 
it may be concluded, first of all, that Paul is referring to 
prophetic utterances which at the time this letter was 
written were still current in the Churches (ef, Acts xx. 23, 
xxl. 4, 12, xiii. 2, xvi. 6) We know how highly Paul 
prized such prophecies, and what definite expectations he 


THE LAST, THREE EPISTLES, OF, PAUL 111 


based upon them (1 Thess. v. 19f.; 2 Thess. 1. 2; vol. i, 
226 f.). He uses the indirect form of discourse, evidently 
because he wants to state in a few words what the pro- 
phets had said in numerous discourses. Still the ῥητῶς 
indicates that he intends to reproduce the special pro- 
phecy which he has in mind, just as explicitly and 
definitely as is possible in the case of predictions made 
at various times often only suggested, and, so far as we 
know, never written down. In this connection it is, of 
course, to be remembered that the fruitful source of 
all Christian prophecy was the prophetic testimony 
of Jesus Himself (Rev. xix. 10), and there is much here 
that reminds one of many recorded sayings of Jesus 
(Matt. vin; 15-23, xxiv. AL, 11f.,24;. GK, 1...545 ff) 
But what the Spirit said to the Churches at that time goes 
far beyond these sayings. At a later time, which does 
not necessarily mean the final age, but simply the future 
as distinguished from the present (cf. Acts xx, 29), many 
shall depart from the faith, because they give heed to 
seductive spirits and the teachings of daemons, who in 
hypocritical guise speak lies. Even though the correct 
meaning of the separate words and their proper connection 
be subject to doubt and debate, it is at least clear that not 
only the apostasy of numerous members of the Church, 
but also the appearance of the false teachers through 
whom this is to be brought about, is referred to the future ; 
for if the reference were to definite phenomena, which were 
known either because the prophecies in question had been 
heard before, or because the readers of the letter had learned 
of the facts through their own experience, or by having 
been previously informed of them, the articles could not 
possibly be omitted in describing these phenomena. Con- 
sequently it can be neither the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι nor the false 
teachers and blasphemers of 1 Tim. i. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 17 f. 
that are here referred to.. Furthermore, the terms used to 
describe these teachers who are to appear in the future are 


12 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


not intended simply to express horror at the sinister and 
seductive power of these men (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 14; 2 Thess. 
ii. 11; 1 John iv. 1-3, 6; 2 John 7), but are chosen in view 
of the character of their teaching (cf. Ign. Smyrn. ü.). 
By forbidding believers to marry on the ground that it 
is impure, and by forbidding the use of certain foods on 
the ground that they are evil and not intended. by God 
for use by pious men or by others, they act as if they 
were bodiless spirits endeavouring to realise in themselves 
and those whom they seek to win a type of spirituality 
contrary to nature. Although they may declare it neces- 
sary for Christians to be like angels (Luke xx. 86; Col. ii. - 
18; vol. i. 466, 469), the prophetic spirit pronounces 
them deceptive spirits and lying demons. If it be re- 
carded as certain that these teachers and the doctrines 
attributed to them belong to the future, it follows that 
it must have been conditions in the Churches under 
Timothy’s care which influenced Paul or a pseudo-Paul 
to recall this prophecy, and to urge Timothy to preach 
truths that would counteract these false doctrines which 
were to appear in the future (1 Tim. iv. 4-6). From the 
fact that in the very next verse we have statements which 
apply to the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι (iv. 7 f.), it is clear beyond 
question that it was the ascetic rules of these teachers, 
derived from the Mosaic law (above, p. 105), that 
occasioned the exhortation. The ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι did not 
forbid marriage nor declare that certain forms of food in 
customary use were of themselves objectionable and not 
fit to be used by Christians; this was to be done in the 
future by the deceiving spirits ; but these commandments 
of men with reference to the disciplining of the body (Tit. 
i. 14f.; 1 Tim. iv. 8) prepared the way for false doctrines 
which deny the fundamental laws of life established at 
the creation. 

In 2 Tim. iv. 3, without appeal to a definite prophecy, 
Paul speaks of a future time when men generally, includ- 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 113 


ing thus at least numerous Christians, will not bear sound 
doctrine, 2.e. will find it too strict or too monotonous, and 
in their wanton desire for what is new and interesting will 
provide for themselves teachers after their own liking, 
finally closing their ears entirely to the truth and giving 
heed to fables. In view of this prospect, Timothy is to 
devote himself the more earnestly to preaching before the 
evil time comes (2 Tim. iv. 2-5); he is to see to it that 
there are others besides himself and after him who shall 
propagate sound doctrine (2 Tim. ii. 2). While it is not here 
stated in so many words that the beginnings of this very 
unsound development of ecclesiastical taste, so to speak, 
existed already in the present, it must have been the case ; 
for otherwise the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι in Ephesus and Crete would 
not have met with approval. In 2 Tim. iv. 4 the word 
translated fables has the article prefixed, so that it desig- 
nates the whole class of unauthenticated fables, includ- 
ing thus the rabbinie tales of which the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι 
made so much (1 Tim. i. 4; Tit. i. 14, iii. 9); while the 
recurrence here of the word “sound doctrine” proves 
that Paul had in mind their unsound methods and the 
morbid taste of numerous members of the Church who 
gave heed to them. Nevertheless Paul’s words are still 
prophetic, because he speaks of a future time when this 
perverted taste, now to be observed in isolated cases, 
shall become general in the Church, resulting in the in- 
creased number and more perverse character of these 
teachers. 

There is a third passage (2 Tim. iii. 1-5) written in 
the prophetic spirit relating less directly to harmful 
teachers and doctrines. In the last days, reads the pas- 
sage, shall come evil times. The future tense makes it 
impossible to assume that the reference is to the present 
Christian era, treated as the final age (Heb. 1.1; 1 Pet. i. 
20; Jas. v. 3; 1 Cor. x. 11; Acts ii. 17). It can mean 
only the future which still lies before the persons for whom 

VOL. Il. 8 


114 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the letter was intended—the time approaching, the end 
of the age (2 Pet. iii. 3). The thing that will make these 
times so evil and so hard for Christians to bear will be a 
widespread moral degeneracy. ‘The prediction is made 
with reference to men in general. But from the state- 
ment at the end of the passage that in these times men 
will love pleasure more than God, and that while retain- 
ing outwardly a form of godliness they will deny its 
power, it is clear that the persons referred to are members 
of the Church, showing that it is a general moral decline 
of Christianity that is here predicted, or rather that a 
prophecy to this effect is recalled to Timothy’s mind (ef. 
Matt. xxiv. 12, 38, 48f, xxv. 5; Luke xvi. 8; 2 Thess. 
ii. 3; vol. i. 240). Clearly this would not happen did 
there not exist in the present foreshadowines and ex- 
amples of such sham Christianity, which it is necessary 
for Timothy as a teacher rightly to judge and handle. 
Similarly, the sudden transition from the description of 
evil times to come and of the general character of the 
generation then living to the exhortation, “ From these 
persons turn away,” has its justification in the fact that 
he goes on to speak of persons now living who belong to 
the class of sham Christians just described (2 Tim. iii. 6-9). 
But these living sham Christians are described as teachers 
whose conduct bears a certain resemblance to that of the 
true teacher, just as the Egyptian sorcerers did to Moses, 
but who in reality, like those sorcerers, are opposed to 
the truth represented by the servant of God. 

Inasmuch as 2 Tim., unlike 1 Tim. and Titus, was not 
written with a definite group of Churches in view among 
which Paul’s helper was to work, neither ii. 6-9 nor 
iv. 3 (cf. ἢ. 14-16, 23) can be interpreted as referring 
exclusively to the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι in Ephesus and Crete. 
That, however, Paul had these and persons of a similar 
character in view there is no reason to doubt. Like the 
ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι (Tit. i. 11), the persons described in 2 ‘Tim. 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL ΓΕ 


teach from house to house, and neglect the moral aspects 
of Christian truth (1 Tim. 1. 5), persuading sinful women 
to become their disciples instead of exhorting them to 
repentance, and gratifying their idle curiosity by telling 
them all sorts of fables and Biblical curiosities. These 
persons in Tit. 1. 10 are condemned in practically the 
same terms as in 2 Tim. iu. 5 ; τετυφωμένοι, 2 Tim. 111. 4, 
is to be found also in 1 Tim. vi. 4; the expression ἄνθρωποι 
κατεφθαρμένοι τὸν νοῦν, 2 Tim. iii. 8, is almost exactly the 
same as that which is found in 1 Tim. vi. 5. The fact 
that Paul himself enters the realm of Jewish mythology 
in quoting the names of Jannes and Jambres only serves to 
strengthen the impression that he has principally in mind 
false teachers who were for the most part Jewish. This 
impression is not at all weakened by the fact that he assures 
Timothy for his encouragement that these sham Christian 
teachers will not be able to accomplish more, since their 
folly will soon become manifest to all Christians (1. 9); for 
the contrary remark in 2 Tim. ii. 16 apples not to the 
ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι, but to the false doctrine of Hymenzus ; 
and wherever the former are mentioned they are spoken of 
slightingly, and described as foolish persons who, without 
much ceremony, are to be forbidden to carry on their 
work. Although individuals of evil character, both 
Christians and teachers, will wax worse and worse 
(2 Tim. 111. 13), the sham Christian teachers described in 
2 Tim. 11. 6-9, who in their essential characteristics re- 
present the same class as the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι in Ephesus 
and Crete, have no future, no matter how much harm 
they may do in the present. On the other hand, the 
false doctrine mentioned in 2 Tim. 11. 17 f. was to have a 
future, while the false doctrine predicted by the prophetic 
spirit in 1 Tim. iv. 1-3 belonged wholly to the future. 
All this is in agreement with history only if these Epistles 
were written in the apostolic age. Nothing resembling 
the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι is to be found in the post-apostolic age. 


ı16 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Cerinthus is out of the question, for his Judaism is only a 
learned myth (vol. i. 515, n. 4). The Naassenes, who, 
to be sure, according to Hippolytus’ description, adopted 
Jewish elements in their syncretistic system (n. 11), were 
anything but Jewish teachers of the law. From the 
letters of Ignatius we learn that in the year 110 wander- 
ing teachers of Jewish origin, with reference to whom 
Ignatius uses several phrases to be found in the Pastoral 
Epistles, were seeking entrance into the Churches of Asia 
Minor (vol. 1. 497, and below, n. 14). These, however, 
were real false teachers; they taught that the essen- 
tials of the Mosaic law were binding upon all Christians, 
as for example the law concerning the Sabbath. They 
denied the reality of Christ’s humanity, especially the 
reality of His death and resurrection, and of the resurrec- 
tion of Christians from the dead, none of which were tenets 
of the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι (cf. Zahn, Ignatius, pp. 356-399). 
Neither does the picture of the Judaisers opposed in the 
Epistle of Barnabas, nor the Ebionism that appears in 
the pseudo-Clementine literature, show features resembling 
the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι of the Pastoral Epistles. On the other 
hand, as has been pointed out, the manner in which they 
make a business of teaching allies these teachers with 
the Petrine party in Corinth (vol. i. 288 f.), while their 
neglect of the essentials of Christianity and their emphasis 
upon ascetic rules based upon the Mosaic law connect 
them with the Jewish Christian teachers in Colosse 
(vol. i. 462). But in the Pastoral Epistles we have no 
appeal on the part of the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι to the authority 
of another apostle or of the mother Church; nor is any- 
thing said about philosophy and philosophical speculations 
concerning nature, while the Epistles to the Corinthians 
and the Colossians are silent about rabbinic myths, in- 
vestigations and disputations about genealogies, and specific 
legal requirements of the O.T. Furthermore, if the earlier 
Epistles of Paul really reflect conditions in the Church 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL Ll Uy 


at the time when they were written, the rise and spread 
in various directions, such as Ephesus and Crete—and, 
judging from the hints of 2 Tim., even more widely—of 
a form of a pious sounding doctrine assuming to be Chris- 
tian, but really representing the worst sort of rabbinism— 
of sufficient importance to be opposed as seriously and en- 
ergetically as it is in these Epistles—is a new phenomenon, 
to which Paul bears witness only in his last letters. For 
a pseudo-Paul in the post-apostolic age—when Christians 
of Jewish birth had become more and more exceptions in 
the Gentile Christian Church—to have invented a de- 
scription of and then vigorously to have opposed the 
ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι, Who did not exist in his own age and who 
were without parallel in the earlier Epistles of Paul: would 
have been to expose himself to ridicule without apparent 
purpose or meaning. As has been shown above (p. 107 f., 
and n. 17), the ei heresy, which, according to 2 Tim. 
ii. 18, existed at the time, is represented by ancient 
accounts, the trustworthiness of which at this point can- 
not be questioned, as having existed in a twofold form 
even in the apostolic age. So far as we are able to trace 
its development, it originated in Jewish and semi-Jewish 
circles in Palestine (n. 17). The fact that this is not 
directly stated proves that what we have here is not the 
attempt of some later writer artificially to put himself 
and his readers back in the apostolic age; while the fact 
that it is assumed in 2 Tim. 11. 17 that this development 
will take place, and the fact that we are able to form an 
idea of its character only from the context, prove that the 
author did not live at a time when Gentile Christian 
Gnostics of different schools were actually proclaiming this 
or a similar doctrine. The fact that this prophecy was 
fulfilled, and that this doctrine did develop and spread, is 
no proof that it was not Paul who gave utterance to the 
same. The same is true with siren de to the prophecy 
concerning a future false teaching in 1 Tim. iv. 1-3 and 


118 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the related passages, 2 Tim. iii. 1-5, iv. 3f., unless it be 
assumed as self-evident that Christian prophecy which 
began with Jesus and was developed in His Church never 
developed anything but phantasies. Marcion forbade the 
members of his Church to marry, and degraded the God 
of creation and His work. Ideas of this kind were de- 
veloped further by Encratism and Manicheism. That, 
however, a pseudo-Paul, who had lived through the ex- 
perience of Marcion’s activity, writing in the name of 
Paul and of the prophets of the early Christian Church, 
would have used only the language of 1 Tim. iy. 1-3 in 
opposing him, it is impossible to believe. Neither can we 
suppose that he would have found in certain doctrines of 
Jewish Christian teachers of the law (above, pp. 102 f., 
105 f.) the antetype of Marcion’s anti-Jewish teaching, 
nor is it any more likely that in another passage he 
would have finally betrayed himself by the use of Marcion’s 
antitheses (n. 18). 

A comparison of the statements in these Epistles about 
various kinds of false doctrine, and of those portions of 
the same that deal with the organisation and officers of 
the Church with conditions actually existing in the 
Church, especially the Church of Asia Minor, at the 
beginning and during the course of the second century, 
proves just as clearly as does the external evidence that 
they must have been written at latest before the year 100. 
But they could not have been written during the first 
two decades after Paul’s death, because of the character of 
the references to persons, facts, and conditions in Paul’s 
lifetime and his own personal history, and because of the 
impossibility on this assumption of discovering a plausible 
motive for their forgery (above, p. 88 ff.). Consequently 
the claim that they are post-Pauline, and contain matter 
which is un-Pauline, is to be treated with the greatest 
suspicion. Passing by altogether or with the briefest men- 
tion what is manifestly foolish (n. 19), we must admit that 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 19 


it is really a cause for suspieion if in 1 Tim. v. 18 we have 
cited as Scripture a gospel-saying to be found in exactly 
the same form in Luke x. 7, and with slight differences in 
Matt, x. 10, inasmuch as elsewhere Paul quotes the sayings 
of Jesus only from the oral tradition, and in 1 Cor. ix. 14 
reproduces this same command of Jesus, but in a free 
rendering. specially is this suspicion justified in view 
of the fact that considerable time elapsed after the death 
of Paul before the Gospels came to be quoted as Scripture. 
But, assuming that a pseudo-Paul wanted to support the 
Mosaic regulation, which required a somewhat bold inter- 
pretation in order to render it applicable to the teachers 
(1 Cor. ix. 9), by adding a saying of Jesus’ which referred 
directly to Christian teachers and had greater authority, 
it would have been quite out of keeping with the custom 
of the second century for him to have quoted it without 
saying that it was a word of the Lord, and so smuggling 
it in, as it were, obscurely as a word of Scripture. It is 
very much more likely that the ἡ γραφὴ λέγει refers only 
to the passage from the law, and that the other is a 
proverb of which Jesus Himself made use. There are 
other sentences of Paul's which seem to be proverbs, 
although we have no means of proving that they are 
such (1 Cor. v. 6; Gal. v. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 10). In 1 Cor. 
xv. 32 f. only the scholar would recognise the verse from 
an Attic comedian which follows a quotation from Isa. 
(xxil. 13), with only two words intervening (vol. i. 71, 
n. 19). Without question we do find in these letters, 
and only in these letters, the unmistakable traces of a 
fixed baptismal formula (n. 20); but this is a cause for 
suspicion only if we know certainly that such a formula 
did not originate until after Paul’s death. But this is 
precisely what we do not know. It is also to be admitted 
that Paul does speak in these Epistles more frequently and 
more definitely than in the earlier letters, of orthodox teach- 
ing which was to be handed down from teacher to disciple, 


120 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of a confession to be made publiely before the Church, of 
a form of words which the disciple when he teaches is to 
use as a summary of Christian truth, and of the truth em- 
braced in this doctrine as the norm of speech and conduct 
for all (2 Tim. 1. 13, ii. 2, 8, 14, iii. 10, 14; 1 Tim. i. 10, 
iv. 6, vi. 1, 3; Tit. 1. 9,11. 1,10). That this point of view 
was not altogether foreign to Paul is evident from Rom. 
vi. 17, xvi. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 17, xv. 1-3; Col. 1. 6f ; Eph. 
iv. 20f. That in the course of time this way of looking at 
things should be confirmed, and that it should come more 
and more to view in face of the growing tendency about him 
to teach perversely for gain and even to teach false doctrines, 
is perfectly conceivable, as is also his anxiety, in view of 
his approaching death, that there shall be faithful and 
able witnesses of the truth proclaimed by him among the 
Gentiles. Similarly can we understand the manner in 
which, in view of the perils that exist and still threaten, 
he comforts himself by recalling that immovableness which 
through her divine origin belongs to the Church as the 
pillar of the truth (1 Tim. iii. 15; 2 Tim. 11. 19). That 
the idea of the unity of the Church was not foreign to 
Paul nor a late development of his thought, has been 
shown in the discussion of Ephesians (vol. i. 503 f.). The 
fact that the form of Christianity and the teaching here 
dealt with are unhealthy, explains why orthodox teaching 
is so often spoken of in these Epistles as sound (above, 
p. 107, and n. 16). In proportion as the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι 
subordinated the moral aspects of Christianity to their 
rabbinic fancies and ascetic hobbies, it was natural that 
this side of Christianity should come strongly to view, and 
that its opposition to all immorality should be emphasised 
(1 Tim. i. 10, vi. 1; Tit. 1. 1-4), and that the whole 
doctrine of the Church based upon the gospel and faith in 
the same (cf. 1 Tim. i. 11-16; Tit. iii. 3-7) should be 
described as a single commandment (ἡ ἐντολή, 1 Tim. vi. 14; 
ἡ παραγγελία, 1 Tim. v.18, ef. iv.11). To call this un- Pauline 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 121 


is to forget that Paul speaks of a law of Christ and of God 
which Christians are to fulfil (Gal. vi. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 21; ef. 
Rom. viii. 4), and also calls the gospel itself, which exeludes 
all boasting, a law of faith (Rom. ii. 27, 31), and speaks 
of faith and of its manifestation in the life as obedience 
(Rom. i. 5, vi. 16, xvi. 26). Nowhere in these Epistles 
do we find sentences that sound so “ un-Pauline” as 1 Cor. 
vii. 19, and which can be so readily mistaken as a fusion 
of genuine Pauline teaching with its opposite, as Gal. v. 6. 
Here full emphasis is laid upon the doctrine of redemp- 
tion and of justification not by works but by grace (Tit. 
ii. 11-14, iii. 4-7; 1 Tim. 1. 12-16, 11. 4-7 ; 2 Tim. 1. 9), 
while in addition we have the bold statement (1 Tim. 1. 9) 
that for the just man, and consequently for the sinner who 
has been made righteous by the mercy of the Saviour 
(1 Tim. i. 13-16), there is no law. 

With regard to that last refuge of so-called criticism, 
namely, the lineuistic character of the letters, it is to be 
remarked at the outset that a pseudo-Paul, by repeating and 
imitating Pauline expressions, would be sure to make mis- 
takes and so betray himself. The opposite is what we really 
find. Even the greetings, which would be most apt to be 
handled in this way, are thoroughly original, showing de- 
pendence neither upon earlier letters nor upon the common 
model (n. 21). Here also is to be observed the peculiarity 
of Paul’s style, by which he repeats within short range 
a characteristic word once used or a related word (vol. i. 
516, n. 7), without prejudice to the fact that for one not a 
Greek he has command of an unusually large number of 
words and expressions (n. 21), which would tend rather to 
increase with time than to diminish. It is also to be ob- 
served that 1 Tim. and Titus were written within a short 
time of each other and for like reasons, and that 2 Tim. 
also is considerably closer to these letters both in time 
and purpose than it is to any of the Epistles that we 
have investigated. Consequently the fact that these 


ı22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


three letters have certain expressions in common which 
either are not found in the earlier Pauline Epistles at 
all, or occur only rarely, is no proof that they are 
spurious, but only goes to confirm the conclusion arrived 
at from the investigation of their contents, that they all 
belong to the same period in Paul’s life, and that the 
last. If it be admitted that the linguistic phenomena 
of the letters controvert altogether the efforts of numerous 
“apologists” to find a place for 1 Tim. and Titus in the 
earlier period of Paul’s life, then the “ critics” in their 
turn ought not to deny that 2 Tim. is different from the 
other two not only in content, but also linguistically. 
Such difference is very difficult to understand if all three 
are the work of a forger, but very easy to explain if they 
were written by Paul under the conditions which the letters 
themselves disclose. 


1. (P. 85.) SCHLEIERMACHER was the first to deny positively the genn 
ineness of 1 Tim. (Uber den sogen. ersten Brief des Paulos an den Timotheos. 
Kritisches Sendschr. an Gass, 1807 ; Werke zur Theol. ii. 221-320), at the same 
time admitting the genuineness of 2 Tim. and of Tit. Baur (Die sogenann- 
ten Pastoralbr. des Ap. Pl. 1835) pronounced them all spurious. With many, 
who in other respects have not followed the critical paths which Baur struck 
out, this opinion has gained the weight of a dogma. A summary of the 
works in which this view is taken is given by HoLtzmann (Die Pastoralbriefe, 
krit. u. exeg. behandelt, 1880). At the outset the “critics” (eg. v. Soden, HK, 
iii. 1. 196) always make the assertion that “there is no place in Paul’s life for 
the situations presupposed ” in these letters, the worth of which assertion can 
be judged in the light of p. 54 ff. Not a few have made the attempt to 
find a genuine kernel in the letters, while at the same time rejecting the 
whole mass of enveloping material; in recent times, LEMME (Das echte 
Ermahnungsschreiben des Paulus an Tim. 1882) and Hxsse (Entstehung der 
ntl. Hirtenbriefe, 1889). The former made the attempt with 2 Tim., the latter 
with all three letters, the conelusion of the investigation being that a genuine 
letter to Titus lies at the basis of our Tit., and that at least the fragment 
of a genuine letter to Timothy is retained at the close of 2 Tim. In like 
fashion KRENKBL (Beiträge [1890], 395-468) thinks that he is able to distin- 
guish parts of three genuine letters, namely (1) a letter dating from the time 
of Acts xx. 1f., probably addressed to Titus while he was staying in Crete 
(=Tit. iii. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 20; Tit. iii. 13) ; (2) one dating from the imprison- 
ment in Cwsarea, probably to Timothy (=2 Tim. iv. 9-18); and (3) one 
written during the imprisonment in Rome to an assistant staying in Ephesus 
(=2 Tim. iv. 19, i. 16, 17, 18), iv. 21). Hypotheses of this kind, in whieh as 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 123 


a rule only their inventors believe, could establish a claim to serious con 
sideration only if developed with an unusual degree of ingenuity and care 
But this we fail to find when, eg. we read that according to 2 Tim. ii, 14- 
iv. 5, Timothy, instead of hastening to Rome, as he is commanded to do in the 
genuine part (iv. 9, 21), is to labour officially in a circle of Churches as a 
resident successor of the apostles there (Lemme, 37); or that Paul main- 
tained a thoroughly negative attitude toward the religion of the O.T. (includ- 
ing that of Abraham, David, and Elijah ?), accepting only its scriptures (55) ; 
or when Krenkel, 421, seeks to support the essential historicity of the facts 
presupposed in Tit. by the assumption that Titus at the time of Acts xx. 1-3 
went to Crete, possibly from Athens, while Paul turned aside to Corinth 
(ef. per contra, Tit. i. 5, ἀπέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ) ; or when the same critic (422) 
discovers in Acts xxvii. 7f. that Paul landed in Crete, but met no Christians 
there ; or when, further on (444), he explains the difference between 2 Tim. 
iv. 18 and Philem. 22—a sentence which, he alleges, was written shortly 
before—as due to a change of mood for which there was no real motive. 

2. (Pp. 85, 86.) The Epistle to the Laodiceans (GK, ii. 584) and the Third 
Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians contain the name of no person belonging 
to the time when they purport to have been written except that of Paul; the 
Epistle of Peter to James (Clementina, ed. Lagarde, p. 3) none except those of 
Peter and James. It is only in the apocryphal Hpistle of the Corinthians to 
Paul (ed. Vetter, p. 52) that certain other names are to be found, namely, 
Stephanas, from 1 Cor. i. 16, xvi. 15-17, as bishop of Corinth, and among the 
members of the presbytery associated with him, in addition to two unknown 
persons, a Theophilus (Luke i. 3; Actsi. 1) and a Eubulus (2 Tim. iv. 21). 
Further, in association with the Simon of Acts viii., a Cleobios, an unfaithful 
disciple of the apostles, repeatedly mentioned in the literature of the second 
century, sometimes in connection with Simon, sometimes not (GK, ii. 596, 
n. 3); finally a Theonas, perhaps the Theodas who was known in the second 
century as a disciple of Paul (Vetter, p. 53, A. 1; Forsch. 111. 125). Only in 
the last of the four forged letters mentioned are to be found hints of definite 
historical situations (vv. 2,8); yet even here we have not independent 
fietion, but a component part of a larger narrative fietion, the old Acts of 
Paul. Moreover, this letter is composed on the basis of 1 Cor. vii. 1 quite as 
mechanically as Paul’s reply based on 1 Cor. v. 9, and the Epistle to the 
Laodiceans based on Col. iv. 16. Suffice it merely to mention later and more 
wretched inventions, such as a letter of John preserved by Prochorus (Acta 
Jo. p. 68; ef. GK, i. 217, A. 2), and the correspondence between Seneca and 
Paul, which are even poorer in quality. 

3. (P. 85.) Ranke (Weltgesch. iii. 1. 191): “The widespread doubt as to 
the genuineness of the Epistles to Timothy is due to the fact that we possess 
no reliable information whatever concerning that epoch. Various circum- 
stances are mentioned which we are unable to place in relation to others 
about which we possess knowledge. But they are details of a minor char- 
acter, and who would be likely to have invented them ?” 

4. (P. 91.) Phil. i. 1 of the single Church, σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις. 
Just so Clem. 1 Cor. xlii. 4; Herm. Sim. ix. 26. 2, 27. 2; cf. Vis. iii. 5.1; 
Didache, chap. xv., cf. Forsch. iii. 302-310. The single προεστώς over against 
the plurality of διάκονοι in Just. Apol. i. 65, 67, can prove nothing to the 


[124 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


contrary; for the διάκονος is here viewed as the leader of the worship, and 
such leading can hardly be performed by more than one at a time. 

5. (P. 91.) Just as the πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ in Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 
23; Acts iv. 8) form the πρεσβυτέριον (Acts xxii. 5) Or γερουσία (Acts v. 21), 
i.e. the great Sanhedrin, in the same way the πρεσβύτεροι τῆς ἐκκλησίας 
(Acts xx. 17; Jas. v. 14) everywhere make up a πρεσβυτέριον (Ign. Eph. ii. 2, 
iv. 1; in all twelve times). The name πρεσβύτερος among Jews and early 
Christians was not, any more than “senator” among the Romans, an official 
title, or more precisely, the designation of an official, but denoted member- 
ship in the senate which had the rule over the congregation. But for 
that very reason the πρεσβύτερος was assured of a share in the govern- 
ment of the congregation (κυβέρνησις, 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; ποιμένες, Eph. iv. 11; 
ποιμαίνειν, 1 Pet. v. 2f.; Acts xx. 28; 1 Cor. ix. 7; προΐστασθαι, 1 Thess. v. 12; 
Rom. xii. 8; 1 Tim. v. 17; Herm. Fis. ii. 4. 3; ἡγεῖσθαι, Acts xv. 22; Heb. 
xiii. 7, 17, 24; Clem. 1 Cor. i. 3, perhaps also Ixiii. 1; προηγεῖσθαι, Clem. 
1 Cor. ii. 6; Herm. Vis. ii. 2. 6, iii. 9. 7), and an official character was lent to 
his actions in so far as he performed any functions whatever in his capacity 
as πρεσβύτερος. E. Kühl (Die Gemeindeordnung in den Pastoralbr. 1885) 
treated this subject with especial reference to Hatch’s hypotheses. Cf. also 
Zöckler, Bibl. u. kirchenhistor. Studien (1893), ii., “Diakonen und Evangelisten,” 
where ample notice is taken of the more recent literature; see especially 
S. 33-37, 63-71. 

6. (P. 92.) One reason for the choice of the word ἐπίσκοπος instead of 
πρεσβύτερος (1 Tim. iii. 2) may be found in the locus communis immediately 
preceding (iii.1). The reading ἀνθρώπινος (instead of πιστός) ὁ λόγος, which 
was the only prevalent reading in the West until Jerome’s time, seems to the 
present writer so incapable of invention, and the change in uniformity with 
i. 15, iv. 9, 2 Tim. ii. 11, Tit. iii. 8, so comprehensible, that in spite of its 
incomplete attestation (Greek only in D*) he is compelled to conelude that it 
was the original reading. It was probably a proverb of rather broad signifi- 
cance and non-Christian origin (ef. Rom. vi. 19). Moreover, the use of the 
singular τὸν ἐπίσκοπον, which of itself is not peculiar (1 Cor. vii. 32-35, xiv. 
2-4; 2 Cor. xii. 12, rod ἀποστόλου ; cf. also the change of number in 1 Tim. 
v. 1, 2 and v. 3-5), was particularly natural after the saying in iii. 1, in which 
the individual who desires an office is mentioned. In like manner the 
transition from τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους (Tit. i. 5) to τὸν ἐπίσκοπον (i. 7) is occa- 
sioned by the intervening εἴ τις (i. 6). 

7. (Pp. 92, 94.) Baur (Pastoralbriefe, 80 f.), who admits that πρεσβύτερος 
and ἐπίσκοπος refer to the same office, argues that Tit. i. 5 means that in each 
of several cities a presbyter was to be appointed, who was called ἐπίσκοπος 
in relation to the individual Church, but πρεσβύτερος in relation to his 
colleagues in the other Churches. But herein are two claims that contradict 
the history. Churches with a single bishop which did not at the same time 
have a number of presbyters are as thoroughly unknown in the whole 
extent of the early Church (n. 4) as is a college of presbyters composed 
of the overseers of the various local congregations. But aside from this, 
the difficulty with this view is not so much that the two elements of the 
command, namely, “to appoint a man as ἐπίσκοπος of each single church,” 
and “thereby to make him member of the general presbytery of Crete,” are 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 125 


not clearly expressed ; they are rather not expressed at all. The construc- 
tion necessitates such an interpretation here just as little as in Acts xiv. 23 
(cf. per contra Matt. xxvii. 15, κατὰ δὲ ἑορτὴν ... ἕνα). It would be possible 
with Hofmann to take πρεσβυτέρους as a second predicate accusative, supply- 
ing the first accusative or direct object from i. 6; but considering the 
common oceurrence of combinations like καθιστάναι τύραννον (Herodot. v. 92 
at the beginning; βασιλεῖς, Dan, ii. 21; κριτάς, 2 Chron. xix. 5, everywhere 
without a double accusative), and in view of the analogy of χειροτονεῖν (Acts 
xiv. 23; Ign. Smyrn. xi. 2), such an interpretation is not very probable. Of. 
Clem. 1 Cor. liv. 2, οἱ καθεσταμένοι πρεσβύτεροι. The early commentators 
without exception recognised the identity of presbyter and bishop in Phil. 
i. 1; Tit. i.7; 1 Tim. iii. 1-7 (Ambrosiaster on these passages ; Jerome, Vall. 
vii. 694f.; Theod. Mops. i. 199, ii. 118-126, 168f., 239). The Syrians 
(Ephrem, Comm. in Pauli Epist. 249, 269, and the Peshito) go so far as to 
translate ἐπίσκοπος and ἐπισκοπή in Tit. i. 7, 1 Tim. iii. 1f. by presbyter and 
presbyteratus. 

8. (P. 93.) Acts xiv. 23, xx. 17,28 (which latter passage, Acts xx., treats 
only of the elders of Ephesus, and not, as Irenzeus (iii. 14.2) and Baur (83) 
interpreted it, of the bishops and presbyters of the western part of Asia 
Minor, where also the πρεσβύτεροι of the local Church, as Luke calls them, 
are called by Paul ἐπίσκοποι in view of their official work among the flock 
entrusted to them). Further, cf. 1 Pet. v. 1-4 (πρεσβύτεροι---ποιμαίνειν [in 
addition to this ἐπισκοπεῖν, according to the majority of the witnesses]— 
moluviov—apxımolumv=ii. 25, ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον). For Rome and Corinth, 
Clem. 1 Cor. 42, 4 (the first converts appointed by the apostles everywhere 
in town and country as ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι), xlii. 5 (foretold in Isa. Ix. 
17), 40 (foreshadowed by priests and Levites, cf. xliii.), xliv. 1, 4 (ἐπισκοπή, 
the office of the foremost men); xliv. 3-6, xlvii. 6, liv. 2, vii. 1 (the super- 
intendents appointed by the apostles in Corinth, 1.6. the ἐπίσκοποι, yet 
πρεσβύτεροι for all that). Concerning the concurrent testimony of Hermas, 
cf. the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, 98ff.; with reference to Philippi, his 
Tgnatius, 297-301, 535 ; concerning the Didache, Forsch. iii. 302-310. As for 
the testimony of Acts, suspicions of its trustworthiness cannot influence our 
judgment in this matter; for the incidental and incomplete character of 
the statements on the subject excludes the possibility that the author was 
endeavouring to trace a definite official organisation of his time back to an 
apostolic foundation. 

9. (P. 95.) With reference to widows, cf. the writer’s Ignatius, S. 
333-337, 580-585 ; Uhlhorn, Die christl. Liebestitigkeit, i. 159 ff. 

10. (P. 95.) The interpretation and practical application of Tit. i. 6, 
1 Tim, iii. 2, 12, according to which the clergy, in distinction from the 
laity, are forbidden to marry a second time, is of early date, and was known 
to Tertullian, de Exhort. cast. vii. ; Monog. xii., who combated it with no little 
skill. The content of the prohibition, however, he understood in the same 
sense, and his object was simply to extend its application to all Christians. 
The Catholic interpretation and praxis are attested by Origen, Hom. xvii. in 
Luc, ; in Matt. hom. xiv. 22 (Delar. iii. 645, 953) ; Hippol. Refut. ix. 12; the 
so-called Apostolical Constitutions, xvi. 3 (Funk, Doctr. XII. apost. p. 60), 
according to the most likely interpretation ; Ambrosiaster, ed. Bened. pp. 


126 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


294, 295. Jerome, while rejecting what he terms Tertullian’s exaggeration 
likewise accepts this view (Vall. vii. 696 f.), as also Chrysostom (xi. 598 f., 
605, 738), although both were acquainted with the correct exegesis, which 
before this had been supported by Ephrem, p. 249, and with especial positive- 
ness by Theodorus (ii. 99-106). Among moderns, ef. particularly Hofmann on 
Tit. i.6. Schleiermacher, who (191) recognised the correct interpretation of 
Tit. i. 6, would not admit that it held for the similar words in 1 Tim. iii. 2, 
since, as he claimed, such a meaning is impossible in v. 9, at least, and a uni- 
form interpretation is required throughout the same letter. If it is sufficiently 
established that Tit. i. 6 should be taken as a prohibition of all sexual inter- 
course out of wedlock, then the same interpretation holds also in 1 Tim. 
iii. 2, 12. But these sentences are related to 1 Tim. v. 9 exactly as the two 
halves of 1 Cor. vii. 2 to each other; for the meaning of this latter passage 
is not only that men and women should as a rule be married, but also that 
each one, whether man or woman, should confine sexual intercourse to the 
consort; ef. 1 Thess. iv. 3; Eph. v. 22, 28, 33. The implied contrast is never 
a recognised and regulated bigamy, polygamy, or polyandry, but always 
sexual intercourse that is out of wedlock and adulterous. Not infrequently 
expressions are used for such intercourse which the ill-informed might under- 
stand as denoting a formal marriage relation (1 Cor. v. 1; John iv. 18, vol. i. 
p. 296, n. 4). The impossibility of referring the prohibition to a second 
marriage is, however, still more clear in 1 Tim. v. 9 than in the other 
passages, since this sentence stands in the closest proximity to the command 
that the younger widows should marry again (v. 14). 

11. (Pp.99, 116.) Baur says (Pastoralbriefe, 10) : “In a word, we have before 
us in the heretics of the Pastoral Epistles the Gnostics of the second century, 
particularly the Marcionites” (see below, n. 18). Hilgenfeld (Einl. 748, 752), 
while agreeing with Baur in essentials, distinguishes, however, a double 
heresy, the Gentile Christian Gnosis, including that of Marcion, and a 
Jewish legalistic tendency, both of which, he holds, are opposed in 1 Tim. 
i. 3-11 as well as in Tit. i. 14, iii. 9. Mangold (Die Irrlehrer des Pastoralbr. 
1856), partly in dependence upon Ritschl, who holds the false teachers of 
Tit. to be Therapeutz, i.e. degenerate Essenes, and partly following Credner, 
though he most warmly opposes that writer’s division of the false teachers in 
the Pastoral Epistles into four classes, undertakes to show that in all three 
Epistles, Essenism is attacked. In Tit. he thinks this party, who are seek- 
ing to force their teaching upon the Church, is still altogether outside of 
Christianity ; in 2 Tim., which was written earlier than 1 Tim., they are 
attempting a “fusion of their dogmas with Christian ideas,” to the support of 
which they are attempting to win over individual Christians (28) ; lastly, in 
1 Tim. they are making a menacing assault upon the whole Church of 
Ephesus. Lightfoot (Bibl. Essays, 1893, pp. 408, 411-418, this part written 
as early as 1865) attempted to prove that the attack here is aimed against the 
party of the Naassenes described by Hippolytus, Refut. v. 6-11, or a party very 
closely related to this sect. Careful exegesis, in which regard Hofmann has 
rendered the greatest services here also, excludes all these and similar inter- 
pretations. Hort’s discussion (Judaistie Christianity, 1894, pp. 130-146), 
which exegetically closely follows B. Weiss, is the best thus far. 

12. (Pp. 100, 101, 102.) Ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, formed from a word ἑτεροδιδάσ- 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 127 


καλὸς (Eus. H. E. iii. 32. 8), which may have been already in use at that time 
or only made up for the oecasion,—it makes no difference which,—belongs to 
that numerous class of verbs derived from compound nouns or adjectives 
which “denote the existence in a state or the customary exercise of an 
activity” (Blass-Kühner, i. 2. 337 ; ef. S. 260). Examples in Paul’s writings 
are ἀγαθοεργεῖν, ἑτεροζυγεῖν, ξενοδοχεῖν, olkodeomoreiv, τεκνογονεῖν, τεκνο- 
τροφεῖν. There was no such verb as διδασκαλέω, which one MS. of Clem. Hom. 
ii. 15 gives, any more than ἐργέω, γονέω, dox&w. Furthermore, the analogy 
of νομοδιδάσκαλος (1 Tim. 1. 7), καλοδιδάσκαλος (Tit. 11. 3), ψευδοδιδάσκαλος 
(2 Pet. ii. 1), κακοδιδάσκαλος (κακοδιδασκαλεῖν, Clem. 2 Cor. x. 5; Sextus 
Emp. c. Rhet. xlii., even with acc. pers.), γεροντοδιδάσκαλος (Plato, Euthyd. 272), 
γραμματοδιδάσκαλος (Plut. Aleib. vii.), δουλοδιδάσκαλος (title of a comedy by 
Phereerates), ἱεροδιδάσκαλος (Dion. Halic. ii. 73), παιδοδιδάσκαλος, πορνοδιδάσ- 
καλος, χοροδιδάσκαλος «rA., proves beyond doubt that ἑτεροδιδάσκαλος is a 
teacher of the kind denoted by érepo-, and certainly not, as Otto, 45; 
Kölling, i. 254 ff. ; Hesse, 77, 125, tried to make out, “one who has another 
teacher.” The word ἑτεροδέσποτος, which, according to Kölling, 261, decides 
the matter, is not pertinent, since διδάσκαλος is a very common substantive, 
while δέσποτος, on the contrary, is no word at all. The rule which is given to 
justify this remarkable interpretation (Kölling, 254) is contradicted by the 
whole great class of so-called attributive compounds (Blass-Kiihner, i. 2. 312 f.), 
e.g. καλλιέλαιος, Rom. xi. 24; καλλίχθυς, κακόδουλος, karöpavrıs, γλυκύμηλον, 
παμβασιλεύς, παμμήτωρ, ἀρχιερεύς, πρωτόμαρτυς, to which also the word 
ἑτεροδιδάσκαλος belongs. Of the two chief meanings of ἕτερος (illustrated 
also in compounds, 4.4. ἑτερόφθαλμος, one-eyed; ἑτερόγλωσσος, speaking 
another tongue), naturally only the second is in place here. As in ἑτερύδοξος, 
ἐτεροδοξέω, érepodokia (Ign. Magn. viii. 1; Smyrn. vi. 2; Jos. Bell, ii. 8. 5), it 
may retain its primary significance of simple difference or divergence, whether 
from the standpoint of the speaker or from that of the person or thing spoken 
of; but quite commonly also may denote more specifically divergence from 
what is correct. A “teacher of a different kind,” a “teacher with divergent 
views” (Hofmann), is an abnormal, perverse teacher (cf. ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, 
Gal. i.6; 2 Cor. xi. 4). To exercise the functions, to perform the part, of 
such a teacher is ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν. To be sure, such activity cannot very well 
be carried on without ἑτέρως διδάσκειν, and often implies also ἕτερα or 
ἀλλότρια διδάσκειν. But the ecclesiastical use of the word in the sense of 
“to propound a false doctrine” (Ign. ad Pol. iii. 1; Eus. H. E. vii. 17. 4; ef. 
κακοδιδασκαλία, Ign. Philad. ii. 1; Hippol. Refut. ix. 8) was an inexact applica- 
tion of an expression perhaps coined by Paul himself. | Although we are 
not justified in referring every word in Tit. i. 10-16, iii. 9, or even iii. 9-11, 
to the same phenomenon which is characterised in 1 Tim. i. 3-11, vi. 3-10, 
but should rather assume that various sorts of people were to be found 
among the “many” in Tit. 1. 10, yet the repetition of the same or similar 
expressions admits of no doubt that in Tit. also Paul had in mind primarily 
ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες of the same kind as were then busy in Ephesus and its 
vicinity. And other sentences as well, 1 Tim. iv. 7, vi. 20, 2 Tim. ii. 14, 
16a, 23, are through their similar terminology connected with these passages. 

13. (P. 101.) According to well-known classical usage, ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι. 
1 Tim. vi. 21, also points to the plying of the business of teaching as a pro- 


ı28 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


fession ; so likewise αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν, Tit. i. 11. The rule that the 
preacher of the gospel should also draw his support from this labour, which 
Paul had recognised as a principle in 1 Cor. ix. 6-14 (cf. Matt. x. 10; Luke 
x. 7), had been applied by the Petrine party to themselves, although they 
were not so much missionaries as teachers within existing Churches (vol. i. 
290). Paul himself extends it to the presbyters, especially those who 
devote themselves to the calling of teachers, 1 Tim. v. 18; hence he could 
not oppose on principle the custom of these ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες of receiving 
remuneration, but, just as in 2 Cor. ii. 17, in opposition to the Petrine party, 
limited himself to reproving the sordid mind, the base greed of gain, with 
which they made use of their acknowledged right. 

14. (Pp. 103, 116.) In comparison with the procedure of many modern 
critics, it seems pardonable that the ancient Catholic writers against heresy 
should have been fond of regarding without sharp discrimination the most 
various sayings in these and other Pauline Epistles as predictions of the false 
doctrines of their own times. Cf. Tert. Prescr. vi., “providerat jam tune 
spiritus sanctus,” ete., referring to Gal. i. 8; Irenzus in the title of his great 
work, ἔλεγχος καὶ avarpomn τῆς Wevdavipov γνώσεως, following 1 Tim. vi. 20 
(ef. Iren. ii. 14. 7). 1 Tim. i. 4 and the related passages were especially 
favourite citations in connection with the Valentinian doctrine of ons, 
though they were taken not so much as specific predictions of this doctrine 
as general statements which could be applied to it (Iren. i. procem. 1; Tert. c. 
Val. iii.; Prescr. iii. xxxiii.). On the other hand, Ign. Myn. viii. uses language 
which suggests 1 Tim. i. 4, Tit. i. 14, iii. 9 of the Judaistie teachers of his 
time, without, however, mentioning yeveadoyia, The ancient commentators 
uniformly maintain the Jewish character of the “false teachers in the 
Pastoral Epistles,” suggest rabbinic fables, and are too much inclined to 
view these teachers as men of like opinions with the Judaists in Gal. ; 
Ambrosiaster, pp. 269, 314, 316; Jerome, Vall. vii. 710 f., 734 ff.; Pelagius 
(Jerome, Vall. xi.), pp. 405, 431f., 434; Ephrem, pp. 244, 251, 271, 275; 
Theodorus, ii. 70-74; Chrysost. xi. 551, 556, who, however, p. 552, refers 
incidentally also to Greek legends about the gods; Theodoret, p. 639, who 
yet cannot let the opportunity slip, p. 673, in commenting on 1 Tim. vi. 20, 
of bringing in also the Gnosties who sprang from Simon. 

15. (P. 103.) Even in the N.T. we have examples of such rabbinic 
traditions, in part of a genealogical nature : Matt. i. 5, Rahab, the mother of 
Boaz; 2 Tim. iii. 8, the names of the Egyptian magicians ; Heb. xi. 37, the 
sawing asunder of Isaiah. All that the Jews called haggadah (agadah) 
belongs here. “ Haggadoth” can be translated by “legends,” hence in Greek 
by μῦθοι. But see Schürer, ii. 339, A 26 [Eng. trans. ı1. i. 339], who here 
accepts Bacher’s conclusions. What an important part of these “ haggadoth’” 
were the genealogies, the forefathers’ wives, whom the O.T. leaves nameless, 
or their sons and daughters, who are not enumerated with any completeness, 
is shown by the Book of Jubilees (e.g. iv. 8; ef. Dillmann in Ewald’s Buhl. 
Jahrb. iii. 79 f., 87; Ronsch, Buch der Jubil. 485-489). Ancient history, even 
among the Greeks, consisted of myths and genealogies (Polyb. ix. 1. 4, 2. 1; 
Diod. Sie. iv. 1, cited by Hort, p. 135); and this was all the more true in 
the case of the Jew, who had Genesis to build upon. Not a little of such 
history had found its way even to Hellenistie Jews like Philo and Justin 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 129 


Martyr’s Trypho ; ef. Goldfahn (Just. M. und die Agada; Siegfried, Philo, 
146). Philo calls the whole content of the Pentateuchal narrative which 
lies between the ereation of the world and the giving of the law τὸ γενεα- 
λογικόν (de vita Mos. ii. 8; elsewhere, however, he calls it τὸ ἱστορικόν, de 
prem. et pen. 1). Theodorus, ii. 72, cites, as a proof of the confusion of 
Jewish genealogies, the difference between the lists of Jesus’ ancestors in 
Matt. and in Luke. Jerome (Vall. vii. 735 f.) tells of a Jewish Christian in 
Rome who perplexed the simple by the display of his genealogical wisdom 
with regard to Matt. 1. and Luke iii. This was probably the proselyte Isaac, 
perhaps identieal with the Christian exegete known as “ Ambrosiaster” (ef. 
ThLb, 1899, No. 27; ZKom. Gal. 22f.; NKZ, 1905, S. 419-427). It is not 
at all impossible that even in Paul’s time Jewish Christians had set on foot 
endless discussions about Christ’s lineage, a matter which Paul also considered 
important (2 Tim. ii. 8; Rom. i. 3). 

16..(Pp. 107; 120.) '1 Tim. i..10, vi. 3; Tit. iv 9, di. 15 2 Timi i. 18, 
iv. 3; ef. Tit. ii. 8, λόγος ὑγιής ; Tit. 1. 13, ii. 2, ὑγιαίνειν (Ev) τῇ πίστει. It 
is hardly necessary to recall that ὑγιαίνων, ὑγιής means simply “healthy ” 
(sanus), and not also “ wholesome ” (saluber). 

17. (Pp. 109, 117.) According to Acta Thecle, xiv., Demas and Hermogenes 
(2 Tim. i. 15, iv. 10), who are here substituted for Hymenzeus and Philetus 
(above, p. 21; GK, i. 789, 11. 901 f.), say of Paul: καὶ ἡμεῖς σε διδάξομεν ἣν 
λέγει οὗτος ἀνάστασιν γίνεσθαι (al. γενέσθαι), ὅτι ἤδη γέγονεν, ἐφ᾽ ois ἔχομεν 
τέκνοις [καὶ ἀνιστάμεθα θεὸν ἐπεγνωκότες ἀληθῆ]. The words in brackets, 
which are essentially confirmed by the Coptic translation (Schmidt, S. 35. 24), 
but are wanting in two Lat. VSS. and one Syr. VS., and which were also 
lacking in the copy which Ambrosiaster read (Ambros. Opera, ii. App. p. 308 
on 2 Tim. ii. 18), as shown by the construction, are a later addition. In addi- 
tion to Ambrosiaster, only the first explanation is ascribed to the persons 
mentioned in 2 Tim. ii. 17; Epiph. Her. xl. 8; Pelagius (Jerome, Vall. xi. 
425 in connection with another allegorical interpretation modelled after ἘΚ. 
xxxvii.) ; Theodorus, ii. 209 ; Theodoret, p. 685. The second explanation, a 
hint of which Ephrem (p. 261) gives in connection with the same passage 
(“resurrectio . . . non corporum sed animarum,” cf. a Coptic fragment of 
the Acts of Paul, ed. Schmidt, p. 73. 15), is ascribed by Hippolytus (de resurr. 
ad Mammeam, Syriac in Pitra, Anal. iv. 61, German in Hippolyts klein. 
Schriften, ed. Achelis, S. 251) to Nicolaiis, from whom he thinks Hymenzus 
and Philetus and other Gnosties received it; a resurrection through con- 
version and baptism. Hippolytus ascribes similar opinions’ to the Naassenes 
(Refut. v. 8, p. 158). According to Irenzeus, i. 23. 5, Menander also taught a 
resurrection through baptism which makes one immortal ; cf. the hint in Just. 
Apol.i. 26; Iren. ii. 31. 2 of the Simonians and Carpocratians: “esse autem 
resurrectionem a mortuis agnitionem ejus, que ab eis dicitur, veritatis.” 
This is given more at length in Tert. Resurr. xix. In Preser. iii. the same 
writer, after citing 2 Tim. ii. 17, adds: “id de se Valentiniani asseverant.” 
Justin wrote against this doctrine of a merely spiritual resurrection (ed. Otto, 
ii. 211-249, especially p. 243 ; οἵ. Z/KG, viii. 1-37). The antiquity of this 
spiritual explanation of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection is attested 
by its dissemination in the most various cireles before 150, as well as by the 
σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν in the Apostles’ Creed; ef. the writer’s Das apostolische 

VOL. Il. 9 


130 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Symbolum, 96-100. How much older may be the first mentioned interpreta. 
tion of the doetrine quoted in 2 Tim. ii. 18? 

18. (P. 118.) Baur (Pastoralbr. 26 f.) was the first to find in 1 Tim. vi. 20 
a play upon the title of Marcion’s famous Antitheses. He also (15-18) 
understood the word νομοδιδάσκαλοι, 1 Tim. i. 7, of the Marcionites, hostile as 
they were to the Mosaic law, and took 1 Tim. i. 8 not as a concession, but 
rather as directed against them. Moreover, he found in the contests about 
the law, Tit. iii. 9, from which Titus is to refrain, the battles between the 
Marcionites and their opponents concerning the worth of the law, in which 
battles even the author himself had taken part. Not even the much abused 
Chureh Fathers ever contrived anything like this. Where Irenzeus (ii. 14. 7) 
applies 1 Tim. vi. 20 to Gnostics, he leaves out the words καὶ ἀντιθέσεις ; if 
he had applied it to Marcion, he would have exchanged γνῶσις for some 
other word, for that did not characterise Marcion in the least. Concerning 
Marcion’s work, The Antitheses, see GK, i. 596f. It is plain that the vopo- 
διδάσκαλοι, if they are meant in this passage too, did not, like Marcion, bring 
out contrarietates between the law and the gospel, but sought in rabbinical 
fashion to force their own way to knowledge, and to lead others thither 
through the mutually contradictory decisions of the “wise.” They cultivated 
the Halakah as well as the Haggadah; ef. Hort (op. cit. 140 ff.) ; Weber, 
Jüd. Theol. ὃ 24. _ 

19. (P. 118.) Baur (126), Hilgenf. (Einl. 764, ef. Holtzmann, Pastoralbr. 
269) thought that they could infer from.the plural βασιλεῖς, 1 Tim, ii. 2,— 
which oceurs in a similar connection also in Polye. Phil. xii. 3 (cf. per contra, 
1 Pet. ii. 13, 17), and has led to a similar conclusion with respect to that letter, 
—that 1 Tim. was not written until the time of Antoninus, or not until after 
137. In reply, it should first be remarked that a joint rule of two Augusti 
occurred for the first time in 161, and that, on the contrary, co-regencies, as 
that, e.g. in which Marcus Aurelius shared after 147, occurred repeatedly 
after the time of Augustus (Mommsen, R. Staatsrecht?, ii. 1089 ff., 1109 ff. ; 
Wieseler, Beiträge zur Würdigung der Evv. 186-196). Justin in the time of 
Antoninus Pius could speak of βασιλεῖς with reference to the co-regency of 
Marcus Aurelius (Apol. i. 14, 17), although there was only one αὐτοκράτωρ 
(Apol. i. 1, ii. 2); and this could have been done just as well under Augustus 
or Vespasian with reference to the co-regeney of Tiberius or of Titus. 
Further, it is arbitrary to take the anarthrous βασιλεῖς (“such as are kings”) 
as referring exclusively to the man or men who possessed supreme power 
in Rome at the time; for in N.T. times, in addition to the emperor, there 
was more than one bearer of the title of king who had significance for the 
Christians; ef. the closing sentence of Strabo’s Geography, xvii. 25. We can 
see from the N.T, what a part kings like Herod Agrippa 1. and τ᾿. and 
Aretas ıv. played in the history of the apostles (Acts xii. 1-22, xxv. 13-26, 
32; 2 Cor. xi. 32). The extensive kingdom of Pontus, in which Christian 
Churches existed (1 Pet. i. 1), continued until 63 a.p., and a queen dowager, 
‘Uryphena, a Thracian by birth, but belonging to the royal house of Pontus 
by marriage, is connected in ancient tradition with the earliest history of 
the Christians of Asia Minor (GK, ii. 906). Are we to suppose that the 
Christians were not permitted to pray for these kings, or that they did not 
reckon these among the βασιλεῖς and βασιλεύοντες (Matt. x. 18, xvii. 25; 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 131 


Mark xiii. 9; Luke xxi. 12, xxii. 25; Acts ix. 15; Rev. i. 5; 1 Tim. vi. 15) 
or that all the books in which we read such things were written later than 
137? But the plural can just as well be understood as denoting a class (ef. 
Matt. ii, 20). In the same sense Tatian (Oratio ad Gree. iii. 10) writes of 
βασιλεῖς and οἱ βασιλεῖς, without losing sight of the fact that only one was 
ὁ βασιλεύς (chap. iv.), Epictetus, probably under Trajan, speaks of καταφρονεῖν 
τῶν βασιλέων (Diss. i. 29. 9), although for the most part he represents the 
one emperor as ὁ τύραννος, and Galenus in addressing the one emperor says 
ὑμῶν τῶν βασιλέων (ed. Kühn, xiv. 659). As this apostolic precept then 
came to be applied in the changeful course of the political history, the 
actual result was that the Christians even in apostolic times as well as later 
prayed for the successive Roman emperors and other possessors of princely 
power on earth, though Paul himself need not have reflected particularly 
upon the co-existence and succession of power involved in βασιλεῖς. Of. for 
this co-existence Clem. 1 Cor. 1xi. 1, according to which the Roman Church 
prayed for a plurality of rulers to whom God had intrusted royal authority, 
and for the succession (Tert. Apol. xxx., “ precantes sumus semper pro omnibus 
imperatoribus”), which is followed, chap. xxxi., by the quotation from 1 Tim. 
11, 2., Lightfoot cites still other examples, Lightf. Ign. Pol. i. 576. 

20. (P. 119.) Traces of a baptismal creed, 1 Tim. vi. 12-16; 2 Tim. 
li. 2-8, iv. 1; ef. the writer’s Das apostol. Symbolum, 38-44 ; Haussleiter, Zur 
Vorgeschichte des ap. Glaubensbekenntnisses, 32-39. If ἴῃ 1 Tim. iii. 16 we read 
ὁμολογοῦμεν ὡς, according to Cod. 1), this verb (cf. vi. 12) might seem to point 
to a formulated confession, and it seems to the present writer certain that 
the clauses so introduced were not constructed by Paul off hand. However, 
the poetic strain in these words suggests more naturally a psalm than a 
baptismal confession. 

21, (P. 121.) While the Epistle to the Laodiceans (GK, ii. 584) constructs 
its greeting from Gal. i. 1 and Phil. i. 2, and hence uses also the solemn 
Pauline form of the greeting proper (χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη κτλ.), we find the 
latter neither in 1 Tim. nor in 2 Tim., though in a measure at least it is 
retained in Tit. i. 4 (according to the better MSS.). On the contrary, in 
1 Tim. 1. 2,2 Tim. i. 2, ἔλεος, which is never used by Paul at this point in 
his letters (cf., however, Gal. vi. 16; 2 John 3), is placed between xäpıs and 
εἰρήνη ; and, moreover, at this place in all three letters we find employed a 
mass of thoughts and words, some of which are not used by Paul at all, and 
others not in greetings. It is altogether incomprehensible that a forger 
should have taken the beginning and end of Rom. as his model in forming 
such a salutation as Holtzmann (116) claims with reference to Tit. i. 1-4. 
The diction is treated extensively enough by Holtzmann (Pastoralbr. 84-118), 
Kölling (i. 17-206); briefly and well by Hofmann (vi. 57 f., 211 ἢν, 320), 
Lightfoot, Bibl. Essays (401 ἢ.) ; ef. all the remarks above upon the diction of 
Eph. and Col. (366 ff.). With the fundamentally wrong opinion of Schleier- 
macher (77), who calls Paul a writer “ whose vocabulary is, as’is well known, 
so very limited,” cf. the opinion of E. Curtius, vol. i. 70, n. 18. In the 
first place, we find a correspondence to the usage of Paul of which examples 
were given, vol. i. 516, in those words used several times either in 1 Tim. 
and Tit. alone or in 2 Tim. only which do not oceur elsewhere in Paul, or at 
least not with the same signification. Here naturally we need not take into 


132 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


account, even aside from the fact that they occur but once, ordinary designa- 
tions of persons and things of which Paul has not had occasion to speak else 
where, as μάμμη, 2 Tim. 1. 5; βιβλία, μεμβράνα, cbeAövns, χαλκεύς, 2 Tim. 
iv. 18 1. ; στόμαχος, 1 Tim. v. 23. (a) Among the words used more than 
once those peculiar to 2 Tim. are: κακοπαθεῖν and συγκακοπαθεῖν, 1. 8, ii. 3, 9, 
iv. 5 (cf. Jas. v. 10, 13); προκύπτειν, ii. 16, iii. 9, 13 (cf., however, Gal. i. 14); 
ἐπαισχύνεσθαι, ἀνεπαίσχυντος, i. 8, 12, 16, ii. 15 (Rom. i. 16 is the only 
other passage where it is used similarly) ; σωρεύω, ἐπισωρεύω, iii. 6, iv. 3; 
εὔχρηστος, ii. 21, iv. 11 (Philem. 11). (b) 1 Tim. and Tit. have in common, 
to begin with, certain expressions in the greeting: γνήσιον τέκνον ἐν πίστει 
and γνήσιον τέκνον κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν respectively (cf. Phil. ii. 20, 22, γνησίως 

. τέκνον), ἐλπίς, Kar’ ἐπιταγὴν (τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν) θεοῦ. The latter ex- 
pression occurs in just the same form in Rom. xvi. 26 (ef. 1 Cor. vii. 6; 
2 Cor. viii. 8; Tit. ii. 15), a passage the Pauline authorship of which has 
been denied without good grounds (vol. i. 386 f.), and in which are still 
other resemblances to Tit. i. 2f., namely, χρόνοι αἰώνιοι (this also in 2 Tim. 
i. 9), bavepovv, κήρυγμα ; these recur also in 1 Tim. iii. 16, though only in 
part (μυστήριον. . . ἐφανερώθη... ἐκηρύχθη ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). Furthermore, 
peculiar to 1 Tim. and Tit. are a multitude of attributes of the bishops and 
deacons who are to be appointed (Tit. i. 6-9; 1 Tim. iii. 1-13, and in related 
passages): ἀνέγκλητος, Tit. i. 6, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 10, for which, however, the 
very common word in Paul, averiAnrros, is substituted in 1 Tim. ili. 2, v. 7, 
vi. 14; further, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ (cf. also 1 Tim. v. 9, and above, p. 125); 
τέκνα ἔχων KTA., μὴ πάροινος, μὴ πλήκτης, φιλόξενος, νηφάλιος, 1 Tim. iii. 2, 11 ; 
Tit. ii. 2; αἰσχροκερδής, 1 Tim. iii. 8; Tit. i. 7; σεμνός, σεμνότης, 1 Tim. 
ii. 2, iii. 4, viii. 11; Tit. ii. 2, 7 (but also in Phil. iv. 8); σώφρων, σωφρόνως, 
σωφρονίζειν, 1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 8, ii. 2, 4, 5,12; only once in 2 Tim. i. 7, 
σωφρονισμός. εὐσέβεια oceurs nine times in 1 Tim. and Tit. (1 Tim. ii. 2, 
iii. 16, iv. 7, 8, vi. 3, 5, 6, 11; Tit. i. 1), in addition to εὐσεβεῖν, 1 Tim. v. 4; 
εὐσεβῶς, Tit. ii. 12, as over against a single εὐσέβεια and εὐσεβῶς in 2 Tim. 
iii. 5, 12. Certain terms applied to the perverse teachers are lacking in 
2 Tim.: ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν, 1 Tim. i. 3, vi. 3 (ef. καλοδιδάσκαλος, Tit. ii. 3) ; 
μῦθοι καὶ yeveadoyia, 1 Tim. i. 4; Tit. i. 14, iii. 9 (only μῦθοι alone in 2 Tim. 
iv. 4); προσέχειν, 1 Tim. i. 4, iii. 8, iv. 1, 13, vi. 3(middle voice). In addition 
to ἔργον ἀγαθόν, which is a common expression from the time of the older letters 
on (Rom. xiii. 3; 2 Cor. ix. 8; Eph. ii. 10; Phil. i. 6; Col. i. 10; 2 Thess. 
ii. 17), and which is to be found in all three letters (especially in the connec- 
tion πρὸς or eis πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν, Tit. i. 16, iii. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 21, iii. 17); 
ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ, 1 Tim. v. 10; Col. i. 10 (ef. also 1 Tim. ii. 10; 2 Tim. 
iv. 18), we read καλὸν ἔργον (sing. and plur.) only in Tit. ii, 7, 14, iii. 8, 14; 
1 Tim. iii. 1, v. 10, 25, vi. 18, never in 2 Tim. Just as Eph., written at the 
same period as Col., is, for this very reason, and because of the similarity of 
the subjects treated, most closely related in vocabulary to that Epistle, so, in 
like manner and for the same reasons, 1 Tim. is more closely related to Tit. 
than to any other Epistle of Paul, including 2 Tim. (ὁ) But it is also 
apparent that 2 Tim. has a certain similarity of diction, sometimes to 1 Tim. 
sometimes to Tit., and again to both letters. Here belongs, in the first place, 
what was remarked above under (b) concerning εὐσεβεῖν, σώφρων, πρὸς πᾶν 
ἔργον ἀγαθόν, καλὸν ἔργον is not used in 2 Tim., indeed, but it is nevertheless 


THE LAST THREE EPISTLES OF PAUL 1,33 


worthy of note that καλός, which Paul used only sixteen times in all his other 
Epistles, occurs twenty-four times in these three small letters, and that, while 
it is used elsewhere by Paul only predicatively (Gal. iv. 8; 1 Cor. v. 6; 
Rom. vii. 16, cf. 1 Tim. i. 8, ii. 3, iv. 4) or substantively (Rom. vii. 18, 21; 
2 Cor. xiii. 7), it occurs here twenty-one times as attribute, and that, too, also 
in 2 Tim. i. 14, ii. 3 (x. στρατιώτης, cf. 1 Tim. i. 18), iv. 7 (x. ἀγών, cf. 1 Tim. 
vi. 12). There should be mentioned, further, παρατίθεσθαι, παραθήκη, 1 Tim. 
i. 18, vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 12, 14, ii. 2 (different in 1 Cor. x. 27) ; πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, 
with or without further addition, 1 Tim. i. 15 (concerning iii. 1 see above, 
p. 124, n. 6), iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 11 ; Tit. iii. 8 ; διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον κτλ.,) 1 Tim. 
v. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1 (cf. 1 Thess. iv. 6, also for the enforcing of a 
command). While διδαχή elsewhere (Rom. vi. 17, xvi. 17; 1 Cor. xiv. 6, 26 ; 
so also Tit. i. 9) denotes the subject-matter of the teaching given or the 
particular didactic discourse, it is used in 2 Tim. iv. 2 of the teaching 
function. On the other hand, διδασκαλία, which occurs in our letters fifteen 
times, in all the rest only four times, denotes not only, as in Rom. xii. 7, 
xv. 4, the teaching function or the act of instructing (1 Tim. iv. 13, 16, v. 17; 
2 Tim. iii. 10, 16; Tit. ii. 7), but also, as in Col. ii. 22, Eph. iv. 14 (Ὁ), the 
content of the teaching given: Tit. ii. 1, 10; 1 Tim. i. 10, iv. 1, 6, vi. 1, 3, 
perhaps also Tit. i. 9; 2 Tim. iv. 3. Concerning “sound teaching” see 
above, p. 129, n. 16: To be mentioned also are βέβηλοι κενοφωνίαι, 
1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. 11. 16; Aoyopayia, -eiv, 1 Tim. vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 14; 
aoroxeiv, 1 Tim. i. 6, vi. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 18; τυφοῦσθαι, 1 Tim. iii. 6, vi. 4; 
2 Tim. iii. 4; ἄνθρωποι κατεφθαρμένοι τὸν νοῦν, 2 Tim. i. 8, ef. 1 Tim. vi. 5; 
eis ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας (ἐλθεῖν), 1 Tim. ii. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 25, iii. 7, ef. Tit. i. 1; 
1 Tim. iv.3, where it should be remarked concerning ἐπίγνωσις in general 
that it is not until the Epistles of the imprisonment that it occurs with any 
frequency, namely, eight times in Eph., Col., Philem., Phil., elsewhere only 
in Rom. (three times). A development in diction seems unmistakable, and 
that, too, with reference to matters of belief. Paul represents Christ else- 
where also as σωτήρ (Eph. v. 23; Phil. iii. 20), and speaks not only of a 
saving work on the part of God (1 Cor. i. 21, cf. 2 Tim. i. 9), but also of such 
a work on the part of Christ (Rom. v. 9, ef. 1 Tim. i. 15); nevertheless it is 
felt to be a different usage when now we find “our Saviour” as a regular 
designation, sometimes of Christ (Tit. i. 4, iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 10), sometimes of 
God (1 Tim. i. 1, ii. 3, iv. 10; Tit. i. 3, ii. 10, iii. 4), and once even “our 
great God and Saviour Christ Jesus” (Tit. ii. 13), A usage which has its 
analogy, perhaps, in 2 Thess. ii. 8, but which is new notwithstanding, is that 
here the future appearing of Christ, of which Paul has spoken elsewhere, 
indeed, by no means infrequently, is called regularly ἡ ἐπιφάνεια, Tit. ii. 13 ; 
1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8. The same is also used of the first appearance 
of Christ, 2 Tim. i. 10, ef. Tit. ii. 11, iii. 4. If the context in which this 
occurs twice should possibly point to the wording of an original form of the 
baptismal confession, the word ἐπιφάνεια could suggest to us the name and 
original meaning of the very ancient festival of Epiphany. 


vm. 


THE EPISTLES OF PETER AND JUDE, AND 
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


$ 38. THE READERS AND THE AUTHOR OF THE 
FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER — THE INTERNAL 
EVIDENCE. 


AccoRDING to 1 Pet. i. 1, this Epistle is addressed to 
Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and 
Bithynia. When it is observed that not a single one of 
the old geographical names is here mentioned which is 
not also the name of a Roman province, and when the 
fact is recalled that the province of Galatia included 
Lycaonia and those parts of Phrygia and Pisidia which 
did not belong to the province of Asia (vol. 1. 174f, 
183 fn. 3), it becomes clear that the letter is intended for 
the whole of Asia Minor, with the exception of Cilicia (n. 1). 
Inasmuch as there were Christian Churches in Cilicia at 
a very early date (Acts xv. 23, 41; cf. Gal. 1. 21; Acts 
ix. 30, xi. 25), we must assume that they are not here 
overlooked ; but being more closely allied to the group of 
Churches centring in Syrian Antioch, are intentionally 
excluded from the group of Churches on the other side of 
the Taurus, all of which had a similar origin. 

It is perfectly evident that the letter has to do with 
the Christian Churches in the provinces mentioned, and 
not with individual Christians of a particular sort resident 
there, in addition to whom there may have been other 


Christians or Christian Churches in the same region. This 
134 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS τς 


is conclusively proved by the parting benediction in v. 
14; for here the readers are spoken of as all the Christians 
—naturally all the Christians in the provinces mentioned 
in i. 1. Cared for by their own presbyters, they are the 
flocks of Christ, the Chief Shepherd (v. 1-4), in Asia 
Minor. They are spoken of only in contrast either to 
their heathen neighbours (ii. 12, 15, 1. 1, 13-17, iv. 
3f., 12f.), the whole Church upon earth (v. 9), or a single 
local Church outside of Asıa Minor (v. 13). 

This decides at once the question regarding the previous 
history of the readers and their national and ecclesiastical 
character ; for, from Acts (xii. 14—xiv. 25, xvi. 1-10, xviii. 
19-xx. 38) and from Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians, and 
Philemon, we know through whose efforts mainly the 
Churches in the provinces of Galatia and Asia were founded 
(1 Cor. xvi. 1, 19), and what their character was from the 
beginning. According to the testimony of his own letters 
and of Acts, Paul was the missionary who, in the sense of 
Rom. xv. 20, 1 Cor. i. 10, 2 Cor. x. 15, laid the founda- 
tions of Christianity in all this region. In the cities to 
which he did not bring the gospel himself, it was preached 
by the friends and helpers who followed up his personal 
labours and acted as his representatives; and although 
these Churches were only thus indirectly founded by him- 
self, Paul reckoned them among the Churches committed 
to his special care. This view is presupposed in his letters 
to the Churches in the province of Asia which remained 
personally unacquainted with him (Ephesians, Colossians, 
also Philemon, cf. vol. i. p. 449, n. 3, 460), and in such 
expressions as are found in Rom. xv. 16-23, xvi. 4, 16: 
2 Cor. xi. 28; 2 Tim. iv. 17 (ef. above, p. 11). The sup- 
position that Paul found in Ephesus or Iconium Christian 
Churches already organised or even individual Christians, 
or that Kpaphras discovered such in Colossee or in Laodicea, 
is contrary to the evidence of all existing sources of in- 
formation. As regards the province of Asia and its capital 


136 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


city, Ephesus, this is contradieted by the testimony of 
Acts xvii. 19, xix. 8, and also xix. 1-7. It was just 
because there was no Christian Church in Ephesus before 
Paul’s arrival, not even of the most elementary kind, that 
it was possible there, as in Alexandria (Acts xvii. 24 f.), 
for single confessors of Jesus to remain without Christian 
baptism and without any relation to the development of 
the Church (vol. 1. p. 262). 

It is just as certain also that the Churches in the pro- 
vinces of Asia and Galatia founded by Paul and his helpers 
were all Gentile Christian in character, notwithstanding 
the fact that they were always organised in connection 
with synagogues already existing, and in spite of the re- 
ception into their membership of numerous Jews. This is 
almost as strongly expressed in Acts (Acts xv. 3, 12, 19, 
xxi. 19), which records facts that might lead one to sup- 
pose that the Churches were partly Jewish, partly Gentile 
Christian in character, as by Paul himself (Gal. iv. 8; 
Eph. ii. 11-iii. 13). On the other hand, Paul does not 
deny that there were native Jews in the membership of 
these Gentile Christian Churches (vol. i. p. 192, n. 6). 
Regarding the founding of the Churches in Cappadocia, 
Pontus, and Bithynia, regions which Paul did not visit 
personally, we have no information. But it is probable 
that in these provinces, which, viewed from the direction 
of Jerusalem and Antioch, were only the Hinterland of 
the provinces of Galatia and Asia, the gospel was preached 
somewhat later, but under practically the same condi- 
tions, except that the proportion of Jews in the population 
was less, and consequently there were fewer of them in 
the membership of the Churches organised there than in 
Galatia and Asia, 

In view of the clear facts in the case, it is one of the 
most striking proofs of the lack of historical insight in 
the handling of the N.T. writings, that from the time 
of Origen on the view could gain ground in the Greek 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 137 


Church that 1 Peter was directed to the Jewish Christians 
scattered in the provinces named (n. 2). It is even more 
strange that this view should find stubborn defenders to- 
day, though modified to the extent of holding that the 
letter was addressed by Peter to Jewish Christian Churches 
existing in Asia Minor before Paul began his missionary 
labours in that region (n. 3). Nothing could be further from 
the truth than to claim that the only argument against 
the assumption of the existence of such Jewish Christian 
Churches in Asia Minor before Paul’s labours began is the 
silence of Acts. As already indicated, we have to do here 
with the very explicit testimony both of Acts and of Paul’s 
letters. If Jewish Christian Churches existed in Galatia 
and Asia, especially in the larger cities where there were 
numerous Jews, 6.9. Pisidian Antioch and Iconium, 
Ephesus and the cities on the Lycus, before the gospel 
was preached in these places by Paul, Barnabas, Epaphras, 
and other co-labourers of theirs unknown to us, then the 
whole representation in Acts is not only incomplete, but 
positively false. In all these districts Paul finds only 
Jews and Gentiles who had never heard the gospel until 
they heard it from him, and who were constrained by his 
preaching to take a stand with reference to it. Even if 
the agreement in Gal. 1. 6-10 be still falsely interpreted 
to mean that Paul was compelled to give up all missionary 
work among persons of Jewish birth (cf. per contra, vol. 
1. p. 265 f.), it is nevertheless impossible to explain the fact 
that repeatedly Paul begins his preaching in the syna- 
gogue,—indeed, in Ephesus he confined his work to the 
synagogue for the whole of three months (Acts xix. 8),— 
and, on the other hand, fails even to greet the Jewish 
Christian Churches in the same places, and makes no use 
of the foundation which in them was already laid. And 
who ‚were the missionaries who established Churches all 
the way to the coast of the Black Sea before the Christians 
in Antioch gained courage to send Paul and Barnabas out 


138 INTRODUCTION TO 'THE NEW TESTAMENT 


into the world? (Acts xiii. 2). If, in view of 1 Pet. i. 12, 
it be suggested that this was done by persons from Cappa 
docia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia (Acts ii. 9 f.), 
who heard the preaching at Pentecost, it must be remem- 
bered that these hearers were not pilgrims to the feast, 
who, after the feast, returned to the lands of their birth, 
but Jews from abroad residing in Jerusalem (Acts i. 5, vi. 9, 
vol. i. 61), who became members of the Church in Jeru- 
salem. It is true that after the death of Stephen many of 
these Christians did attempt successfully to spread their 
faith outside of Palestine (Acts x1. 19 f.). The gospel, how- 
ever, was not carried beyond Antioch and Cyprus by their 
efforts, but, according to all existing accounts, by Paul and 
Barnabas. Moreover, what is to be done with Paul’s own 
testimony? It was “the Churches of Galatia” (Gal. i. 2; 
1 Cor. xvi. 1), not individual Christians in Galatia, who 
received the gospel from Paul, working sometimes in con- 
junction with Barnabas, sometimes with Silvanus (Gal. 
i. 8, iv. 13; vol. 1. p. 179), in quite the same way that the 
Church in Corinth received the gospel (Gal. 1. 9; ef. 
1 Cor. xv. 1-8). Under the figure of the mother (Gal. 
iv. 19) is expressed, if possible, even more strongly 
than by the figure of the father (1 Cor. iv. 15), the 
fact that all the Churches in this province owed their 
origin to Paul. Where, then, are the Jewish Christian 
Churches, governed by their own presbyters (1 Pet. v. 
1-4), which are supposed to have existed in the pro- 
vince before Paul’s coming? Similarly in Colossee and 
Laodicea, Epaphras brought the gospel not to individual 
Christians of a particular class or race, but to the 
Churches (Col. i. 1, 7, iv. 13, 16). Furthermore, when 
Paul mentions Epznetus (Rom. xvi. 5), he speaks of 
him not as a first-fruit of his personal labours in Asia, 
but as the first convert of this province; and from the 
connection in which he is spoken of, he must have become 
acquainted with the gospel in the house of Aquila, who 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 139 


came to Ephesus for the first time along with Paul (vol 
L 417, n. 21). 

The terms that are here used to characterise the Chris. 
tian readers and Churches have been misunderstood from 
very early times, because of their relation to Israel and to 
Jewish conditions. This association is true of παρεπίδημοι 
(i. 1) and πάροικοι, which is joined with it (ii. 11; παροικία, 
i. 17), only to the extent that the combination occurs 

twice in the LXX (n. 4). In themselves the words are 
quite secular in character, as is abundantly evidenced 
by their use in literature and inscriptions. The first 
expression means the stranger who comes from a foreign 
land, and remains only temporarily in a given place of 
residence. In distinction from ἐπιδημεῖν (Acts ii. 10), it 
emphasises more definitely the merely temporary character 
of the residence. Πάροικος, on the other hand, which is 
practically synonymous with μέτοικος, more commonly used 
by the older writers, means the resident, that is to say, 
the stranger, who, as distinguished from the citizen, lives 
by the tolerance and under the protection of the State. 
It may also mean the tenant, as distinguished from the 
property holder and his family. With these words is 
joined as practically Synonymous ξένος (Eph. ii. 19: 
Heb. xi. 13). J. D. Michaelis (Einl. 1445 ff.) thought 
that the words were used to describe persons who before 
their conversion were Jewish proselytes. That this is 
not the case, and that no comparison is implied between 
the readers and such proselytes as regards their relation 
to Christianity, is evident from the simple fact that in 
the two passages in the LXX (Gen. xxiii, 4 ; Ps xxxix. 13> 
n. 4) where παρεπίδημος occurs—in both instances joined 
with πάροικος, as in 1 Pet. ii. 11—the reference is not to 
strangers living in Israel, but to the patriarchs living in 
strange countries, without fixed abode or permanent 
possessions, and to pious Israelites whose whole life was 
conceived after the pattern of the life of their ancestors, 


140 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


It will be seen that even in the O.T. these two synonymous 
ideas are used to denote, on the one hand, the relation of 
the pious to God, and, on the other hand, their relation 
to earthly rights, possessions, and abode. In conscious 
imitation of this O.T. usage, as evidenced by Heb: xi. 13- 
16, xiii. 14, there grew up the view, already discussed (vol. 
i. p. 81 f.), which comes to light in all the N.T. writings, 
that Christians, being citizens of a heavenly commonwealth, 
are strangers, residing only temporarily in this world, or 
residents, without rights of citizenship, remaining here 
only by the sufferance of the possessors and rulers of this 
world, While the Jews of the diaspora made every effort 
either to become citizens with full rights: in Gentile 
communities, or to secure legal recognition as a separate 
community (n. 4), Christians, even when they possessed 
landed property and rights of citizenship, regarded them- 
selves, nevertheless, as πάροικοι καὶ παρεπίδημοι, thereby 
bearing witness that they possessed and sought a father- 
land not to be found upon this earth (Heb. xi. 14-16). 
That these words are used in quite the same sense in 
1 Peter is shown by ii. 11, where these particular char- 
acteristics of the readers are mentioned as a motive for 
a distinctive Christian, manner of life, as distinguished 
from that led by the heathen. It.is even more clearly 
demonstrated. by i. 17, where manifestly the whole 
earthly life of Christians is described as the time of their 
παροικία (cf. iv. 2; Gen. xlvii. 9). This also proves that 
the expressions are not at all meant to imply that the 
readers are persons living far from their earthly home, 
e.g. Jews dwelling outside of Palestine ; for then it would 
follow that they needed only to return to Palestine, in 
order to be exempt from all the moral obligations spoken 
of in i. 17, ii. 11... Furthermore, in i. 1 f., the language 
shows that the readers are strangers and sojourners in 
the world, not by reason of the external circumstances of 
their life, but because they have been chosen by God, ze. 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS ταὶ 


in accordance with His own original provision, and through 
conversion and baptism (1. 1f.). These words describe 
readers simply as Christians, and the names of the 
provinces that follow in the genitive might have been 
added directly, just as it is possible to say ai ἐκκλησίαι τῆς 
᾿Ιουδαίας (Gal. i. 22), in the sense of ai οὖσαι ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ 
(1 Thess. ii. 14). This connection is not interfered with 
by the intervening διασπορᾶς, which is used without the 
article, and so cannot possibly further describe the readers 
as those elect strangers, 1.6. Christians, who belong to the 
Jewish diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, ete. (n. 5). Rather 
does it serve to emphasise the thought expressed by 
maperiönuo: by adding the thought of Jas. i. 1, that as 
Christians the readers live scattered abroad like the 
Israelites after they were driven from the Holy Land. 
As indicated above (vol. 1. 93, 100, n. 12), this idea grew up 
originally out of very concrete conditions ; and so here Peter 
probably has in mind the actual conditions of his readers. 
It is, of course, possible in itself to conceive of all the 
Christians as dwelling together in one place like the 
Mormons on the Great Salt Lake, instead of scattered 
abroad in little groups over the wide world like oases in 
the desert or islands in the sea (Theoph. ad Autol. ii. 14). 
But at the beginning of a letter intended for a large 
number of Churches scattered over the whole of Asia 
Minor it was very natural to recall their actual condition, 
and this thought is very properly followed by the 
enumeration of all the provinces where these Churches 
were. But notwithstanding this fact, διασπορᾶς, like the 
preceding παρεπίδημοι, is used to describe the religious 
condition of the readers. For it will be observed, the 
thing contrasted with their present scattered condition 
is not the return of them all to an earthly home, but their 
gathering into the kingdom of Christ (Matt. xxiv. 31; 
Didache x.), when the Chief Shepherd shall appear 
(1 Pet. v. 4). Still, the fact that up to this time these 


142 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


small Churches had always existed scattered abroad over 
the wide world, outnumbered a hundred or even ἃ 
thousand times by the heathen who surrounded them, 
must have intensified the feeling that as Christians they 
were only strangers and sojourners in the world, as it 
would also tend to make them constantly mindful of the 
inheritance laid up for them in heaven (i. 4). 

In this manner the greeting opens the way for the 
main thoughts of the Epistle. But it contains nothing 
which can obscure the fact, firmly established by historical 
evidence, that the letter was directed to the Gentile 
Christian Churches in Asia Minor founded by Paul and 
his helpers. ‘This is confirmed in the further course of the 
letter itself, particularly by the manner in which character- 
istics of Israel are applied to the readers. Thus in u. 5, 9, in 
accordance with Ex. xix. 5f., Isa. xl. 20, they are called a 
royal priesthood, a chosen race, a holy people, God’s peculiar 
people. In ui, 10, by a free application of the words with 
which Hosea (ii. 1-3, 25) prophesies the restoration of 
Israel to the rank of God’s people, it is said of the 
readers that they who once were no people have become 
a people of God, that they who once were not the objects 
of the divine mercy have now experienced this merey 
(ii. 5-10). Nor is the fact concealed that they have 
obtained all this mercy and dignity because by faith they 
have followed the call of the gospel by which they have 
been summoned out of darkness into His marvellous light 
(ii. 9, efi. 12, 15, 22-25, ii. 2,7). In contrast to them 
stand not. the unbelieving majority of the Jewish people, 
but all who have heard the gospel and not accepted. it. 
They are not called the true people of God, or the spiritual 
Israel, in contrast to the Jewish people who have become 
unworthy of this name. On the contrary, the definite 
article is consistently avoided (cf. the opposite usage in 
Jas.i. 1; Gal. vi. 16; Phil. iii. 3), ce. without the implica- 
tion of any such contrast these exalted titles are applied 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 143 


to them in just the same way in which James, Paul, and 
John speak of the rise of a people of God from among the 
Gentiles in Acts xv. 14; Gal. iii. 7, 29, iv. 28; Eph. ii. 
11-22; Rev. v. 9f. They are not sons of Abraham and 
daughters of Sarah (which simply expresses the same 
thought with reference to women) by reason of birth, 
but have become such through their conversion and the 
character of their subsequent life (iii. 6). That the readers 
are Gentiles, is proved most decisively by the way in which 
the words of Hosea, referred to above, are used. Paul, 
who understood the words as a prophecy of the ultimate 
pardon of Israel, to be fulfilled at the last day (Rom: ix. 
25, xi. 26-31),—frequently overlooked by the interpreters 
without any apparent necessity,—quotes the substance of 
the passage accurately. Peter, who only uses the language 
of the prophet to clothe his own thoughts, modifies the 
passage essentially to suit his purpose, using, in order to 
describe the readers before their conversion, the words 
οἱ πότε ov λαός instead of οὐ λαὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (Hos. ii. 1,.25; 
ef. 1. 9, ob λαός ov). Unlike the degenerate Israel, they 
were not deprived of the rank of the people of God after 
having once had it, but before their conversion were not 
yet a people at all. It was not until after they had 
received the gospel that the readers, who belonged to the 
most diverse races, Greeks and Barbarians, Phrygians, Celts, 
Scythians, became united into one people, in fact into a holy 
people of God (Col. iii. 11 ; Acts xiv. 11, xvii. 26). Having 
become such in consequence of the divine call, the obliga- 
tions devolving upon the people of God in the O.T. passed 
over to them (i. 15f.). But the contrast to the holy life, 
which they must now lead as Christians, is their former 
life in heathen immorality. This is indicated most clearly 
in iv. 2-4, where participation in immoral idol worship 
is mentioned last in the list of the vices to which they 
were addicted before their conversion. Moreover, there 
are unequivocal references to this same practice in i. 14, 18, 


144 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


While it is true that hostility to Christ (Acts ii. 17 ; 1 Tim. 
i. 13) and the legalistic bias of the Jews, which made them 
so unfriendly to the gospel (Rom. x. 3), may be described 
as accompanied by ἄγνοια, it will be observed that neither 
of these attitudes is referred to in i. 14, but rather the 
sinful lusts in which the readers lived in the time of their 
ignorance (cf. u. 11, 24, iv. 1-4). This can mean only 
that ignorance of God and His will which characterised 
the Gentile in distinction from the Jew (1 Thess. iv. 5; 
2 Thess. 1. 8; Gal. iv. 9; 1 Tim. ii. 4; 1 Pet. ii. 15; Acts 
xvii. 23, 30). Judged by the Christian standard, there 
were evil traditions even among the Jews (Matt. xv. 2, 
xvi. 6), with which it was necessary for Jews to break in 
order to become Christians (Gal. 1. 13 f.; Phil. mi. 7 ff.). 
But, in contrast to these, no Christian in ancient times was 
so foolish as to call the sinful life of heathenism (iv. 3), even 
when led by Jews, a vain manner of life handed down from 
their fathers (i. 18, more explicitly described in Eph. iv. 
17 f.). The use of such an expression cannot be justified 
by assuming that a contemptuous judgment of the Jewish 
eultus and the Pharisaic manner of life is here expressed ; 
for of such ἃ judgment there is not the slightest suggestion 
throughout the entire letter. In contrast to the holy life 
which they are now required to live, stand rather the lusts 
of the flesh (i. 14, ii. 11). Furthermore, the clear com- 
parison of the redemption of the readers with that of 
Israel from Egypt, implying as it does a comparison of 
their former walk with the life of Israel while they were 
in heathen bondage, indicates that they have come from 
heathenism and not out of a life under the Mosaic law. 
Only by exegesis of the worst sort can it be made to 
appear from ii. 25 that such language could be used 
exclusively of Jews who had always been members of the 
household of God (n. 6). To the unbiassed judgment all 
the passages in the letter bearing upon the question as to 
the character of the readers only confirm what is certainly 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 145 


known from history concerning the origin and character 
of the Christian Churches in Asia Minor. From this 
point of view alone is the expressed purpose of the letter 
intelligible. 

It is Peter’s intention to encourage his readers, and to 
confirm them by bearing witness to the fact that it is the 
true grace of God into which they have been brought bytheir 
conversion, and in which they have since stood (v. 12). 
The oppressed condition in which they were at the time is, 
of course, an additional reason why he writes to them. But 
nothing is anywhere said which would imply that the 
readers were in danger even under the stress of persecution 
of doubting the truth of their faith. Apart from this, the 
significant thing for them is the fact that it is Peter who 
bears witness to the genuineness of their state of grace. 
Inasmuch as there is no trustworthy tradition and not the 
slightest hint in the letter itself that Peter had had direct 
personal relations with these Christians, had ever been 
among them, or was personally known to individuals among 
them (n. 7), it could have been only his ecclesiastical 
position, known throughout the entire Christian world, 
and the character of the Churches in Asia Minor, equally 
well known, that gives his letter the significance which he 
indicates at the close. To them as Gentile Christians it is 
an encouragement, and tends to strengthen their faith, that 
the foremost amongst the apostles, the most distinguished 
apostle of the circumcision (Gal. 11. 7), bears such testimony 
to their Christian character. It is with this in view that he 
praises the word of the gospel which was preached to them, 
describing it as the means of a second birth, and as the 
living word of God, having the promise of eternal con- 
tinuance (1. 23-25). This explains also why he declares 
that the missionaries who brought this word to them 
preached the gospel in the spirit sent from heaven (i. 12), 
and finally his assurance that even the O.T. prophets, 
or rather the spirit of Christ dwelling in them, which, 

VOL. II. IO 


146 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


reaching out beyond the clear knowledge of the prophets 
themselves, made predictions concerning the grace that was 
to reach even to the readers,—a preliminary revelation, 
the recording of which by the prophets was not so much 
for their own benefit as for that of the readers (i. 10-12). 

If in this passage Peter had in mind only the contrast 
between the ancient prophets and Christians of the present 
(cf. Matt. xii. 17; Heb. i. 1, xi. 40), it is impossible to 
understand why he continued to address the readers, 
distinguishing them from himself instead of identifying 
them with himself and with all Christians by the use of 
“we” and “us.” The contrast here cannot be, as in i. 
34a and 4b-9, that between the apostle and other eye- 
witnesses of the gospel history on the one hand, and 
Christians converted later through the gospel on the 
other (see below); since in the prophets there is no hint 
of any kind concerning this temporal distinction within 
the Church. On the contrary, Peter has in mind words 
like Isa. 11. 1-4, xlii. 1-12 (Matt. xü. 18-21), Isa. xlix. 6 
(Acts xii. 47), and here expresses thoughts concerning 
the relation of O.T. prophecy to the preaching of the 
gospel among the Gentiles such as are found in Rom. i. 2, 
xv. 4-13, xvi. 26; Eph. iii. 5-12. 

In introducing himself, the author uses the name given 
him by Jesus, and the official title received from Him (i. 1). 
He does not, however, use the original Aramaic form of 
the name, Kepha, but the Greek translation which was 
current among Gentile Christians (n. 8). He does not say 
much about himself, but what he does say is significant. 
When in v. 1, in addressing the πρεσβύτεροι, and pointing 
out his own relation to them, he calls himself συμπρεσ- 
βύτερος, this cannot mean that he like them is an old 
man; for although the contrast between πρεσβύτεροι and 
νεώτεροι (v. 1, 5) does suggest difference of age, the 
character of the exhortations addressed to both show 
that the πρεσβύτεροι are here viewed in their capacity 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 147 


as heads of the Churches, to whom obedience is due, 
and who have the power to demand and to compel the 
same authoritatively, and for their own ends (ef. Tit. 1. 7; 
1 Tim. iii. 3, 8), but who, if they are true shepherds, ought 
not so to do. In this calling Peter is their companion, 
only with the self-evident distinction that their exercise 
of the same is limited to the local Church, while that of 
Peter, being an apostle (i. 1), extends over the entire 
Church (v. 9). Attention is called to this distinctive 
position by the statement which the author here makes, 
that he was a witness, 1.6. an eye-witness, of the sufferings 
of Christ (n. 9). Here are only two strokes of the pen; 
but by the one we have sharply outlined the figure of the 
diseiple, who, with a few others, had been an eye-witness 
of the struggle in Gethsemane, and had seen Jesus bound 
and taken from one judge to another (Mark xiv. 33, 37, 
47, 54; Luke xxii. 61; John xviii. 10-27); the other 
pictures the apostle, to whom especially Jesus had given 
the command to feed his sheep (John xxi. 15-17) and 
strengthen his brethren (Luke xxii. 32). Furthermore, no 
one but an eye-witness of the events recorded in the 
gospel history (Luke i. 2) could well describe the attitude 
and relation to Christ of persons in Asia Minor, converted 
after Jesus’ death, not only as that of faith without sight, 
but also as that of love for one whom they had never seen 
(i. 8). In the Epistles of Paul, of whose language we are 
so often reminded by 1 Peter, we seek in vain for similar 
expressions, even where it would have been most natural 
for one who could speak in this way to have done so (e.g. 
Gal. mi. 1; Eph. i. 13). This note is struck by only one 
other of the original apostles (John 1, 14, xix. 35, xx. 29; 
1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14). Finally, no one could speak of the 
resurrection of the Lord as the means of his regeneration 
(i. 3), except one who through the conviction of Jesus’ 
resurrection had been roused from the doubt into which 
he had been cast by the death of Jesus, to a new life of 


148 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


hope and faith. Peter does not speak in this way con 
cerning the readers, the instrument of whose regeneration 
is rather the living word of God (i. 23), but where he 
specially speaks of himself and those like himself, and 
before he passes to his address to the readers (i. 4b, n. 10). 

As has already been remarked, the writer of the letter 
had no share in the conversion of the readers, and there 
is nothing to indicate that there had been direct personal 
relations between himself and them. This impression is 
strengthened, especially by what is said in v. 12-14. 
Peter sends special greeting neither to an individual nor 
to a particular class among the readers, which is all the 
more striking when compared with the very different 
manner in which Paul writes to Churches not founded by 
himself (Rom. xvi. 3-16; Col. iv. 15-17; vol. 1. 387 f.). 
The only greetings which he sends are those from the 
local Church where he was, and from Mark, whom he 
calls his son, to all the readers. The latter is only a 
figurative way of saying that Mark, with whose family 
Peter had long been intimate (Acts xii. 12), had become 
a believer through Peter’s influence (cf. 1 Tim. i. 1; 2'Tim. 
i. 1; Tit.i.4; Philem. 10). In the same way, the Church 
in Babylon is not spoken of in a prosaic manner, but is 
personified, and in order to bring out its spiritual relation- 
ship to the readers, who are the elect of God (i. 1), is 
called fellow-elect (2 John 1, 13, n. 11). 

While this greeting does not necessitate at all the 
assumption of intimate relations between the Church in 
“Babylon” and the Churches in Asia Minor (cf. Rom. xvi. 
16b; Phil. iv. 22; Gal. i. 2), such relations are presup- 
posed by the greeting from Mark. Now, since Mark did 
not accompany Paul on any of his three missionary journeys 
through Asia Minor,—having separated himself from the 
apostle at the beginning of the first journey, and not 
joining him again for a long time (Acts xiii. 13, xv. 38),— 
but in the year 62 or 63 did intend to make a journey 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 149 


from Rome to Asia Minor (Col. iv. 10), this letter could 
not have been written until after Mark had carried out 
this intention, and so had come into personal contact with 
all, or some of the Churches of Asia Minor, or with indi- 
vidual members of them. On the other hand, Silvanus, 
who accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey, 
had become acquainted with many of the Churches in Asia 
Minor, and had helped in the building up, possibly also in 
the founding, of many of them (Acts xv. 40, xvi. 5; ef. Gal. 
iv. 13, vol. 1.p.178f.). For this reason Peter could describe 
Silvanus, through whom he addressed the readers in this 
letter, as a faithful, trustworthy brother, with the evident 
expectation that they would agree with him (v. 12). But 
what does he mean when he says—and the order of the 
words indicates a certain emphasis—“ By Silvanus, the 
faithful brother, as I account him, I have written to 
you briefly”? So far as the words themselves are con- 
cerned (n. 12), the expression γράφειν διά τινος might 
refer to the person who delivered the letter. But, in 
the first place, it strikes one as strange to find the bearer 
of the letter specifically mentioned, whereas in the other 
N.T. Epistles either the identity of the bearer is ποῦ 
disclosed at all, or is left to be inferred from indirect 
statements (Rom. xvi. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 
16-24; Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7). Furthermore, it is 
impossible to explain why Silvanus should be mentioned 
with so much emphasis in this passage as the bearer of 
the letter, and why the concurrence of the readers in the 
praise bestowed upon him should be expressly asked. If 
this is the meaning, the remark is in all respects without 
point; for if Silvanus delivered the letter as it was 
addressed, then the readers, when the letter was in their 
hands, no longer needed to be told that Peter had believed 
him possessed of the modest amount of trustworthiness 
requisite for this task before he sent him. If, contrary to 
all expectations, Silvanus failed to deliver the letter, then 


150 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the written testimony at the end of the letter, of the 
writers confidence in Silvanus, which the latter was on 
the point of basely betraying, would be of value neither to 
the persons addressed, who in that case would not receive 
the letter, nor to Peter himself. It scarcely needs to be 
remarked that the statement is even more meaningless 
if Silvanus is here thought of as the amanuensis to whom 
Peter dictated his message; since Peter could not express 
his deliberate opinion as to the trustworthiness requisite 
for this task—and anything less than trustworthiness 
would imply a degree of deceit on the part of the 
amanuensis entirely incredible—without implying his 
suspicion as to the person in question; and if he had 
any suspicion he could satisfy himself by reading the 
letter through, while in a matter of this sort the readers 
could not have an opinion of any kind. The only alterna- 
tive that remains is the most natural one, namely, that 
Silvanus’ part in the composition was so important and 
so large that its performance required a considerable 
degree of trustworthiness. It is not Silvanus’ letter, 
written merely at Peter’s direction; for from beginning 
to end Peter is the one who speaks in the letter, without 
even formally mentioning Silvanus as a joint author, as 
Paul sometimes does (1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. 1. 1). In 
fact, to have done so would have tended to defeat the 
expressed purpose of the letter, namely, to be a testimony 
of the apostle of the circumcision to Gentile Christians 
(above, p.145f.). It purports to bea letter of Peter's; and 
such it is, except that Peter left its composition to Silvanus, 
because he regarded him as better fitted than himself, 
indeed as better fitted than anyone else, to express in an 
intelligible and effective manner the thoughts and feelings 
which Peter entertained toward the Gentile Christians of 
Asia Minor. Just as Peter believed that in the per- 
formance of this duty Silvanus would have the best 
interests of the readers in view, and would write with 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 151 


appreciation of their needs, so he hopes that the readers, 
who have come to know Silvanus in part through his 
labours among them as a missionary preacher, will believe 
that he has faithfully reproduced Peter’s sentiments, and 
that he would not have written what he did in Peter’s 
name if he had known that this was not Peter’s mind. 
So, instead of making the distance between himself and 
the readers seem greater by speaking to them through 
another, Peter by this means introduces himself to them 
in the most effective way possible. All that we know of 
Silvanus from other sources, his prominent place among 
the officers and prophets of the mother Church, the duty 
which he performed in Antioch as their ambassador (Acts 
xy. 22-40), the favourable testimony to his character 
which we gather from Paul’s Epistles (2 Cor. 1. 19; ef. 
1 and 2 Thess.), as well as the trustworthiness to which 
Peter bears testimony here, tends to justify the assump- 
tion that he would prove himself worthy of the confidence 
placed in him in the entrusting to him of the composition 
of this letter. We have no ὦ priori means of determining 
how comprehensive the conferences between Peter and 
Silvanus, which necessarily preceded the writing of such 
a letter, may have been. 


1. (P. 134.) The omission from 1 Pet. i. 1 of the two small districts of 
Lyeia and Pamphylia, of whose Church history in early time we know 
practically nothing (Acts xiv. 25), will scarcely be accounted strange, especi- 
ally in view of the fact that, prior to 74 A.D., they were not permanently 
organised into an independent province (Marquardt, R. Staatsverw.? 1. 375 f.). 
On the other hand, it is peculiar that Pontus and Bithynia, which had been 
united in one province since 65 B.c. (Marquardt, 351), are separated as far as 
possible in this list. It is possible that this entire province is designated by 
the name “ Bithynia” (cf. Tac. Ann. i. 74, xvi. 18), and that Pontus stands 
for Pontus Polemoniacus, which was a principality until 63 Α.Ὁ. (Marquardt, 
360). 111 Pet. was written in 63 (§ 39), account need not yet necessarily be 
taken of the union of this land with Galatia, which is also placed in the year 
63. In any case, the order of the names is peculiar: starting from the north 
coast (Pontus), we go inland to Galatia, then eastward (Cappadocia), then 
westward (Asia), and, finally, in a northerly direction until we reach the shore 
of the Black Sea again. Bengel’s remark, “Quinque provincias nominat 
eo ordine, quo occurrebant scribenti ex oriente” (ef. v. 13), which has been 


[52 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


accepted by Wetstein (ii. 698) and Niebuhr, following Bunsen (Anal. antenie. 
i. 134), does not explain the order nor even the name with which the list 
begins, since the person in Babylon faeing or journeying toward Asia Minor 
was nearer Cappadocia than Pontus. The differing order in the free repro- 
duction of Origen (see n. 2) has no more signilicance than the omission of 
Asia in N, of Bithynia in B, Pontus is mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. 
only in Acts it. 9, xviii. 2; in both cases as the home of Jews (cf. Philo, ad 
Cai.xxxvi.). Is it perhaps possible that Aquila and Priscilla, who were living 
in Asia Minor sometime after 1 Pet. was written (2 Tim. iv. 19), laboured on 
behalf of the gospel in their native Pontus? In these regions also it is 
natural to seek the Scythian Christians to whom reference is made in Col. 
iii. 11, who may have come hither in consequence of the commerce between 
the northern and southern shores of the Black Sea. Here, too, may have 
been found slaves who had wandered far from their homes. In 112, Pliny 
had to deal with persons (Ep. xevi. ad Traj.) who claimed that they had 
abandoned the Christian faith twenty years before. They may have become 
Christians many years earlier. The fact that, according to the testimony 
of Pliny, Christianity was widely spread in this region, is evidence that it 
was brought hither not very much later than it was preached in the province 
of Asia. For in the second century we have evidence of the existence of 
the episcopates of Sinope (Epiph. Her, xlii. 1) and Amastris (Eus, H. E. 
iv. 23. 6, v. 23. 2). 

2. (P. 137.) Origen, quoted by Eus, iii. 1. 2, Πέτρος δὲ ev Πόντῳ x. Tan. 
x. Βιθ., Kammad. te καὶ “Agia κεκηρυχέναι τοῖς ἐκ διασπορᾶς (al. ev διασπορᾷ) 
Ἰουδαίοις ἔοικεν. Thus, indirectly, we have characterised the readers of the 
letter, whose title is here made use of. More directly and definitely by Eus. 
himself, iii. 4. 2, τοῖς ἐξ ‘EBpaiwy οὖσιν ἐν διασπορᾷ Πόντου--- Βιθυνίας γράφει. 
Cf. the prologue in Zacagni (Mon. coll. 492), Cramer (Cat. viii. 41), 
Matthei (Epist. cath. 44). Just as Eusebius (op. cit.) implies a contrast be- 
tween Peter’s work and the missionary labours of Paul among the Gentiles, 
so Didymus (Migne, 39, 1755; ef. the scholion in Mattheei, p. 196) treats it 
as an extension of his preaching among the Jews beyond the boundary of 
Palestine. In the West, at least at a later time, a more correct view pre- 
vailed, as is proved by the title of the letter (ad gentes), which, in spite of 
the original text, the person who translated Didymus into Latin, a contem- 
porary of Cassiodorus (ef. Forsch. iii. 11, 135), made the old Alexandrian 
employ in his comment on 1 Pet. ii. 9f. 

3. (P. 137.) The view briefly described on p. 136 f. has been maintained 
mainly by B. Weiss (Der petrin. Lehrbegriff, 99 ff.) since 1855, and by many 
later writers. It is defended at great length by Kühl in the revision of 
Huther’s Kommentar über die Briefe Petri und Judae, 5te Aufl. 1887, 6te Aufl. 
1897. 

4. (Pp. 139, 140.) In Gen, xxiii. 4 aYin) 9, LXX πάροικος καὶ παρεπίδημος, We 
find Abraham among the children of Heth, and distinguished from the 
“people of the land,” who owned the ground. There is a retrospective 
reference to this position of the patriarchs also in Ps. xxxix. 13 (xxxvili. 12; 
cf. Gen, xlvii. 9; 1 Chron. xxix. 15). Here belong also Ley. xxv. 23, where 
the same combination of words (but LXX reads προσήλυτοι καὶ πάροικοι) 18 
used to designate the Israelites in their own land in contrast to God, the 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 153 


real possessor of the land, and the passages where wäpoikos = 73, used of 
Israel in Egypt, or of Moses among the Midianites (Gen. xv. 13 ; Ex. ii. 22, 
xviii.3; Deut. xxiii. 8). Where 73 means the non-Israelite resident in Israel, 
LXX seldom (Deut. xiv. 21) renders it by πάροικος, which more often corre- 
sponds to 395 (frequently with μισθωτός, Ex. xii. 45; Lev. xxii. 10, xxv. 6, 
40), but often by προσήλυτος (Ex. xx. 10; Lev. xxv. 35, 47), and even by the 
Aramaic γειώρας (Ex. xii. 19; Isa. xiv. 1; cf. Just. Dial. exxii., address), from 
which was derived the opprobrious term giaur, used in the Islamic period. 
It has yet to be proved that πάροικος was ever used in Christian or in post- 
Biblical Jewish literature in the sense of proselyte. Cf. further, vol. i. 82, 
and Lightfoot (St. Clement, ii. 5f.). The difference between the Christian 
and Jewish points of view is very clearly indicated by the Jewish inscriptions 
in Hierapolis (Altertéimer von Hierapolis, by Humann, ete., 1898, S. 138, No. 
212, τῇ κατοικίᾳ τῶν Ev Ἱεραπόλει κατοικούντων ᾿Ιουδαίων). Here they formed 
a separate community (ὁ Ados τῶν Ἰουδαίων, S. 96, No. 69, 4-6), with their 
own eity hall and archives (No. 69, 7, No. 212, 6; ef. S. 174, No. 342). 
Cf. also Jos. Ant. xvi. 6, 7. It also deserves notice that the only parallel 
in the N.T. Epistles to the designation of the readers, entirely without the 
article, is to be found in 2 John 1 (ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ). This is not to be explained 
by assuming that there were other Christians to whom the same name might 
be applied, since in that case it would be sufficient to say τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ilovro 
(ef. Phil. i. 1), even if τοῖς ἐκλεκτοῖς had preceded. The real explanation is 
that the omission of the article serves here, as in 2 John 1, to emphasise 
more strongly the qualities mentioned, and to make more easily recognisable 
the figurative meaning of phrases used (cf. Jas. i. 18, ἀπαρχήν twa). Where 
the readers are called Christians in a literal sense, the article is not wanting, 
v. 14. 

5. (P. 141.) It is taken for granted as certain that ἐκλεκτός in i. 1 is 
used in an attributive sense, as is always the case where the word stands in 
an attributive relation to another idea (1 Pet. ii. 4, 6,9; 1 Tim. v. 21; Ex. 
xiv. 7, xxx. 23; 2 Sam. viii. 8); and, on the other hand, that παρεπίδημοι is 
used substantively, as in ii. 11 and in the LXX, where it is used as a 
translation of a substantive (n. 4). Furthermore, it is assumed that ver. 2 
is not dependent upon ἐκλεκτοῖς alone, but upon the whole phrase, exX. . . . 
diarmopäs, for otherwise (τοῖς) ἐκλ. would need immediately to precede κατὰ 
πρόγνωσιν. Consequently it is not simply change of residence that makes 
the readers παρεπίδημοι διασπορᾶς, but the Divine election and separation ; 
and this election, in turn, together with the position of the readers in the 
world and their attitude toward God, corresponding to a Divine purpose, is 
due to the sanctifying work of the Spirit, and has for its purpose a constant 
obedience (cf. i. 14, 22) and a continuously needful purification through the 
blood of Christ (cf. 1 John i. 7). Since, besides the Christians here addressed, 
there were very many others to whom thie ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι applied equally 
well, it is perfectly evident that if the purpose here were to distinguish these 
Christians from others, ἐκλεκτοὶ παρεπίδημοι would have to be followed by τοῖς 
ev τῇ διασπορᾷ, especially in view of the fact that it is without the article (cf. 
Jas. i. 1; vol. i. p. 79 f.,n, 6), or by τοῖς ἐκ τῆς διασπορᾶς, if the word be used 
in its concrete sense (“Jews scattered among the heathen”). In this case 
the connection of ver. 2 would be rendered at least very difficult, since what 


154 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


is said in this verse has no connection with the alleged membership of the 
readers in the Jewish diaspora, but relates solely to their Christian character. 
That the insertion of a simple local name, such as Πόντου κτὰ., does not 
preclude modification by clauses that follow, is proved by 1 Cor. i. 2; 
1 Thess. i. 1. Consequently διασπορᾶς, like so many similar genitives in the 
N.T. (Jas. 1. 25, emAnopovns ; 1 Pet. i. 14, ὑπακοῆς ; Luke xviii. 6, τῆς ἀδικίας), 
is purely attributive=dveomappévors, and like ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις, applic- 
able to all Christians. 

6. (P. 144.) Kühl claims that ἐπιστρέφεσθαι, in ii. 25 (which would apply 
also to the intransitive active, the sense of which is not essentially different), 
means in this passage, according to the predominant usage of the N.T., 
“to turn one’s self again to that which one has formerly been.” This mean- 
ing does not suit in those passages where the word is used of the conversion 
of the Gentiles (1 Thess. i. 9 ; Acts xi. 21, xiv. 15, xv. 19, xxvi. 18, 20; ἐπισ- 
τροφὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν, Acts xv. 3), which proves that this cannot possibly be the 
meaning of a word which is used alike of the conversion of Jews (Acts 
iii. 19, ix. 35; 2 Cor. iii. 16) and of the conversion of sinners generally 
(Jas. v. 16f.; Mark iv. 12; Luke i. 16f., xxii. 32). Nor is this meaning 
possible in passages like Matt. ix. 22 ; Mark v. 30, viii. 33 (ef. Matt. xvi. 33); 
Acts ix. 40, xvi. 18; Rev. i. 12; nor in Gal. iv. 9, where πάλιν would then 
be superfluous. The only passages remaining where ὑποστρέφειν (cf. the 
variant readings in Luke ii. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 21) and ἀνακάμπτειν (Luke x. 6 
= Matt. x. 13) are used in practically the same sense are Mark xiii. 16 ; 
Matt. x. 13, xii. 44; Luke viii. 55, xvii. 4; Acts xv. 36; but here there is no 
reference to conversion. The attempt to give the word this meaning is not 
any more successful if “bishop” be taken as referring to God, not to Christ, 
as is done by Kühl and Weiss, without any good reason (ef. per contra, v. 4). 
Then it has also to be assumed that God was the Shepherd and Bishop of 
the souls of alleged Jewish Christians in Asia Minor before they fell into a 
heathen manner of life (iv. 2-4), from which manner of life it is assumed 
they have now returned again to their God. In proof of this fantastic 
representation of the personal history of all the Christians in Asia Minor, 
—quite as unknown to Peter as to ourselves,—it is claimed that in speaking 
of their wanderings (πλανώμενοι, not πλανώμενα), Peter compares them to 
sheep, which implies that they have always belonged to the flock of God, ve. 
the people of Israel. But suppose that Peter not only compared them with 
sheep who had gone astray, but called them that in so many words, are we 
to assume that the sheep in Matt. xxv. 32 or John x. 16 are only Jews? In 
order to escape these interpreters, Peter ought to have called his readers 
swine or dogs (Matt. vii. 16, xv. 26). Possibly not even this would have 
sufficed, since in Phil. iii. 2 Jewish Christians are called dogs ! 

7. (P. 145.) The sole source of the tradition that Peter laboured in 
Pontus and other provinces of Asia Minor is 1 Pet.i. 1. This is proved by 
the language of Origen (above, p. 152, n. 2), who refers to this work as only 
probable. Cf. what Origen says with the more definite but very brief remarks 
in Epiph. Her. xxvii. 6; Ephrem, Expos. ev. conc. 286. With regard to the 
other Syrians who refer to such work on Peter’s part, see $ 39,n. 3. Ina 
later recension of the Acts of Andrew (ed. Bonnet, 1895, pp. 9, 14, not in- 
cluded in the collected edition of the elide Acta apoer., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet), 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS τοῦ 


there is to be found a confirmation of an alleged journey of Peter and 
Andrew to Sinope: καθὼς αὐτὸς Πέτρος ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολῇ γράφει 
διεληλυθέναι Πόντον καὶ Γαλατίαν ; cf. Epiph. Mon., ed. Dressel, p. 45. So 
this story is not even a legend, to say nothing of a primitive legend (as 
affirmed by Lipsius, Die apokryph. Apostelges. ii. 1. 4), but is simply the 
fabrication of exegesis. 

8. (P. 146.) John is the only one of the evangelists who preserves the 
original Κηφᾶς (John i. 42); but the fact that he adds immediately a trans- 
lation, and from this point on throughout the book—indeed, before this point 
— uses only Πέτρος (i. 40), shows that the readers were as unfamiliar with 
Κηφᾶς as they were with Μεσσίας (for Χριστός) or ῥαββί (for διδάσκαλος) ; cf. 
i. 38, 41. That this was true even more widely, is proved by the entire 
avoidance of Κηφᾶς in the Synoptics and in Acts even where the names of 
the disciples are given (Mark iii. 16; Luke vi. 14; especially peculiar is its 
omission in Matt. xvi. 16-18, where the Aramaic Bapıova is used).  Paul’s 
constant use of Kedas in 1 Cor. (i. 12, iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5) is explained by 
the fact that he has in mind the followers of Cephas from Palestine, of whose 
language we learn in 1 Cor. xvi. 22; vol. i. 288 ff. In Galatians the tradition 
wavers, and is also rendered uncertain by the fact that the versions give no 
sure support for the correct reading, inasmuch as the Syriac versions use 
Kepha everywhere, and the Latin as well as the Greek texts of the West 
almost without exception offer Petrus. If, as the present writer believes to 
be the case, Πέτρος is to be read in Gal. ii. 7, 8 (but in i. 18, 11. 9, 11, 14 Κηφᾶς, 
ZKom. Gal. 68) the very remarkable change in ii. 9 to the Aramaic form of 
the name, after the Greek form had been used twice in ii. 7-8, is very natur- 
ally explained by the fact that thereby, just as by the use of στῦλοι, Paul 
desires to give the form of speech used by the Judaistie teachers who had 
come to Galatia from Palestine. He then retains in ii. 11, 14 the form of 
the name used by these teachers, since he wishes to place in its proper light 
an incident which had been misrepresented by them in a hostile spirit. 
This motive also suits i. 18. Cf. in addition also § 41, n. 9. The fact that a 
number of ancient writers discover in several N.T. passages a Cephas distinct 
from Peter deserves mention only as a matter of curiosity : see Clemens Al. 
in Eus. H. E. i. 12.2. (Cephas is here held to be one of the seventy dis- 
ciples ; ef. Forsch. 111. 68, and above, vol. i. 267.) ; Aypost. Const. chap. i. (Doctr. 
XII. Apost., ed. Funk, p. 50); Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, i. 421. Cf. Jerome in 
Gal. ii. (Vall. vii. 408). 

9. (P. 147.) Modern usage (“to give testimony, witness for Christ,” and 
similar expressions) very easily obscures the meaning of biblical expressions 
which sound the same. Christ Himself would not be the faithful and true 
witness (Rev. i. 5, 111. 14) had not His revelation in the world of the truth of 
salvation been based upon His own immediate knowledge (John iii. 11, 32, 
v. 31, vili. 14, xviii. 37; 1 Tim. vi. 13). Seeing and testifying are insepar- 
able (Rev. i. 2; John 1. 34; 1 Johni. 2, iv. 14). The disciples of Jesus could 
not be His witnesses unless with their own eyes they had seen Him who 
lived on earth and died and rose again, and unless they had perceived through 
all their senses His entire manifestation of Himself (John xv. 27, xxi. 24; 
Acts i. 8, 21 f., 11. 32, iii. 15, v. 32, x. 39, 41; 1 John i. 1-3; 2 Pet. i. 16-18); 
nor could Paul, had he not seen and heard Him at least once (Acts xxii. 15, 


156 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


xxvi. 16; 1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8, 15 ; and, on the other hand, cf. the distinetior 
made in Acts xiii. 31f.). With reference to Stephen, ef. Acts xxii. 20 with 
vii. 55. That Peter means in this striet sense to designate himself a witness 
of the sufferings, and so of the life of Jesus, is proved by the elause which 
follows, 6 καὶ τῆς μελλούσης ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι δόξης κοινωνός, Which does not 
mean participation purely in thought or in speech, but in fact and in person, 
Although the suffering of Christians born later than the time of Christ may 
be called fellow-suffering with Him (Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 11f.; 2 Cor. 
i. 5), that does not of itself make anyone a witness of the sufferings of Christ. 
And even if it did, in the whole of 1 Pet. no trace is to be found of personal 
suffering on the part of Peter. If the participation in the glory of Christ for 
which Peter hopes, of which, according to Mark ix. 3-12, 2 Pet. i. 16-18, 
Luke xxiv. 34, John xxi. 2-23, 1 Cor. xv. 5, Acts x. 40f., he already had a 
foretaste, is to be construed as in correlated contrast to the statement that he 
was a witness of His sufferings, then this last statement must imply also that 
Peter was an eye-witness of the Passion of Jesus. 

10. (P. 148.) That δὲ ἀναστάσεως κτλ., i. 3, is.to be taken with ζῶσαν 
instead of with avayevvnoas (thus Bengel, Hofmann), is extremely improbable. 
(1) ζῶν used attributively without the article cannot well be modified by an 
adverbial clause (cf. i. 23, ii. 4f.; John vii. 38; Acts vii. 38; Rom. xii. 1); 
(2) it would require, not διά with the genitive, but διά with the accusative 
(John vi. 57; Rom. viii. 10), or ἐξ ἀναστάσεως (John iii. 5; Rom.i.4; 2 Cor. 
xiii. 4). Of course, the interchange between “we” and “you,” which may be 
compared to the similar interchange in Eph. i. 3, 13, Gal. iii. 23-iv. 7, is not 
to be understood as implying an absolute contrast applicable without exception 
to every single sentence. That would imply, for example, that Peter and men 
like him had already ceased to believe without seeing (i. 8); or that their 
inheritance was no longer preserved in heaven, but had been already received 
by them on earth ; or that the readers had not been born again unto a living 
hope ; or that the resurrection of Christ had no significance for their regenera- 
tion (ef. per contra, 1 Pet. iii. 21). It will be noticed, however, that where Peter 
describes the Christian state from the point of view of himself, he expresses 
himself in accordance with his own experience, just as in speaking of the Chris- 
tian state of the readers he emphasises what is peculiar about their relation to 
the blessings of redemption in distinction from his own. That in i. 3, 4 he 
transfers himself vividly in imagination to the moment when he and his fellow- 
disciples were begotten again to a life of hope through the self-witness of the 
Risen Christ, is very clearly shown by the τετηρημένην ... εἰς ὑμᾶς ; since, if 
he merely intended to say here without reference to any specific point of 
time that all Christians would have to wait until the parousia in order to 
receive the inheritance which is laid up for them in heaven, it would have 
been necessary to use the expression τηρουμένην ὑμῖν, or rather ἡμῖν, But 
Peter is speaking from the point of view of the resurrection of Jesus. He 
and his fellow-disciples did not then immediately enter upon the possession 
of their inheritance (cf. Acts i. 6), but were quickened to a lively hope of the 
same, while the inheritance itself was deposited in heaven with Christ who 
had been raised to heaven (ef. Col. i. 12, iii. 2), where the inheritance had 
since been preserved. This took place, however, with a view to those who 
were to be called later, among whom the readers belonged. In order that 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 157 


these might be called and converted, the first disciples had to be content with 
expectation and hope of the inheritance which was not to be received until 
afterward. 

11. (Ρ. 148.) The interpretation of ἡ ev Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή to mean Peter’s 
wife, advanced, e.g. by Mill (Nov. Test. p. 718), and Bengel in his Gnomon, is 
not found, to the writer’s knowledge, in any aneient author. It ie true that 
Clemens Al. (Forsch. iii. 92, 102) understood by ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία, 2 John 1, 
“quandam Babyloniam Electam nomine,” a real woman named “ Eklekte,” 
although this does not prevent him from interpreting the phrase allegorically 
with reference to the Church. The fact that he places her in Babylon can 
hardly be explained otherwise than by assuming that he identifies this 
Eklekte, or her sister mentioned in 2 John 13, whose name likewise must 
have been Eklekte (if, indeed, τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς is not to be taken only as an 
appositive to σοῦ), with the Syneklekte of 1 Pet. v. 13. But of the opinion 
that she was the wife of Peter, of whom Clement relates stories elsewhere 
derived from apocryphal sources (Strom. vii. 63=Eus. H. E. i. 30.2; GK, 
ii. 828), the present writer finds no trace either in Clement or in any ancient 
writer. The Commentary of Didymus ends with 1 Pet. iv. An orator by 
the name of Chrysostom (Montfaucon, i. 821) is able to justify the contention 
that Peter had a wife only on the ground that mention is made in the Gospels 
of his mother-in-law. As a matter of fact, the opinion common in the early 
Church, that, according to Matt. xix. 27, Peter forsook even his wife (Orig. 
tom. xv. 21 in Matth. vol. iii. 683), and the consequent rejection of the 
interpretation of 1 Cor. ix. 5 to mean the wives of the apostles,—a view held 
by Clemens Al. Strom. iii. 53 (Jerome, c. Jovin. i. 26),—prevented the inter- 
pretation of 1 Pet. v. 13 to mean Peter’s wife. The first trace of this inter- 
pretation which the present writer finds is that in the somewhat confused 
account of Barhebrzeus concerning various opinions on 1 Pet. v. 13 and Acts 
xii. 12f. (ed. Klamroth, pp. 15, 29). On the other hand, the interpretation 
of the word to mean the Church of the place in question is represented by 
the insertion of ἐκκλησία before συνεκλεκτή in N, several cursives, Pesh. (“ The 
elect Church”), Vulg. (Heclesia que est in B. conelecta), Jerome (Vall. vi. 757), 
Cramer (Cat. viii. 82). That this is the correct interpretation is proved (1) 
by the fact that otherwise the relationship to Peter of the person sending 
greetings would have to be expressed, whereas the use of συν- to express the 
relation of the one sending greetings to those to whom the greetings are sent 
is entirely intelligible and sufficiently anticipated by i. 1 and ii. 9; (2) by the 
fact that a greeting from the wife of Peter te the whole Church of Asia Minor 
would presuppose a peculiar ecclesiastical importance on her part, which is 
all the more improbable because of the fact that Peter had had no direct 
relations with the readers ; (3) by the fact that there is no plausible way in 
which to explain the mention of the place where this woman was residing, 
which at that time could not have been the place of Peter’s residence. 

12. (P.149.) Ignatius, Philad. xi.2; Smyrn. xii. 1, γράφω ὑμῖν διὰ Bouppov, 
is, taken alone, quite as ambiguous as 1 Pet. v. 12. But from the analogy of 
Ignat. Rom. x. 1, γράφω ὑμῖν δι’ ᾿Εφεσίων, which manifestly describes the 
Ephesian Christians, among them Crocus (cf. Ign. “ph. ii. 1), who is men- 
tioned immediately in the same passage, as the forwarders and bearers of the 
letter, and of Polye. (ad Phil. xiv. 1), it is clear that Burrus also is simply 


158 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the bearer of the letter (cf. the writer’s Iynatius, 242 f., 262). So in the very 
common notes at the end of the Pauline Epistles, διὰ Φοίβης, ete. (Tischendorf, 
ii. 457, 568, etc.). On the other hand, it is clear that the same words can be 
used to describe the composition of a letter. Concerning the epistle which 
Clement wrote by commission and in the name of the Roman Church, with- 
out anywhere disclosing his own identity, Dionysius writes to the Romans 
(in Eus. H. E. iv. 23. 11): τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν (ἐπισ- 
roAnv ὑμῶν). Acts xv. 23 is ambiguous; for, while without any question 
Judas and Silas are deseribed as the bearers of the communication from 
the Jerusalem Church (xv. 22, 25-27, 30), it is possible that they were also 
commissioned by the assembly to prepare it. The expression γράψαντες διὰ 
χειρὸς αὐτῶν, and the fact that it is used independently along with πέμψαι 
(xv. 22, 25, 27), favour the latter view, which is also more in keeping with 
the character of the men and the commission given them. The analogous 
understanding of 1 Pet. v. 12 is anticipated by Jerome, who undertakes to 
explain the difference in style between 1 Pet. and 2 Pet. by assuming that 
he made use of different interpretes (Epist. exx. 11, ad Hedib.). Jerome makes 
no mention of Silvanus, nor does he think of a subsequent translation of 
letters written by Peter himself in a different language ; but of the writing 
of the letters by helpers having more linguistic ability than Peter, com- 
missioned by him, and in his name (cf. GK, ii. 881). In modern times a more 
or less strong influence upon the form and contents of 1 Pet. has been attri- 
buted to Silvanus by H. Ewald (Sieben Sendschreiben des NT, 1870, S. 3, 73), 
W. Grimm (ThStKr, 1872, S. 688 ff.), Spitta (Der 2 Pt. τι. Ju. 1885, S. 531). 


$ 39. TIME AND PLACE OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF 
PETER. 


The location of the Church from which greeting is sent 
to those in Asia Minor, and thus the locality where Peter 
was residing at the time, is described as Babylon. This 
does not appear to be intended as news, by which the 
readers are informed for the first time of Peter's place 
of residence. Such a communication would be without 
parallel in all other N.T. Epistles, and totally different in 
form from similar communications in other letters (n. 1). 
Assuming that the readers already know where Peter 
is staying, the name Babylon seems rather to be intended 
to deseribe the conditions by which he himself and the 
Church where he resides are surrounded. In v. 9 it was 
suggested that the whole Church throughout the world 
had to endure the same sufferings as the readers, So 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS ı1;5g 


here attention seems to be called to the fact that the 
small portion of the “brotherhood” from whom Peter 
sends greeting, and Peter himself, are in the capital of the 
empire, and so just as much strangers, far removed from 
the land of promise and the city whose true citizens are 
Christians, as the readers, who are so sorely in need of 
consolation (above, p. 140f.). If, also, we take into con- 
sideration the fact that the Church sending greetings is 
personified, being represented as the sister of the Churches 
in Asia (above, p.148), and that Mark is called the son of 
Peter only in a figurative sense, it follows, even on purely 
exegetical grounds, that it is Rome, the capital of the 
empire, which is called Babylon, the place of the writer’s 
residence. If the Babylon at the southern extremity of 
the Nile delta, or the ancient city of that name on the 
Euphrates, long destroyed (n. 2), be meant, it is impossible 
to explain how every trace of the tradition of the work of 
Peter on the Nile or the Euphrates could disappear from 
the Church as a whole, and, in particular, from the Churches 
of the lands in question. And this difficulty is increased 
by the fact that it is not a question of an accidental 
sojourn, but, as the names of two such prominent mission- 
aries as Silvanus and Mark along with that of Peter prove, 
of important missionary labours on the part of Peter in 
these countries. The Church in Alexandria and Egypt 
never attributed its founding to Peter, but always to Mark 
(§ 51, n. 8). And for centuries nothing was known in the 
tradition of the Syrian Church as to a residence of Peter 
in Babylon, until some scholars of the Middle Ages under- 
took to prove it from 1 Pet. v. 13 (n. 3). If there had 
existed such traditions as made possible the literal inter- 
pretation of the name Babylon, which was also the most 
natural one, the interpretation that makes 1 Pet. v. 13 
refer to Rome—which came more and more to be accepted, 
and which can be traced back to the beginning of the 
second century—could certainly not have been universally 


160 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


accepted ; in faet, could scarcely have arisen at all. The 
entire absence of such traditions makes it impossible to 
believe—more so, in case the letter is spurious, than if the 
letter is genuine—that the writer would lead his readers 
to suppose that he was in Egypt or Babylonia. On the 
contrary, even assuming that the letter is spurious, the 
age and general acceptance of the interpretation of 1 Pet. 
v. 13, which makes it refer to Rome, are proofs that Peter 
visited Rome. Rightful opposition to the extravagant 
claims which for more than a thousand years the Bishops 
of Rome have made on the basis of this fact, ought not so 
persistently to mislead Protestant scholars into the denial 
of the well-attested fact itself (n. 4). 

If, then, it be accepted as certain that 1 Peter was 
written in Rome, or purports to have been written there, 
the time of its composition is fixed within comparatively 
narrow limits. The story that Peter's Roman episcopate 
lasted from twenty to twenty-five years did not appear 
until after the beginning of the fourth century, and all the 
more ancient traditions affirm that Peter did not come to 
Rome until the time of Paul’s activity there ; while the few 
definite accounts which we have from the second century 
place the whole of Peter's residence and his martyrdom in 
the interval between Paul's first imprisonment in Rome 
and the second, which ended with his execution. To this 
are to be added all the indications that Peter was crucified 
late in the summer or in the autumn of the year 64 in the 
Vatican gardens, in order to satisfy the fury of Nero 
(n. 4). Moreover, with these ancient traditions agrees the 
negative testimony of the N.T. writings which cover this 
period. Leaving out of account Acts xxviii. 30 f., the 
silence of Paul concerning contemporaneous work in Rome 
on the part of Peter in the letters of the first Roman 
captivity, especially in passages like Col. iv. 10 f. and 
Phil. i. 14-18, would be inexplicable if Peter were preach- 
ing there at the time. It is even more inconceivable that 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 161 


Peter, in a letter to the Churches in Asia Minor founded 
by Paul and his helpers, should send greetings from the 
Roman Church and from Mark, and say nothing about 
Paul, if Paul were living and working in the same com- 
munity. Even assuming that the letter was written 
shortly after the death of Paul, Peter's entire silence 
regarding him could not be explained as due to tender 
regard for the Christians of Asia Minor, who were in so 
much need of comfort in other respects, but would have to 
be regarded as an extremely unnatural thing, no matter 
whether the readers learned of the apostle’s death shortly 
before receiving Peter’s letter, or were informed of it for 
the first time by the person who brought the same. On 
the other hand, everything fits together naturally, provid- 
ing we follow the tradition, freed from later fictions. If 
Mark, who, up to the time when Colossians was written, 
was known in Colossee only by name as the cousin of 
Barnabas, journeyed from Rome to Asia Minor shortly 
after the sending of Colossians, sometime during the autumn 
of 62 or the spring of 63 (Col. iv. 10), such a relation of 
Mark to the Asian Churches would have been then estab- 
lished as is presupposed in 1 Pet. v. 13. It is at least 
possible that this journey of Mark in the East was 
extended to Jerusalem, his native city, and that he 
informed his “father,” Peter, of the condition of things 
in Rome. If Peter heard of the troubles which Jewish 
Christian preachers were making for Paul in Rome (vol. 1. 
442, 543), and learned of Paul’s intention immediately 
after being liberated, as he expected to be, to go from 
Rome to the far West, it is possible that he felt called 
to go at once to the capital of the empire, now that Paul 
had left it. This was not in any sense a violation of the 
agreement made with Paul and Barnabas some twelve 
years before (vol. i. p. 266), since the Church in Rome from 
its beginning was anything but a Church founded by the 


este to the Gentiles, being composed largely of native 
VOL, II IT 


162 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Jews, part of whom were ‚Jewish Christians from Palestine 
(vol. i. pp. 421-434). If Peter reached Rome, apparently 
in company with Mark, in the autumn of 63, or even as 
late as the spring of 64, Paul was no longer there. If 
Paul had undertaken a missionary journey to Spain 
of uncertain duration, it was all the more natural for 
Peter, following Pauls example, to assume the care of the 
Churches in Asia, as he does in writing 1 Peter. By 
making use of the assistance of Silvanus, whom many of 
the Christians addressed in the letter had come to know 
in his capacity as Paul's helper, he was able the more 
easily to strike the note that would find an echo in the 
hearts of the Christians in Asia Minor who had heen 
instructed by Paul and his helpers. When Paul found 
time again to visit the East, and long before he was 
imprisoned again in Rome and executed, Peter had suffered 
martydom in that city. Peter laboured there at most not 
more than a year, possibly only part of a year. Since 
there is nothing in 1 Peter to indicate that Peter had 
recently come to Rome, and since, on the other hand, his 
residence there seems to be already known to the readers 
when he writes, it is probable that the letter was not 
written until sometime in the course of the year 64, a few 
months before its author’s death. 

1. (P. 158.) Paul always left it to the persons by whom his letters were 
dispatched to say from what point they brought his letters to the readers. 
Only in rare instances does he mention a city in such a way that his residence 
there can be inferred, e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 8. There is a certain hint in Rom. 
xvi. 1, cf. xvi. 28, which can easily be as misleading as 1 Thess. iii. 1. On the 
other hand, see Ign. Mayn. xv. ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς ᾿Εφέσιοι ἀπὸ Σμύρνης, ὅθεν καὶ 
γράφω ὑμῖν ; cf. Eph. xxi. ; Trall. xii.; Rom.x.; Philad. xi, ; Smyrn. xii. 

2. (P. 159.) Babylon in Egypt, situated between Memphis and Heliopolis, 
on the site which afterwards became Cairo, was a eity of no small importance 
(Strabo, xvii. p. 807), and is also occasionally mentioned in ecclesiastical 
literature : Athan. Hist. Artan ad mon. 72; Theodoret on Ezek. xl. (Schulze, 
ii. 929); Epiphanius (Mon., ed. Dressel, p. 6) goes so far as to call it τὴν 
μεγάλην Βαβυλῶν, Regarding the rapid decline of the ancient Babylon on the 
Euphrates, see the review in Pauly-Wissowa, RE, ii. 267911. Strabo (xvi. p. 
738) applies to it the verse, “ The great city has become a wilderness”; Pliny 
says (H. N. vi. 122) : cetero (i.e, with the exception of the temple of Bel, which 


EPISTLES OF PETER. JUDE, AND HEBREWS 163 


still remained) ad solitudinem redvit ; Pausanias says (viii. 33. 3; cf. i. 16. 3), 
speaking not with reference to his own time, but with reference to the 
time of the founding of Seleucia, that only the walls of Babylon were left. 
Of the Jews in Babylon, 1.6. in Babylonia (cf. Philo, Leg. ad Cat. xxxi. 36), it 
is possible that some few found lodging among the ruins of the ancient city 
(Theodoret on Isa. xiii., Schulze, ii. 264) ; but the great majority of them dwelt 
in the neighbouring cities of Seleucia, Nehardea, and the villages (Jos. Ant. 
xviii. 9. 1-9). 

3. (P. 159.) Probably Papias favoured the interpretation of Babylon which 
made it refer allegorically to Rome (GK, i. 888); for, according to Eus. 
H. EH. ii. 15, the story told by Clemens Alexandrinus in the sixth book of 
his Hypotyposes about the origin of Mark in Rome during the time when 
Peter was preaching there, is supported by the testimony of Papias (see below, 
§51,n.10). The further tradition given by Eusebius in the same passage, 
that Peter wrote 1 Pet. in Rome, and that Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13) is a figura- 
tive expression for Rome, cannot be traced back to Clement, a witness named 
before and alongside of Papias; for although in his comment on 1 Pet. v. 
13 he takes advantage of the occurrence of the name of Mark in order to 
speak of the Roman origin of his Gospel, he says nothing about the place 
where 1 Pet. was written, either in this passage or anywhere else in his com- 
mentary. Indeed, elsewhere he identifies Babylon with the ancient city in 
the land of the “ Parthians” (Forsch. iii. 83, 95, 102, 72 f. ; above, p. 157, n. 11). 
It was therefore probably Papias who interpreted Babylon in 1 Pet. v. 13 to 
mean Rome, as Rufinus understood him to do. With this agrees the fact 
that Papias quotes passages from 1 Pet. (according to Eus. H. E.iii. 39. 16); 
that he places high value upon the Apocalypse, which might easily suggest 
such an interpretation of Babylon ; and, finally, the fact that he interpreted 
other biblical passages allegorically (Patr. apos., ed. minor, p. 74). This 
interpretation was from the first the prevailing one in the Church, and 
continued to be so ; οἵ. Jerome, Ver. Ill. viii. ; or Hilary (of Arles?) on 1 Pet. 
v. 13 (Spieil. Casin. iii. 1. 241, where we have also the purely allegorical in- 
terpretation in confusione gentium) ; Andreas on Rev. p. 76, καὶ ἡ πρεσβυτέρα 
de Ῥώμη Βαβυλὼν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ Ilérpov προσαγορεύεται ; Cramer, Cat. viii. 
82; Schol. in Matt. pp. 80, 205; and Tischendorf. Similarly there does not 
exist any tradition worthy of credence concerning the residence of Peter on 
the Euphrates. That Clement was not familiar with any such tradition, is 
sufficiently proved by the fact that he says nothing about it in connection 
with 1 Pet. v. 13 and 2 John 1, 13 (above, p. 157). In the Acts of Philip, 
which were not written before 400, and which are absurd in character (Acta 
apoer., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part 2. 16. 7; cf. Forsch. vi. 18-24), it is 
related that Philip went to the land of the Parthians, and in a certain place 
(ἔν τινι πόλει) found Peter. If there were any connection between this story 
and 1 Pet. v. 13, it would be indicated by the use of the name Babylon. 
Nor is there any independent tradition behind the story ; for, in addition, 
Philip finds there John (op. cit. p. 162), who had just as little to do with 
the Parthians as did Philip himself. Cosmas Indicopleustes, who questioned 
the genuineness of the Catholic Epistles (@K, ii. 232), cites 1 Pet. v. 13 
once (Montfaucon, Coll. nov. Patrwm, ii. 147f.), without so much as saying 
that it was written by Peter, making the reference apparently only in 


164 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


order not to omit mention of the fact that there is in the N.T. an uncertain 
suggestion of an early spread of Christianity in Mesopotamia. He makes 
Thaddeus the missionary of Persia. According to the more ancient tradition, 
Thomas was the apostle to Parthia, to which territory Babylon belonged 
(Origen in Eus. H. E. iii. 1. 1; Clement, Recoyn. ix. 29; Ephr. Expos. ev. 
concord. 286; Rufin. H. E.i. 6; Socr. H. E.i. 19). This is not contradicted 
by the other tradition, likewise ancient, which makes Thomas the apostle of 
India ; indeed, there is a certain connection between the two, since in the 
latter at least the bones of Thomas, who died in India, are represented as 
being brought to Mesopotamia, or more specifically to Edessa (Acta Thome, 
Supplement, Cod. apocr., ed. Bonnet, 94. 10, 131. 18, 159. 15; Acta apoer., 
ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part 2,286.11; Ephr. Curm. Nisib. xlii.; Chron. Edess. 
ce. xxxviil. Ixi., ed. Hallier, 61f., 103, 111; Rufin. H. E. ii. 5; also Chrysostom, 
Montf. xii. 237, makes reference to the same). On the other hand, neither 
are there traces of any tradition of Peter’s activity in Babylon among the 
interpreters of the Antiochian school, nor in the Syrian national Church. The 
“Teaching of Addai,” the essential parts of which were known to Eusebius 
(H. E. i. 13), makes Thomas the principal leader of missionary work in the 
East, who sent Addai, one of the seventy or seventy-two disciples, to Edessa 
(ed. Phillips, p. 5). On the other hand, it is Peter who sends the Epistles 
of Paul from Rome to the Syrian Christians (p. 46). This legend knows 
nothing of an Antiochian episcopate of Peter, but is familiar only with his 
Roman episcopate; for it is only through the mediation of Peter’s Roman 
colleague that Serapion of Antioch receives ordination as a bishop, an impri- 
matur which goes back ultimately to Peter. Among the places where Peter 
preached, Ephrem mentions besides Rome only the districts in Asia Minor 
mentioned in 1 Pet. i. 1 (Expos. ev. conc. 286 ; above, p. 154; ef. Hymn. ed. Lamy, 
i. 342, 712, Peter in Rome ; Carm. Nisib. lix. 2f.; Expos. ev. conc. 231, 237, 
crucified head downward). The Syriac “ Teaching of the Apostles,” of a 
somewhat late date, mentions Addai as the missionary of northern Mesopo- 
tamia, and his follower Aggai as the founder of the Churches in “the regions 
about Babylon” and in the lands lying farther east. On the other hand, 
according to this same account, Peter founded Churches in Antioch and the 
parts of Syria adjacent, in Pontus and other provinces of Asia Minor, before 
he went from Antioch to Rome, where, with Paul, he suffered martyrdom 
under Nero (Cureton, Ancient docwments, 33, 34, 35). It also quotes among 
the letters of the apostles, ‘‘ What Simon wrote from Rome ” (p. 32), .e. 1 Pet., 
and interprets Babylon to mean Rome, Cf. the note at the end of a MS of 
the sixth or seventh century (Wright, Catal. p. 82), “The end of the letter 
of the apostle Peter, written from Rome.” Similarly the confused views 
about Rome or Rhode, a daughter of Peter, of which Barhebraeus gives an 
account in connection with 1 Pet. v.13; Acts xii. 12, 13 (above, p. 157, n. 11), 
are to be traced back ultimately to the interpretation of Babylon to mean 
Rome. [Barhebreeus himself understands the “ Church,” which he read in 
the Syriac text of 1 Pet. v. 13 (above, p. 157), to mean “ The assembly of the 
apostles in Jerusalem”; and “Babylon” he takes as referring to the upper 
room, Acts i. 13, where he represents the Pentecostal miracle and many 
others to have taken place. Possibly with this view of Barhebraeus is to 
be connected the no less remarkable statement about 1 Pet. to be found in 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 165 


Syncellus, ad A. M. 5540 (ed. Bonn, 627), ἄλλοι δὲ ἀπὸ Ἰόππης φασὶ γεγράφθαι, 
where there is an evident attempt to connect the letter with Acts ix. 36-x. 
23.] The Syriac “Teaching of Simon Kepha” (Cureton, Ane. doc. 35-40) 
deals only with the twenty-five years of Peters labours in Rome. The Acta 
Maris (ed. Abbeloos, 1885, dated by the editor in the fifth or sixth century) 
speak of Peter in Rome (pp. 31, 35), and describe the founding of the Church 
in Babylonia by Mare (47 ff.) without any suggestion of earlier, perhaps fruit- 
less, preaching by the apostle in the same regions. George, bishop of the 
Arabians (translation by Ryssel, S. 58), writing in the eighth century, speaks 
of “ Peter and Paul in Antioch and Rome and the regions adjacent,” but 
says nothing more. Likewise Solomon of Bassora, writing in 1220 (transla- 
tion by Schönfelder, S. 77), says, “In Antioch one year, in Rome twenty- 
seven.” The only missionaries of Mesopotamia in general—particularly of 
Babylonia—known to Ebedjesu (Assemani, Bibl. or. iii. 2. 4) are Thomas, 
Bartholomew, Addai, and Mare. When, therefore, Amrus and Jeshujab 
(Assemani, iii. 2. 6f.; cf. also Abbeloos, p. 10) claim with express reference 
to 1 Pet. v. 13 that Peter also was in Babylon, it is perfectly clear that this 
is not Syrian tradition, but only a product of later erudition. Lipsius’ 
claim, based upon these quotations (Apokr. apostelgesch. ii. part 1. 3, n. 3, 
ii. part 2. 145), that from the first the Syrian Church was unanimous in its 
interpretation of 1 Pet. v. 13 to mean Babylon proper, and held the corre- 
sponding form of the tradition, is a strange perversion of the actual facts in 
the case, while his further conjecture that the tradition of Simon Peter’s 
presence in Babylon was supplanted by the tradition of the work of Simon 
Zelotes in these regions (ii. part 2. 146, Supplement, S. 32) is without founda- 
tion, because the latter tradition was just as much unknown among the 
Syrians as the former. It should be mentioned also that the pseudo-Moses 
of Chorene (Chron. ii. 33, translated by Lauer, 8. 94; A. Carriere, La légende 
@ Abgar, ete., 1895, p. 406), in his letter from Abgar to Nerseh in Babylon 
inserts a prophecy about the coming of Simon, 1.6. Peter, to Babylon. Erbes 
(Z/KG, 1901, S. 18 f.), who blindly follows Lipsius in respect of the Syrian 
tradition, feels the insufliciency of his evidence against the Roman sojourn 
of Peter, and takes refuge in the desperate assumption that by Babylon 
(1 Pet. v. 13) Jerusalem is to be understood. 

4, (P. 160.) Among the martyrs whose murder is to be avenged by the 
overthrow of Babylon are to be found, according to Rev. xviii. 20 (cf. xvii. 6, 
xix. 2), also apostles. Now it is true that Babylon in Rev. is-not entirely 
synonymous with Rome, but is a metaphorical name for the imperial city 
in every age, especially in the last age. When, however, this book was written 
the imperial city was Rome. And if more than one apostle had not suffered 
martyrdom in Rome, then no apostles’ blood had been shed in the imperial 
city, and the sentence is meaningless. What other apostle’s name occurs 
so naturally in connection with Paul as that of Peter? Lipsius’ argument 
against this interpretation (A pokr. apostelgesch. ii. 1) requires no refutation. 
The series of witnesses for Peter’s presence in Rome, who mention him by 
name, begins with Clemens Romanus (above, 60, 68 ff.). The second witness 
is Ignatius; for although the thought that he was not in a position to 
give commandments to the Church like an apostle is expressed elsewhere 
(Thrall. iii. 3; ef. Eph. xi. 2-xii. 2), only in his letter to the Romans does he 


166 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


use these words, οὐχ ὡς Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος ὑμῖν διατάσσομαι (iv. 3). Since, 
however, there is no suggestion of a letter from Peter to the Roman Church, 
Ignatius’ statement must mean that Peter had had to do with the Romans 
in person. In all probability the third witness is Papias (above, p. 163, 
and below, § 51, n. 10). As the fourth, the present writer, with greater con- 
fidence, mentions Marcion. By changing the text of Phil. 1. 15-18, especially 
by inserting the οὐδέν por διαφέρει of Gal. ii. 6, he forces the reader to 
his view that Paul is referring in this passage to Peter and his companions 
(GK, i. 592, A. 3, 648; ii. 528). In Marcion’s text, Col. iv. 11 and Phil. 
i. 15-18 were written on the same page, so that he also maintained that the 
persons referred to in the former passage were there called Jewish preachers 
in Rome by Paul, who could not have recognised them as his fellow- 
labourers. No one claims that Marcion was ignorant of the composition 
of Phil. in Rome, or that he denied it, so that he must have held that 
Peter was actively engaged as a preacher of the gospel in the vicinity of 
Paul while he was a prisoner in Rome. Connected with the testimony 
of Marcion is that of Dionysius of Corinth, Irensus, Canon Muratori (to 
the extent that it connects the Passio Petri with the departure of Paul 
from Rome to Spain), already discussed (above, p. 73 ff.), also that of Caius 
of Rome, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Petrus Alexandrinus, Lactantius, 
and all the later authors, including the Syrians, who made no effort to take 
Peter away from the Romans in order that they might claim him for them- 
selves (above, p. 163f.). There is to be added also the testimony of Clemens 
Alexandrinus in two passages of his Hypotyposes mentioned above, p. 163, 
n. 3 (Lib. vi. fragments 15, 16; and on 1 Pet. v. 13, Forsch. iii. 72, 83, 95). 
This testimony is limited to the preaching of Peter in Rome and the origin 
of Mark, and contains no indication as to date. Of course, Eusebius’ 
appeal to the authority of Clement (H. E. ii. 15. 2) cannot be made to 
cover the whole narrative from ii. 13 on. Even that which immediately 
precedes the appeal to Clement in Eusebius’ account—leaving out of account 
the fact that he appeals at the same time to the authority of Papias—is only 
partly Clement’s, since it contradicts Clement’s own statements which have 
been accurately handed down to us (Forsch. iii. 72, A. 1, and below, § 51, nn. 
8,9). In addition, we have also the legends belonging between 160 and 190, 
especially the Acts of Peter, a Gnostic document (above, p. 73f.). In all 
authors heretofore mentioned, when chronological data are given at all, it is 
no more than the general statement that the two apostles worked in Rome, 
and suffered martyrdom at about the same time ; while a few others, such as 
Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius, aflirm that the apostles were put to death 
by Nero. In the Acts of Peter, on the other hand, we have the more definite 
statement that the whole Roman residence of Peter and his martyrdom fell 
in the one year which, according to this same document, intervened between 
the first and second Roman imprisonments of Paul, and was occupied by his 
Spanish journey (above, pp. 62-67, 73-84), This same representation of the 
matter comes to view in the Canon Muratori, since this does not bring 
together the martyrdom of the two apostles, but the Spanish journey of Paul 
and the martyrdom of Peter. The fact that the Acts of Peter place the whole 
of Peter’s Roman residence in the reign of Nero, and nevertheless make 
Peter leave Jerusalem for Rome twelve years after the beginning of the 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 167 


apostolic preaching (Lipsius, 49. 11), is not to be explained as due to an 
impossible chronological reckoning, but to the naive combining—quite in 
keeping with the fantastic character of this work of Leucius—of the 
prevailing tradition, according to which both Peter and Paul worked in 
Rome and were put to death under Nero, with a saying of Jesus which the 
author took from a much older work, namely, The Preaching of Peter (Clem. 
Strom. vi. 43 ; GK, ii. 821). The latter writing, which claims to be a work 
of Peter himself, while possibly containing a prophetic reference to the death 
of Peter, naturally contains no account of the same (GK, ii. 820-832). It 
is also to be observed that none of the writers mentioned considered Peter 
as bishop of Rome. Leaving out of account Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and 
Clemens Alexandrinus, who make no definite statements about the relation 
of Peter to the Roman Church, Dionysius (Hus. ii. 25. 8), Irenzeus (iii. 1. 1, 
3. 2, 3), Caius (Hus. ii. 25. 7) speak of Peter and Paul as the missionary 
preachers through whom the Roman Church was founded. Linus and his 
successors on the Roman throne are not as bishops successors of Peter. 
Not Peter, but “the apostles,” gave Linus his episcopal office (Iren. iii. 
3. 3). The Roman bishops were counted from Linus, who was reckoned as 
the first bishop; they were not designated first, second, third after Peter, 
but from the time of the apostles (ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων). The different 
reckoning to be found in Ireneus, i. 27. 1, iii. 4. 3, which presupposes that 
there wasa bishop preceding Linus, namely, Peter, isa falsification, inconsistent 
with the fundamental views of Irenzeus; and that it is an error is confirmed 
by text tradition. Even Epiphanius (Her. xxvii. 6), who makes use in this 
passage among other authorities of reports of Hegesippus (cf. Lightfoot, 
Clement, i. 328 f., cf., however, Forsch. vi. 260), mentions as the first of the 
Roman bishops not Peter, but “Peter and Paul,” beginning with these 
very clear words: ἐν Ῥώμῃ yap γεγόνασι πρῶτοι Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος ἀπόσ- 
τολοι καὶ ἐπίσκοποι. Even the ancient Acts of Peter and the Acts of Paul 
make the two apostles simply preachers of the gospel in Rome, labouring 
hand in hand ; there is no suggestion that Peter oceupied the position of 
a bishop in Rome (GK, ii. 840). And the same is true even of the late re- 
censions of the legends, e.g. the so-called “ Linus,” and the combined Acts 
of Peter and Paul. Obscure, to say the least, is the indication of Peter’s 
bishopric in Rome to be derived from the fact that Tertullian makes Clement 
receive ordination from Peter alone (Preser. xxxii.; but ef. chap. xxxvi.). 
It is not until the middle of the third century that we find the Roman 
bishopric clearly represented as the cathedra Petri, e.g. in Cyprian (Epist. 
ly. 8, lix. 14), and in a sermon of practically the same date in Cyprian’s 
name by a Roman bishop, de Aleatoribus, chap. i., and in the fabricated letter 
of Clement to James (Clementina, ed. Lagarde, 6), which can hardly be of 
an earlier date. Leaving out of account the end of the Teaching of Addat 
(ed. Phillips, Syr. 52, Eng. 50), concerning which it may be questioned 
whether the conclusion belonged originally to this writing, the other parts 
of which are to be dated prior to Eusebius, Eusebius is the first known 
writer who states that Peter was bishop of the Roman Church for a definite 
number of years. But in the ecclesiastical history and in other works where 
he speaks of Peter in Rome (Demonstratio evang., de Theophania), he never calls 
him a bishop, and in speaking of the Roman bishops he always uses the ancient 


168 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


mode of expression already mentioned (H. E. iii. 21.2). Nor does he say 
anything as to the time when Peter left Antioch and Euodius succeeded 
him there (iii, 22, 36. 2). The time of Peter’s arrival in Rome he indicates 
very indefinitely (ii. 14. 6 under Claudius) ; and this disagrees with the date 
given in the Chronicle, which was written earlier. All this goes to show 
that Eusebius placed no reliance whatever upon the dates given in the 
Chronicle, which, though definite, are self-contradictory. In the Chronicle 
(Armenian version), under the date anno Abrah. 2055 (a.p, 39)=the third year 
of Caius, he remarks that Peter came to Rome after the founding of the 
Church in Antioch, and lived there as head of the Church for twenty years ; 
but he does not make Euodius succeed Peter as bishop of Antioch until anno 
Abrah. 2058 (A.D. 42)=the second year of Claudius. Generally, the Roman 
episcopate of Peter is placed at “twenty-five years” instead of twenty ; so, 
6... in the list of bishops in the Roman Chronicle of 354 (Catal. Liberianus 
in Duchesne, Lib. pont. i. 2). Incorporated in this Chronicle is a depositio 
martyrum (op. cit. p. 11), which shows that Peter’s induction into the office 
of bishop was celebrated on viii. Kal. Mart.; see also the Chronicle of 
Eusebius as revised by Jerome under the date anno Abrah. 2058 (A.D. 
42)=second year of Claudius (cf. Vir. Ill. i.); also the Teaching of Addai 
and the majority of later catalogues (cf., however, Duchesne, Lib. pont. 
i. 16, 34, 39, 40). This is not the place in which to investigate the origin 
of the sacred number 25, which possibly may be only an expression in 
round numbers for “something more than twenty years.” It is perfectly 
evident, however, that Eusebius, who did not find and who does not give 
any definite tradition about the time of Peter’s death (above, p. 78 f.), 
did not get his twenty years by counting back from the year of Peter's 
death. On the other hand, from the ecclesiastical history we learn what 
it was that led him to assume this long residence of Peter in Rome, in 
contradiction to the universal testimony of the early Church and the 
indirect testimony of the N.T. From Justin (Apol. i. 26) and Irenzeus 
(i. 23. 1), Eusebius was acquainted with the tradition that Simon Magus 
came to Rome in the reign of Claudius, and was there deified (H. E. ii. 
13. 2-5). Now, the tradition that Simon came to Rome in the reign of 
Claudius can hardly be due toa misinterpretation of the inscription on a 
statue of the Sabine god, Semo Sancus, which stood on the island in the 
Tiber, a misinterpretation reproduced in Justin, Ireneus, Tertullian, and 
many later writers (see Otto on Just. Apol. i. 26; Ohler on Tert. A pol. xiii.), 
and which in different form is made use of in the ancient Acts of Peter 
(ed. Lipsius, 57. 24). Rather does the misinterpretation of the inscription 
presuppose the tradition about Simon. There is nothing about the inscrip- 
tion to suggest the time of Claudius (0. I. L. vi. 1, No. 567), and there is 
nothing in the account in Acts viii. which could suggest its dating in this 
reign. Furthermore, only if it were already known from other sources that 
Simon Magus was once in Rome, could it possibly occur to anyone that this 
statue and its inscription had reference to him, Consequently, it follows 
that before the middle of the second century it was generally believed in 
Rome that Simon lived there, and carried on his work under Claudius ; and 
the present writer knows no reason why this should not be regarded as a 
genuine tradition. Now, in the Acts of Peter (written between 160 and 170), 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS τόρ 


a book which was much read in the East as well as in the West (GK, ii. 
843-848), we have the account of numerous contests in Rome between 
Simon Magus and Peter, all of them connected more or less closely with 
Acts viii. (@K, ii. 854). To be sure, these contests are said to have taken 
place in the reign of Nero, while Paul was occupied with his Spanish journey ; 
but in this same story the tradition which connects Simon Magus with 
Claudius has apparently a certain connection with the anachronistic state- 
ment that these took place twelve years after the beginning of the apostolic 
preaching (above, p. 166, last line). With this tradition is to be connected 
the story (Acta Petri, pp. 48. 19 ff., 49. 21 ff.) that immediately after the first 
appearance of the Magician in Rome, Peter in Jerusalem received the divine 
command to go to Rome in order to combat him. Under the influence of 
this narrative, especially of the proofs there adduced of the divine guidance 
in the whole matter (Acta Petri, pp. 49. 17-31, 51. 25-31, 52. 17), Eusebius 
writes that shortly after the appearance of Simon Magus in Rome, while 
Claudius was still on the throne (H. E. ii. 14. 6, παρὰ πόδας γοῦν ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς 
Κλαυδίου βασιλείας), Divine Providence sent Peter to Rome to oppose him. 
When, on the other hand, the persecution of Christians by Nero was regarded 
as the climax of his atrocities, and in consequence of this the martyrdom of 
the two apostles was brought down toward the end of his reign (above, p. 78), 
Peter’s residence in Rome is made to cover more than a decade. Eusebius 
was not the only writer—perhaps he was not the first one—who was led by 
the Acts of Peter, through the combination of the tradition of Simon Magus’ 
residence in Rome under Claudius with the tradition of Peter’s martyrdom in 
Rome under Nero, to assume a long Roman episcopate of Peter. Once it had 
arisen and become current, the story lost all connection with its sources. Even 
in the Chronicle of the year 354 the twenty-five years’ episcopate is treated as 
an independent date, and incredibly enough is placed between 30 and 55 a.p., 
both in the list of bishops and in the Fasti Consulares (cf. Mommsen, Chron. 
min. i. 57, 73). The later Lib. pontyf. retains the twenty-five years, although 
it places both the arrival of Peter in Rome and his death in the reign of 
Nero, which covered only thirteen years (Duchesne, i. 50, 118). With 
regard to the manner of Peter’s death, in 2 Pet. i. 14 the expectation is 
expressed, based upon a prediction of Christ’s, that he will die a quick, 1.6. a 
sudden and violent, death. When John xxi. 18-23 was written, it must have 
been generally known that Peter was crucified prior to the destruction of 
Jerusalem. While Clement (ad Cor. v., see above, p. 68 ff.), Canon Muratori, 
and many other writers merely say that he died a martyr’s death, from 
Tertullian on there is frequent mention of his crucifixion in Rome (above, p. 
76f.). It is not possible certainly to determine from Origen (c. Cels. ii. 14. 
ef. Kus. Chron. under anno A brah. 2048) whether this report had been heard by 
Phlegon, a manumitted slave of Hadrian’s. The legend that he was crucified 
head downward is evidently an invention of the Gnostic Acts of Peter, which 
date from about the year 170 (ed. Lipsius, p. 92 ff.),—an invention, however, 
which is accepted by Origen as true (Eus. H. E. iii. 1.2). The way is prepared 
for this story by the conversation between Peter, as he was fleeing from Rome, 
and Christ who appeared to him, in which Christ says first, εἰσέρχομαι eis τὴν 
Ῥώμην σταυρωθῆναι, and then vai, Ilerpe, πάλιν σταυροῦμαι (p. 88. 9, cf. GK, 
il. 846). The common source of this story and that of the crucifixion of 


170 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Peter head downward is evidently the ambiguous saying of Christ which 
Origen (in Jo. tom. xx. 12) quotes from the Catholic Acts of Paul, ἄνωθεν 
(i.e. denuo, but also desuper) μέλλω σταυρωθῆναι. Since, for chronological and 
other reasons, it is unlikely that the author of the Acts of Peter made use of 
the Acts of Paul, it is probable that the author of the Gnostie Acts of Peter 
and the author of the Catholic Acts of Paul, who wrote not much later, took 
the story from an older source, probably the “ Preaching of Peter.” For the 
original meaning of the saying, which possibly had nothing whatever to do 
with the death of Peter, see GK, ii. 878. In view of these facts, it is alto- 
gether unlikely that the story of Peter’s crucifixion head downward is 
historical. On the other hand, there is no reason to call in question the 
Roman local tradition, firmly established by the year 210, and so certainly 
not due to a sudden new discovery or invention, that Paul was beheaded on 
the Via Ostiensis and Peter crucified near the Mons Vaticanus, and that both 
were buried near the places where they were executed (above, p. 81f.). Had 
there been an inclination to supply by invention what could not be certainly 
known,—in view of the connecting of Peter and Paul, which was quite 
universal from the time of Clemens Romanus,—it would have been natural to 
think of them as united in death and burial. On the Mons Vaticanus, in 
the Ager Vaticanus, were the gardens of Agrippina and Domitia, both of 
which became the property of Nero. According to Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44), it 
was in these extensive pleasure-grounds that the terrible executions of 
Christians took place in the year 64 (hortos swos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat), 
and among those sacrificed were also crucibus afiai. The agreement of this 
statement with the tradition about the manner and place of Peter’s death has 
all the more weight, because the tradition of the early Church shows no 
connection between the martyrdom of Peter and the burning of Rome, much 
less does it show affinities with the description of Tacitus. Only by taking 
chap. vi. of Clement’s letter in connection with chap. v. is it possible to infer 
any connection between the scenes described by Tacitus and the death of at 
least one of the apostles. 'To these considerations is to be added the fact that 
the entire Roman residence of Peter must fall in the interval between the 
first and second Roman imprisonments of Paul (above, p. 160 f.), 2.e. between the 
autumn of 63 and the autumn of 66. There is consequently nothing in the 
way of the assumption, made so natural by traditions which there is no reason 
to suspect, that Peter perished late in the summer of 64 as a victim of Nero’s 
attack upon the Christians in Rome. Baur (Christent. der drei ersten Jahrh. 
2te Aufl. 86-93, 141-145 ; Paulus, 2te Aufl. 246-272) believed that the entire 
tradition of Peter’s residence in Rome, which has just been examined, could 
be explained from the pseudo-Clementine Romance and so refuted ; and this 
view has been taken up and further developed especially by Lipsius (Quellen der 
römischen Petrussage, 1872; JbPTh, 1876; Apocryph. A postelges. ii. part 1. 11, 
28-69, 358-364 ; Supplement, 32-34). Since in this literature Simon Magus, 
with whom Simon Peter wages constant and successful contests, is only a mask 
for Paul, and not in any sense an historical person, the entire tradition about 
Peter in Rome is only the presentation in historical form of the thought that 
the Christianity preached in Rome by Paul was to be overcome by Jewish 
Christianity represented by Peter, or that it was to lose its detested 
peculiarities through union with its opposite. With regard to this view 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 171 


the following brief remarks may be made :—(1) The pseudo-Clementine 
Romance was not known in the West until Rutinus translated one recen- 
sion of the same into Latin in 400 (ef. the same author’s Prefatio ad 
Gaudentium). Even Jerome (Vir. Ill. xv.), speaking with regard to this 
literature, is able only to repeat in a very inaccurate way what he had 
read in Eus. H.E. iii. 38. 5. It is entirely inconceivable that the entire 
tradition of the Western Church concerning Peter in Rome should rest 
upon an appropriation and an entire misunderstanding of the Ebionitie 
legend as to the identity of Simon Magus and Paul. (2) Peter’s presence 
and martyrdom in Rome were known to the Roman Church as early as 
the year 96 (above, pp. 61 f., 68 f.). The pseudo-Clementine Romance 
could not possibly have been written before 160, and in all probability 
originated in the course of the third century. (8) In both the existing 
recensions of the Romance it ends with the arrival of Peter in Antioch, 
whither Simon Magus had gone before him. That there was another 
recension of this Ebionitie legend, which included the work of Peter in 
Rome, and dealt with his contests with Simon Magus there, is merely a 
conjecture for which there is no proof. In the two existing recensions there 
are only two brief hints that in his preaching journeys Peter finally reached 
Rome (Hom. i. 16; Rec. i. 18, 74). Assuming that the letter of Clement to 
James is an integral part of the Homilies, this merely presupposes that Peter 
was a bishop in Rome, appointed Clement his successor, and died a martyr’s 
death after having borne testimony to Christ publicly before the emperor 
(Epist. Clem. ad Jac. i.). There is no suggestion that the Magician went to 
Rome and was there overcome by Peter. According to Hom. xx. 13-17, 22, 
the Magician did not go from Antioch to Rome, but fled to Judea in order to 
escape the officers of the Roman emperor. We have the same testimony in 
Rec. x. 55-59. Quite inconsistently with this statement in Rec. iii. 63-64, 
ef. ii. 9 (Hom. ii. 27 is only remotely parallel to the latter passage), we have 
references to the miracles, the deification, and the statue of Simon in Rome. 
But not even here do we find any statements about contests in Rome between 
him and Peter. (4) In the Ebionitie literature, Simon Magus was not 
always the mask for Paul. In those portions which show the marks of 
greatest age, Paul is sometimes combated in his own name (Epiph. Her. 
xxx. 16), sometimes opposed anonymously, being styled simply a “hostile 
man” (Rec. i. 70, 71; Epist. Petri ad Jac. chap, ii.); but he is distinguished 
from Simon Magus (Eee. 1. 72). Even in the Clementine Homilies, in which 
alone Simon Magus stands as a veiled representative of Paul (Hom. xvii. 
13-19; ef. ii. 22, xi. 35, xvii. 5, xix. 22), Paul is not the only person 
whom he represents. Simon Magus has a history, and teaches a doctrine 
which certainly cannot be regarded as simply a caricature of the life and 
teaching of Paul (Hom. ii. 22-32, xviii. 6, 12; Rec. i. 72, ii. 5-15, 38f., 
49 ff., iii. 47). On the contrary, there are essential points in which this 
picture of Simon Magus agrees with the statements of Justin (Apol. i. 26, 
ef. i. 56, ii. 15; Dial. cxx.), who was a Samaritan, and could have had no 
knowledge of the pseudo-Clementine Romance. The picture also has points 
of contact with the hints in Acts (viii. 9f.; cf. Klostermann, Probleme im 
4posteltext, 15-21), which was written approximately a hundred years before 
the earliest possible date of the Clementine Romance. (5) The idea of 


172 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


representing and combating Paul under the figure of Simon Magus—-which 
is carried out for the first time in the Homilies of Clement, but not as yet in 
other writings representiug the same tendeney—could not have arisen unless 
Simon Magus already stood for the type of religious teacher who was 
Christian in name but in reality was anti-Christian, and unless he was 
generally known in Catholic Christendom which this Ebionitie literature was 
designed to influence. (6) Even assuming that in Justin much that is un- 
historical is combined with the ancient, genuine tradition, and suspecting as 
much as we will, the alleged writings of Simon Magus (Hippol. Refut. iv. 51, 
vi. 9ff.; Jerome in Matt. xxiv. 5, Vall. vii. 193; Const. ap. vi. 16; Maruta, 
de synodo Nic., translated by Braun in Knöpfler’s Kirchengesch. Stud. iv. 3. 47), 
we must nevertheless admit that in the middle of the second century and 
long afterwards there existed a sect which bore Simon’s name, and which in 
a certain sense could claim te be Christian (Just. Ap. i. 26, speaking of 
Simon, Menander, and Marcion, πάντες οἱ ἀπὸ τούτων ὁρμώμενοι Χριστιανοὶ 
καλοῦνται). The first would have been impossible had Simon Magus existed 
only in imagination and in the partisan narratives of Ebionitic sects and 
writings. The second fact presupposes that the historical Simon Magus 
modified his original teaching, which was totally unchristian in character, 
through contact with Christianity and by the adoption of Christian elements, 
and that in this modified form it was promulgated by a party bearing his 
name. It is altogether likely that after his hypocritical conversion (Acts 
viii. 13-24) he taught the doctrine, the principal tenet of which is found in 
Iren. i. 23. 1. (7) The tradition concerning Simon Magus in Rome, which 
probably has some historical foundation (above, p. 168), as it appears in 
Justin, Irensus, and Tertullian, has no connection with the tradition con- 
cerning Peter and Paul in Rome; while, on the other hand, in Dionysius of 
Corinth, Irensus, Tertullian, and Lactantius (probably also in the ancient 
Acts of Paul, GK, ii, 884), the tradition about Peter and Paul appears without 
any connection with that about Simon Magus. ‘The first writer who to our 
knowledge combined these two traditions was the author of the Acts of Peter 
(circa 170 A.D.), who was ἃ fabricator though not a finished one. His com- 
bination of these two independent traditions was not due to the influence 
of the Ebionitie legend. (a) The romance through which we learn of this 
legend was not yet written ; (b) it contains no narrative about the contests 
in Rome between Simon Magus and Simon Peter; moreover, (6) the author 
of these Acts, who belonged to the school of Valentinus, was not at all likely 
to allow himself to be influenced by such a source. The attempt of Erbes 
(Z/KG, 1901, S. 1-47, 161-224) to prove that Peter never visited Rome, and 
that he was crucified not in Rome but in Jerusalem, gives no occasion for 
correcting or enlarging what was said above, pp. 68 f. and 162-172, nn. 2-4, 
It is sufliciently charaeterised by the manner in which Erbes agrees with the 
oldest witnesses. Concerning 1 Pet. v, 13, see above, p. 163, n. 3); with 
what Erbes (22 ff.) says concerning Clemens, Romanus, and Tgnatius, ef. above, 
pp. 68f., 165, n. 4. He does not think it worth while to take Rev. xviii. 20 
(xvii. 6, xix. 2) and Mareion into consideration. On the other hand, we 
learn that neither Irenw#us nor the author of the Acts of Peter was ac- 
quainted with John xxi. (p. 165), and that the one hundred and fifty-three 
fishes (John xxi. 11), under the tacit presupposition of the Dionysian Era, 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS _ 173 


refers to the year 153 A.p., in which year Anicetus and Polycarp in Rome 
came to an agreement concerning the tradition of Peter’s presence in that 
eity, pp. 10, 219. 


8 40. THE GENUINENESS OF THE FIRST EPISTLE 
OF PETER. 


The external evidence for the genuineness of the letter 
is strong; it is known and quoted as the work of the 
Apostle Peter by two men who were disciples of apostles, 
and also bishops of two of the Churches belonging to the 
group to which the letter purports to be addressed, Poly- 
carp of Smyrna and Papias of Hieropolis (n. 1). Polycarp 
was baptized probably in the year 69, some five years 
after the probable date of the composition of the Epistle 
(Forsch. vi. 94ff.). It is not at all likely that at this 
early date the Churches in Smyrna and Hieropolis could 
be deceived into accepting as an Epistle of Peter’s written 
in the year 64 a letter forged in his name in the year 100. 

As regards the character of the letter, we are unable 
to test it by comparison with writings of the same author 
regarding which there is no question. 2 Peter is one of 
the most suspected documents in the N.T.; and even if it 
should be proved genuine, its comparison with 1 Peter as 
regards point of view and style would not prove much, 
because of the important part that Silvanus took in the 
composition of 1 Peter, whereas in 2 Peter there is no 
evidence that the author made use of an amanuensis. 
While the discourses of Peter in Acts may faithfully 
reproduce his thought, and give a true picture of his 
manner of preaching, it is altogether unlikely that the 
form in which Luke reproduces them is derived from notes 
made at the time. But leaving out of account altogether 
the many changes which may have taken place in these 
discourses in the course of their transmission to Luke, and 
which may have been made by Luke himself in committing 
them to writing, and disregarding the influence which 


174 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Silvanus may have had in determining the form of 1 Peter, 
there is all the difference in the world between discourses 
which Peter delivered in the early days of the Church 
to the populace and the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, in the 
house of Cornelius at Ceesarea, or later in Jerusalem before 
the Apostolic Council, and a letter which he directed 
Silvanus to write from Rome to the Gentile Christian 
Churches in Asia Minor at a much later time, and in alto- 
gether different circumstances (ἢ. 2). All that can be 
claimed is that the impression of Peter’s religious attitude 
and ecclesiastical position, which we get from Acts and 
the Epistles of Paul, agrees perfectly with the manner in 
which he conceives his new task in 1 Peter. Here we find 
the same unhesitating recognition of the divinely blessed 
labours of the missionaries among the Gentiles, and of the 
equal Christian standing of Gentile Christians and Jewish 
members of the mother Church (Gal. 11. 7-10; Acts x. 47, 
xi. 17, xv. 7-11; ef. 1 Pet. i. 4-12, ii. 3-10, v. 12); the 
same concentration of the gospel message upon the death 
on the Cross, the Resurrection, and the Second Coming of 
Christ (1 Cor. xv. 3-5, 11; Acts ii. 23-36, 11. 13-26, iv. 
10, v. 30 f., x. 39-42 ; cf. 1 Pet. 1. 3-7, 18-21, ü. 21-25, 111, 
18, 21f.,iv. 1, 5, 18, v. 1, 4,10). Finally, we observe also 
the consciousness of preaching as an eye-witness about the 
closing scenes of Jesus’ life to others, who through this 
testimony are enabled to believe without having seen 
(Acts ii. 32, iii, 15, iv. 20, v. 32, x. 39-42; cf. 1 Pet. 
v. 1, i. 3, 8). But the modest reserve with which this 
consciousness is expressed in the letter (above, pp. 146, 155) 
is strong evidence against the suspicion that some later 
writer is here artificially and presumptuously assuming 
the röle of Peter. Nor would such a writer, after having 
assumed this röle, have again obscured the Petrine author- 
ship, in which he wanted his readers to believe, by remark- 
ing that the letter was actually written by Silvanus, a 
secretary (v. 12). What could have been the motive of 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 17; 


such a forgery? An “apology of Paulinism, written by 
a member of the Pauline party” at the time of the “ per- 
secution of the Church by Trajan, and intended for mem- 
bers of the Petrine party” (Schwegler, Baur, and others), 
would have been altogether superfluous in an age when 
generally throughout the Church Peter and Paul were 
looked upon as brothers closely united in their work 
(Clement, 1 Cor. v. 47; ἴσῃ. Rom. iv.). Possibly such an 
apology may have been needed by Jewish Christians in 
Palestine, but certainly not by the Churches in Asia Minor 
founded by Paul and his helpers. Consequently, if the 
writer had this or some similar purpose in view, he chose 
a very peculiar address for his letter. Just as strange are 
the means which he chooses to accomplish his end. Paul 
is not once mentioned by name, nor referred to in a way 
that would be intelligible, although 1. 12, 25, v. 12 offered 
the amplest opportunity for such reference. Not a word 
is said about the opposition of Paul to the Judaisers in 
Galatia, who claimed to be followers of James and Peter, 
or to the Cephas party in Corinth; and yet the readers, 
whose knowledge of Peter’s teaching, based as it was only 
upon verbal reports, must have been very indefinite, are 
to infer from certain resemblances to the Pauline Epistles 
that Peter has adopted the disputed teachings of Paul 
in order thereby to justify them ! 

The undeniable use of Pauline ideas in 1 Peter, when 
considered without prejudice, leads to an entirely different 
conclusion. It is in line with the relation of 1 Peter to 
James, already discussed (n. 3). The necessity of saying 
some word of encouragement to the Christians in Asia 
Minor, whose persecutions had recently grown very severe, 
recalled to the mind of Peter, or Silvanus, or of both, the 
letter of James, which some fifteen years before had been 
such a help to them as well as to other Christians, and 
which, as proved by Paul’s letter to the Romans (vol. 1. 
127 f., 429), continued to be widely known. The result 


176 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


was that a number of ideas and expressions found in 
James were reproduced in 1 Peter. A writer thoroughly 
original could not have permitted himself to follow so 
closely an older model. But from all that we know of 
Peter there is not the slightest reason to assume that he 
was original, in the sense that James or Paul or John 
was original. On the contrary, his nature was such as to 
make him susceptible to influences from withont; while 
the fact that he recovered so quickly from the errors into 
which this tendency led him, proves that in doing that 
which was good and wholesome he did not have to con- 
tend with a strongly biassed character. Similarly, a 
writer who was concerned to maintain a show or reputa- 
tion of originality would have avoided these quotations 
from another writer, or would have concealed them more. 
Peter, who in v. 12 shows himself so little concerned in 
this regard as to permit the readers to give Silvanus all 
the credit for this beautiful letter, was not bound by such 
considerations. The only thing which he was able to 
claim for himself and put to his own credit was the inten- 
tion of applying for the benefit of the readers what 
Silvanus wrote in his name, and what James and others 
before him had written. This inclination on his part is in 
no sense external, interfering with the natural flow of his 
own thoughts. The reader who is not familiar with the 
originals does not observe the influence which they have 
had upon the form of 1 Peter. The temper and tone of 
the whole is independent and fundamentally ditferent from 
James. That there is no question here of slavish imita- 
tion of single passages, or of dishonest plagiarism, is proved 
by the fact that earnest efforts have been made to reverse 
the relation and make James dependent upon 1 Peter. 
Exactly similar is the case of the undeniable agreement 
between 1 Peter and some of the Pauline letters. The 
only letters of Paul to which 1 Peter shows resemblance 
in thought and language are Romans and Ephesians 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 177 


(n. 4). But this fact finds no satisfactory explanation, 
if we assume that some author of a later time simply 
happened to make Peter use Paul’s language. On the 
other hand, it is the most natural thing in the world, if 
this letter was actually written by Peter in Rome, in the 
year 64, with the assistance of Silvanus. When Peter 
went to Rome to fill up the gap made by the departure 
of Paul (above, p. 162), he must have had a very natural 
inclination to read the letter of Paul’s preserved in Rome 
in which the apostle had made his first effort to establish 
relations between himself and the Roman Church; and 
when he found himself called upon to address the Churches 
in Asia Minor, with which up to this time he had re- 
mained personally unacquainted, in a letter which was to 
bear testimony to the genuineness of the gospel brought 
to them by Paul and his helpers, and to the truth of their 
Christian profession, he was under necessity of making 
the instruction which they had previously received his 
starting-point, and of adopting the tone of Christian 
address to which they were accustomed. But where 
could he find a better model than in the letter which Paul 
had written two or three years before to the same group 
of Churches, or to a large number of the Churches of the 
same group, namely, those in the province of Asia? The 
existence of a copy of Ephesians in the year 64 at Rome, 
where Paul wrote the letter, need occasion no surprise, 
since Ephesians was a circular letter of which possibly a 
number of copies were prepared immediately after it was 
written, and so were preserved in Rome (cf., moreover, 
vol. 1. 249 f., n. 6). 

The dependence of 1 Peter upon Romans and Ephesians 
is proof of its genuineness ; since a pseudo-Peter, writing 
in the year 75 or in 110, would have had no occasion to 
imitate these particular letters of Paul. A pseudo-Peter 
of the time of Trajan would not probably have recognised 
the true character of Ephesians as a circular letter to the 

VOL. II. 12 


178 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Churches in Asia (vol. i. p. 479 ff.), and he would have been 
far more likely to use Galatians than Romans, since his 
alleged compilation is designed to pose as a letter of Peter 
among the Churches of Galatia as well as those of other 
regions. 

If, on the other hand, it could be shown that the use 
of the name Babylon to designate Rome is explicable only 
if the writer is dependent upon Rey. xiv. 8, xvi. 19=xviil. 
24, it would be a serious argument against the genuine- 
ness of the letter. But is it not possible that the relation 
is just the reverse? and, besides, what reason is there for 
supposing that such ideas arose and were spread simply 
through literary agencies? Just as the Jews called Rome 
and the Roman Empire Edom, and just as among Chris- 
tians Jerusalem and Zion were typical designations of 
their commonwealth, which centres in heaven and has 
its future upon earth (Gal. iv, 25f.; Heb. xii. 22, xu. 14; 
Rev. xxi. 2), so Babylon, which among Greeks and Romans 
was the proverbial type of a great luxurious city, under 
the influence of historical tradition and O.T. prophecy, 
came to be used by Jews and Christians as the figurative 
name for the capital of the world-empire which was hostile 
to the Church of God, though no one was able to say who 
had used it first (n. 5). The name did not originate either 
with Peter or John, both of whom assumed rather that 
their contemporaries and fellow-believers were familiar 
with the Babylon of the present. 

Moreover, there is nothing about the representation of 
the situation of Christiamty im the world at this time 
which renders impossible the composition of the letter im 
the last years of Peter's life... Very frequently has it been 
supposed that the letter represented conditions in the 
time of Trajan; but this assumption is due to a misunder- 
standing of the interchange of letters between Pliny and 
Trajan, as if no attempt had been made by the Roman 
government before the year 112 to suppress Christianity 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 179 


(n. 6). It is due equally to a misunderstanding of the 
statements in 1 Peter relative to persecution. It is true 
that in 1 Peter we have a representation of the relation 
of Christians to their heathen environment different from 
that of the earlier Epistles of Paul, with the exception 
of 1 Thessalonians, which presupposes a temporary and 
local persecution of Christians in Thessalonica. While in 
Paul’s Epistles we do have suggestions of: hostility to 
Christians on the part of Jews (Jas. 1. 6f.; 1 Thess. ii. 
14; vol. 1. 88 f.) and of Gentiles (Rom. xu. 14-21), there 
is also evidence that there were Churches of considerable 
importance which lived quite unmolested (1 Cor. iv. 8-10, 
viii. 10, x. 27, xv. 33; 2 Cor. vi. 14-16), and believed 
themselves able to get fair treatment: even in heathen 
courts (1 Cor. vi. 1-8). Consequently, when we read that 
practically the same sufferings to which Christians were 
then being exposed in Asia Minor had to be endured by 
Christians throughout the world (1 Pet. v. 9), an entirely 
new situation is presented. Indeed, the readers them- 
selves had not been accustomed to suffer in the way that 
they are now compelled to suffer (iv. 12). It is not a 
general experience of Christians—an experience they have 
always had—which is described in v. 8, but a present 
fact ; even now the devil is passing through the land like 
a lion roaring for his prey. The final consummation of 
things is at hand (iv. 7); the judgment begins (iv. 17). 
From beginning to end the letter is filled with references 
to a recent unfavourable change in the situation of Chris- 
tians, especially those in Asia (i. 6f., iii. 9-17, iv. 48, 
12-19, v. 8-12). This impression is simply strengthened 
by the fact that in the later letters of Paul—in those’ that 
were written shortly before 1 Peter (64 A.n.) as well as in 
those that were written shortly after—there are various 
indications that the relations between Christians and their 
heathen neighbours were more strained than at the time 
when Romans and the Corinthian letters were written ; 


180 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ef.| Col. iv. 5; Eph. iv. 27f.,, v. 15f, vi. 12; 1 Tim) 
iii. 6f. (in the last passage the best interpreters make 
ὁ διάβολος refer to the class of slanderers), vi. 1; Tit. 
ii, 5, 10. 

When we inquire what these sufferings on the part of 
Christians, which Peter felt it necessary to notice, actually 
were, we observe at the very outset that nowhere in the 
letter is there the slightest hint of bloody martyrdoms, 
nor even of imprisonment and the confiscation of property. 
Nor is anything said about judges before whom they were 
brought, acts of worship which they were commanded to 
perform, and recantations under the pressure of perse- 
eution. But we do find such hints in N.T. writings 
of a later date and in the oldest portions of the post- 
apostolic literature (n. 7). For this reason it is impos- 
sible to believe that 1 Peter was written at the time 
of the Johannine apocalypse and of the letter of Clement 
(90-100) Still less is it possible to believe that it was 
written about 110, at the time of the Ignatian letters and 
of Pliny’s Epistles. The attacks upon the Christians at 
the time of 1 Peter were various in character (i. 6); but 
they were due mainly to and consisted primarily of slan- 
derous and calumnious attacks upon them as Christians. 
They were insulted “for the name of Christ” (iv. 14). 
And, as is shown by what immediately follows (iv. 15), it 
was this in which their sufferings consisted primarily if 
not exclusively ; whenever a specific injury is mentioned 
which they suffered at the hands of the heathen, it is 
always of this character :---καταλαλεῖν (ji. 12, 11. 16), 
λοιδορεῖν (iii. 9), and ἐπηρεάζξειν τὴν ἀγαθὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἀνα- 
στροφήν (iii. 16); βλασφημεῖν (iv. 4), and ὀνειδίζειν (iv. 14). 
They are to silence their slanderers by their good conduet 
(ii. 15); they are to put them to shame (iii. 16); above 
all, they are not to answer reviling with reviling, but with 
blessing (iii. 9). The very first condition of a comfortable 
life is to refrain from evil and deceitful words (iii. 10). 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 181 


Even in the passage where the suffering Christ is held up 
as an example especially to slaves, it is not said that He 
refused to use His power to defend Himself against violence 
(Matt. xxvi. 51-55, xxvii. 40-44; John xviii. 36; Heb. 
xii. 2f.); but that when He was reviled He reviled not 
again, and did not give vent to threatening words when 
He was compelled to suffer (11. 23). It is true that in 
this same connection, besides the reviling, suffering is 
mentioned which involved actual violence; but in the 
foreground of the pictures stands the reviling, to which 
one less patient would have replied with reviling and 
threats. As a concrete example of the unjust treatment 
which slaves, to whom these words are addressed, fre- 
quently had to endure at the hands of their heathen 
masters, cuffing, not reviling, is mentioned (ii. 20). Of 
course it goes without saying that a hostile feeling toward 
the sect of Christians that had become general would not 
be limited to insulting words. Every Christian had daily 
to expect actual injury (iil. 14, εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε; 11. 17, ei 
θέλοι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ); but, according to Peter’s opinion 
and exhortation, the Christian ought not to fear it (111. 13). 
The form and extent of this persecution we are able to 
infer only from casual hints. The designation κακοποιοί, 
which was slanderously appled to Christians, is quite 
general (ii, 12, i, 17, iv. 15, n. 8); and equally general 
is the exhortation to a virtuous walk among the heathen 
and to good works which is contrasted with it. But this 
is followed immediately by a special exhortation to silence 
the ignorance of these unreasonable slanderers by obedi- 
ence to the emperor and his officers (11. 13£. ; cf. Acts xvi. 
21, xvu. 7), and by the exhortation to show to. all— 
naturally to all to whom it is due (Rom. xii. 7)—the 
honour which their position demands, without prejudice 
to their special love for their fellow-believers, and espe- 
cially to honour the emperor, without prejudice to their 
fear of God (ii, 17), all of which indicates that the Chris: 


ı82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tians were accused of a hostility to the State which had 
its source in their religion and in their close fellowship 
with one another. The fact that the discussion of the 
relation of Christians to the State is followed by a detailed 
discussion of the relation of slaves to their masters (11. 
18-25), and of wives to their husbands (iii. 1-6), while 
the conduct of husbands to their wives is touched upon 
only briefly (iii. 7), and the character of the exhortations 
to slaves and wives (ef. especially tii. 1 ἢ with ii. 12), 
show that Christian slaves and wives were accused of 
insubordination to their heathen masters and husbands. 
Christians were looked upon as the enemies of social order 
generally. The inner freedom from all earthly conditions 
of which they boasted was regarded as a revolutionary 
spirit. Every fault observed in the conduct of individual 
Christians was laid to the charge of their peculiar views, 
so that their fine words about freedom and the service of 
God were regarded as cloaks for their hostility to social 
order and the State (ii. 16). - The inevitable result was 
the defaming of the name of Christ Himself, whom they 
confessed and after whom they were called (iv. 14, 16; 
n. 10). The same was true with reference to the impres- 
sion made by the earnest lives of the Christians, especially 
by their abstinence from heathen worship and the fes- 
tivities associated with it. Wonder at the peculiarities of 
the Christians led to the blaspheming of the things that 
they regarded as holy, and the source of their own sancti- 
fication (iv. 3-5). All the acts of the Christians, even 
when they were not known, were construed in accordance 
with their supposed views. They were looked upon as 
κακοποιοί in the broadest sense of the word. They were 
aceused of everything bad. In cases of serious crimes, 
like murder and theft, Christians would necessarily be the 
first to be suspected (iv. 15). The natural consequence 
was that they were accused of crimes, arrested, and 
brought before magistrates; and in the course of such 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 183 


trials the fact that they belonged to the sect of Christians 
would be brought out, also the leading principles of their 
religion. Exhortations, like those which we read in 
Eph. iv. 28, Tit. n. 10, 1 Thess. iv. 6, compel us to 
assume that not all the members of the newly organised 
Gentile Christian Churches abstained from acts which were 
punishable before magistrates. Persons so accused and so 
punished suffered as thieves, deceivers, and similar char- 
acters. Peter urges and expects that as the regular out- 
come of such trials the readers shall prove that there is no 
ground for suspecting them of acts which are criminal or 
subject to punishment ; so that it shall appear that the only 
reason for suspicion against them, for their arrest, and for 
their unfair treatment by magistrates, is their Christian 
confession. In this case they suffered “as Christians,” 
and were partakers of the sufferings of Christ, the inno- 
cent Lord, who was reviled, accused, and executed (iv. 13 ; 

cf. u. 21, ii. 18), in the same sense that Paul was drug 
his five years of imprisonment (Col. 1. 24, iv. 3; Eph. ii. 
1, 13, iv. 1, vi. 20; Philem: 1,9; Phil. 1. 7, 980) iii:010); 
although as a result of Paul’s trial “his bonds in Christ 
were made manifest” (Phil. i. 13); 2.6. the trial brought 
out the fact that he was innocent of the offences against 
public order of which he was accused, and that he was 
indicted, imprisoned, and brought before the tribunal 
simply because he confessed and preached the Christian 
faith. It is really impossible to see how anyone can 
discover in 1 Peter a persecution of the Christian con- 
fession carried on by the imperial government or by 
any civil authority. The persecution of the Christians 
originated not with the authorities, but with the populace ; 
and it consisted mainly of slanders and insults against 
the Christians, and blasphemous remarks about Christi- 
anity. In daily intercourse Christians were made to feel 
very strongly the hostility of their heathen neighbours ; in 
particular, Christian slaves suffered at the hands of their 


184 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


masters. When investigations were made by the police or 
by the courts because of serious crimes, the general sus- 
picion of the criminal character of Christians, particularly 
of their hostile attitude toward the existing political and 
social order, put them in a bad position at the very outset. 
They were suspected first in connection with definite cases, 
and in the accusations which followed they were charged 
with general crimes and misdemeanours. If, in these trials, 
their religious confession and their brotherhood came up 
for discussion, it was nothing essentially different from 
what happened in their daily private intercourse with 
non-Christians. There was constant need for endeavour 
to remove this suspicion by setting forth the nature of 
Christian views. Christians must “be always ready with 
an answer for every one and before every one who de- 
manded of them a reason for their peculiar hope” (iii. 15). 
There is nothing in the language which implies inquiry 
by the police or officers of courts, but primarily only 
what happened in daily intercourse (cf. Col. iv. 6). But 
of course Peter’s exhortation and the rule which he lays 
down include also the cases where a Christian happened 
to be brought before a judge, and where, as was unavoid- 
able in view of popular feeling, the religion and morality 
of the Christians came under discussion. But, in Peter’s 
opinion, here, as in daily life, the proof of pure intentions 
and of moral conduct afforded by deeds was more weighty 
and more effective than an apology in words. 

In view of the contents of 1 Peter, it is impossible to 
believe that Christians were brought to trial and sentenced 
by magistrates to pay fines, or to undergo imprisonment, 
banishment, or execution, simply on account of their con- 
fession (n. 9). And in this the situation of the Christians 
at the time of 1 Peter is essentially different from that in 
which they found themselves after Nero’s attack upon the 
Roman Christians—presumably for the first time during 
the reign of Domitian, when the attitude of the imperial 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS τὸς 


government and of the provincial authorities was alto- 
gether changed. On the other hand, the representation 
of popular feeling toward the Christians as recently having 
grown more hostile, which we find in 1 Peter— written at 
the beginning of the year 64 or shortly before—is definitely 
confirmed by the words of Tacitus, written late in the 
summer or during the autumn of the same year (Ann. xv. 
44): “Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesi- 
tissimis peenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chris- 
tianos (or Chrestianos) appellabat.” The universal hatred 
which was heaped upon the Christians, and the opinion held 
by the vast majority of the populace that the Christians 
were a band of dangerous criminals, whose extermination 
would be for the good of the State and of society, a utzlitas 
publica, were not, according to Tacitus, the result, but the 
presupposition of Nero’s action against the Christians, on 
the charge that they were responsible for the burning of 
Rome in the autumn of 64. Even then the name Chris- 
tiant was the object of popular hatred and of every evil 
suspicion (n. 10). ‘This presupposition meets us as a 
simple fact also in 1 Peter. On the other hand, nothing 
is said in 1 Peter about the consequences of this popular 
feeling, such as were realised in Rome in the autumn of 64, 
not only in the execution of Christians, but their execution 
in large numbers and in a most gruesome manner. How 
is this omission to be explained, if the letter was written 
in 95 or 110 or even later? How inconceivable is the 
colourless description of the situation of Christians through- 
out the world in 1 Pet. v. 9, if this letter was written by 
Peter himself shortly after he had passed through the 
scenes of 64 in Rome upon the ground which had drunk the 
blood of saints and apostles (Rev. xvii. 6, xviii. 20, 24), or 
if it was written by some one in his name after his death !! 


1. (P. 173.) For the chronology and historical position of Polycarp, cf. 
Forsch. vi. 1-157. Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39. 16) says of Papias : κέχρηται δ᾽ αὐτὸς 


1 See Addendum, p. 617. 


186 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως, 
If ποῦ strietly proven, it has been shown highly probable (above, p. 168 ; οὗ 
also $ 51, n. 10) that Papias interpreted 1 Pet. v. 13 as referring to Rome, 
and used this passage in support of the tradition that Mark was written in 
Rome. In Eus. H. E. ἵν. 15. 9, it is said of the Philippian letter of Polycarp : 
κέχρηταί τισι μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς. While 1 Pet, 
is not formally quoted in this letter, a number of passages in it show unmis- 
takable resemblance to the same. ΟἿ, the writers Iynatii et Polyc. epist. 1876, 
pp. 110-132; GA, 1.957 ἢ. In Polycarp, i. 2, after a peculiar expression taken 
from the speech of Peter in Acts ii. 24, the following words are found, which 
suggest 1 Pet.i. 8, 12: eis ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες πιστεύετε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ 
δεδοξασμένῃ εἰς ἣν πολλοὶ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν εἰσελθεῖν, which makes it necessary 
to assume either a most singular coineidence, or that Polycarp knew that 
Acts ii. and 1 Pet. originated with the same man, namely, Peter. For the 
further testimony to 1 Pet. by Clemens Romanus, Hermas, Justin, Basilides, 
and the Valentinians, see GX, i. 576, 759, 773, 958. In this connection it may 
be observed that it is doubtful whether the citation from Justin, following 
that of Iren. v. 26. 2 in Cramer, Cat. viii. 82, really belongs to Justin or is 
an addition by the redactor of the catena, as is held by Otto, in his edition of 
Justin, Opp. ii. [3rd ed.] 254, n. 7. For the impossibility of making 2 Pet. 
ili. 1 refer to 1 Pet. see § 41. 

2. (P. 174.) Worthy of notice, however, is the correspondence between 
1 Pet.ii.7 and Acts iv. 11 (ef. Matt. xxi. 42; Mark xii. 10), and between 
1 Pet. iv. 5 and Acts x. 42 (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1). 

3. (P. 175.) For the relation of 1 Pet. to James, see vol. i. 133f. The 
thought of Jas. i. 3 (vol. i. 127), which is correctly understood and freely re- 
produced by Paul (Rom. v. 4 f.), necessarily takes another and more modest 
place in 1 Pet. i. 7; since Peter, while he retains the word, gives it quite a 
different meaning (vol. i. 133). 

4. (P. 177.) In favour of the conscious dependence of 1 Pet. upon 
Eph. is the fact that they begin with exactly the same words, εὐλογητὸς --- 
Χριστοῦ 6, followed by a participle,—a construction which does not occur in 
this or similar form in any other N.T. Epistle. The partieipial clause which 
follows is different, as is also the reason assigned for the thanksgiving. But 
the reference to the future κληρονομία, 1 Pet. i. 4, is found also in Eph., 
only farther from the beginning, i. 14; while the thought which immedi- 
ately follows Eph. i. 4f. (cf. i. 9, 11), namely, that of election through the 
divine foresight and predetermination, has been utilised already in 1 Pet. i. 
1f. The exhortations to a Christian life, in contrast to the former heathen life 
of the readers, 1 Pet. i. 14-18, iv. 2 f., correspond to a whole series of expres- 
sions in Eph. : ὡς τέκνα ὑπακοῆς -- ὡς τέκνα φωτύς, Eph. v. 8; ἐν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ 
ὑμῶν -- διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς, Eph. ἵν. 18 ; ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν 
ἀναστροφῆς = ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὺς αὐτῶν, Eph. iv. 17 ; μηκέτι ἀνθρώπων 
ἐπιθυμίαις... βιῶσαι -- μηκέτι ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν «rA., Eph. iv. 17 ; οἰνοφλυγίαις 

. εἰς τὴν αὐτὴν τῆς ἀσωτίας dvayvamw = μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν 
ἀσωτία, ph. ν. 18, Eph. ii. 11-22 differs greatly from 1 Pet. ii, 4-10 in the 
way in which the Gentiles are reminded of the fact that now, as Christians, 
they are entitled to all the rights and honours of the people of God. This 
renders all the more striking the fact that in both passages the figure used 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 187 


is that of a building in which Christ is the corner-stone and Christians 
are the building stones. Paul develops the figure briefly at the end of the 
entire discussion; Peter makes a varied and detailed use of the same, in 
connection with various O.T. expressions, and also sayings of Jesus.. The 
building suggests the Lord of the building, who has chosen this particular 
stone for a corner-stone, and Himself has put it in place, after it had been 
rejected as worthless by the foolish master-builders. From the thought of 
the living character of the person of Christ, who is represented as the corner- 
stone, is argued the living character of the stones built upon this foundation, 
as well as the freedom of their attachment to Him. The comparison of the 
building with the temple suggests the thought of the priesthood and the 
offerings. The corner-stone is also the curb-stone (Prellstein), over which 
passers-by stumble. It would seem almost as if in 1 Pet. 11. 4-8 one were 
hearing the voice of a preacher making various applications of the figure 
suggested by his text, Eph. ii. 20-22. Nor is it strange that at the conclusion 
of both letters it is suggested that back of the men, through whose hostilities 
the readers are compelled to suffer, stands the devil, whom they are steadfastly 
to resist (1 Pet. v. 8f.; Eph. vi. 11-13). Other resemblances in thought and 
language, ¢.g. that between 1 Pet. iii. 21f. and Eph. i. 20-22, do not furnish 
positive proof, nevertheless they go to confirm the correctness of the observa- 
tion that Peter and Silvanus had Eph. before them. Whether, as Hofmann 
holds (vii. 1. 206), they intended to suggest to the readers directly the cireular 
letter which had been sent to them, is doubtful. The relation of 1 Pet. to 
Rom. is certainly quite different. While from the beginning to the end 
of 1 Pet! there are portions which are parallel. to Epb., with Rom. there 
are only scattered points of contact. Cf. in this connection Hofmann’s 
fine exposition (vii. 1. 207-212); on the other hand, the effect of Seufert’s 
exposition (Z/W Th, 1874, S. 360-388) is to evoke the dissent of every intelli- 
gent reader of 1 Pet., rather than to convince him of its dependence upon 
Rom. It is especially the hortatory portion of Rom. to which 1 Pet. 
shows numerous points of resemblance: Rom. xii. 2=1 Pet. 1. 14, μὴ συσχη- 
ματίζεσθαι, with substantially the same object in the dative ; Rom. xii. 17= 
1 Pet. 111. 9, μηδενὶ (μὴ) ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ, in both instances stand- 
ing between an exhortation to humility and the advice to preserve peace 
with non-Christians, while in the immediate context in both passages stands 
the command that they bless their persecutors instead of reviling them again 
(Rom. xii. 14). Taken in connection with such clear resemblances, a certain 
weight is to be given also to similarities in the same chapter, which cannot 
be used as positive proof, such as the similar use of Aoyırös,—not to be found 
elsewhere in the N.T. or LXX,—Rom. xii. 1, 1 Pet. ii. 2, and the conception 
of offerings, in a figurative sense, made by Christians, Rom. xii. 1; 1 Pet. 
ii. 5. In relatively close proximity to these parallels, Rom. xiii. 1-7'and 
1 Pet. ii. 13-17, occurs an exhortation with regard to civil authorities. The 
sense is not only the same, but several expressions are alike, e.g. the aim for 
which civil authorities exist is described thus: eis ἐκδίκησιν κακοποιῶν, 
ἔπαινον δὲ τῶν ἀγαθοποιῶν, 1 Pet. ii. 14--τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποίει καὶ ἕξεις ἔπαινον 
ἐξ αὐτῆς... θεοῦ γὰρ διάκονός ἐστιν ἔκδικος εἰς ὀργὴν τῷ τὸ κακὸν πράσσοντι 
(Rom. xiii. 3f.). Notwithstanding, Peter’s thought strikes one as independent. 
While Paul emphasises the thought of the divine institution of the civil 


(88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


srder and the subservieney of the same to God, Peter represents it more 
broadly, describing it as πᾶσα ἀνθρωπίνη κτίσις. By this he does not imply 
that the civil power was created and endowed with its functions by men, 
which would be contrary to the whole Jewish (Dan. ii. 37) and Christian 
(John xix. 11; 1 Clem. Ixi.) conception of the same, but means that govern- 
ment is an institution which belongs in the human realm and not in the 
domain of revelation. The adjective ἀνθρώπινος (Rom. vi. 19; 1 Tim. iii, 1 ; 
above, p. 124, n. 6) is not used in the sense of θνητός (c.g. in Rom. vi. 12), which 
suggests a conceivable motive for the conduct that Peter condemns,—a motive 
which he rejects,—so that the exhortation practically means, “ Be subject to 
the government, and do not think that you are released from this obligation 
because this is only a human institution.” But this word is meant to suggest 
to the readers that Christians are to honour and support everything that 
contributes to the maintenance of good order in human affairs, not less but 
more zealously than other people (cf. Rom. xii. 17 ; 2 Cor. viii. 4; Phil. iv. 8). 
The fact that Peter, writing from Rome, the seat of the imperial government, 
to provincial Christians who were governed by deputies sent from Rome, 
mentions not only the emperor, but also expressly the ἡγεμόνες sent by him 
into the provinces, while Paul, writing to Christians in Rome, speaks more 
generally of ἐξουσία, ἐξουσίαι, ἄρχοντες, is only another proof that we are not 
dealing with some man of letters who patterned what he wrote after more 
ancient models, but with Peter himself, who took account of the actual 
conditions under which he wrote. Cf. an imperial decree of the third 
century in Grenfell and Hunt, Faydm Towns, p. 120, τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν τοῖς κατ᾽ 
ἐπιτροπείας map’ ἐμοῦ ἀπεσταλμένοις. That Rom. ix. 32f. and 1 Pet. ii. 6, 
still more ii. 4-8, were not written independently of each other, is proved (1) 
by the fact that both apostles in quoting Isa. xxviii. 16 are practically agreed 
against the strongly variant reading of the LXX ; even the addition ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ 
(Rom. ix. 33, x. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 6) is certainly spurious in the LXX ; (2) from 
the fact that after the quotation of Isa. xxviii. 16, following a quotation from 
Ps, exviii. 22, in 1 Pet. ii. 7f. are added the words λίθος προσκόμματος καὶ 
πέτρα σκανδάλου, Which are taken from Isa. viii. 14, but vary greatly from the 
text of the LXX, and which Paul inserts in the quotation of Isa, xxviii. 16. 
Here also Peter does not copy Rom.; he is familiar with the prophetic text from 
his own reading, since in ii. 6 he gives the characteristics of the stone,—as also 
earlier in ii. 3, —passed over by Paul. But there remains in his memory also 
the form in which Paul had quoted the words of the prophet, and, following 
the cue suggested by Paul’s combination of Isa. xxviii. 16 and Isa. viii. 14, 
he adds also Ps. exviii. 22. The relation of 1 Pet. iv. 1 to Rom. vi. 7 shows 
just as clearly an acquaintance on the part of the later author with the older 
writing ; for the thought that death annuls man’s relationship to sin, which 
is only differently expressed in the two instances, is very boldly applied in 
both cases, first to the death of Christ and then as the ground of a moral 
obligation on the part of those who have been redeemed through His death. 
Similar relations do not exist between 1 Pet. and any other of Paul’s letters, 
Gal. iii. 23 and 1 Pet. i. δ, quoted by Hilgenfeld, Hind. 633, agree only in the 
use of the word φρουρεῖν. It would be more natural to compare the latter 
passage to Phil. iv. 7, which likewise would be to no purpose. 

5. (P. 178.) Regarding the use of Edom for Rome, ef. Weber, Jüdische 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 189 


Theol. § 81, 8; Schürer, iii. 236, A. 55 [Eng. trans. 11. iii. 99, n. 29]. Sc 
also in 4 Esdr. vi. 8f. In 4 Esdr. iii. 1f. (28, 31 in contrast to Zion) 
Babylon is certainly not the city on the Euphrates ; but if not Rome, at least 
the place which the writer knew to be the seat of the heathen power inflicting 
its burden upon Israel. Gutschmid, who held that the greater part of this 
book was written in 31 B.c., suggested Alexandria (Kl. Schriften, ii. 277). In 
spite of his evident interest for Egypt, the Jewish Sibyl of the years 71-73 
claims to understand by Babylon Rome (Sibyll. v. 143, 159 ; cf. Z/KW, 1886, 
S. 39-45). Concerning Babylon-Rome in Rev. see below, $75,n. 2. Accord- 
ing to the Midrash on Cant. i. 6 (translated by Wünsche, S. 35, cf. Sanhedr. 
21b; Shab. 566), Rome was called Romi-Bablon, because the clay out of 
which its first huts were built was mixed with water brought from the 
Euphrates. Paul does not use the word Babylon, but applies a prophecy 
concerning the departure of the exiles from Babylon (Isa. 111. 11; ef. xlviii. 20) 
to the separation of the Christians from the heathen world (2 Cor. vi. 17). 
For the proverbial meaning of Babylon among Greeks and Romans, see Pauly- 
Wissowa, RE, ii. 2667. 

6. (P. 179.) The opinion that the rescript of Trajan to Pliny altered the 
legal status of the Christians—a view against which the present writer argues 
in an earlier work, Hirten des Hermas, 1868, S. 128f.—is beginning to give 
way to a better view. With the position there advanced agree Arnold, Stud. 
zur Gesch. d. plinian. Ohristenverfolgung, S. 27, 39, 42, 47; C.J. Neumann, 
D. röm. Staat u. die Kirche, i. 17, 22f.; Mommsen, HZ, 1890, 5. 395 f.; 
Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 212, 215 f., 226, notwithstanding 
many differences. 

7. (P. 180.) Without distinguishing between what refers to the immediate 
present in the several writings and what is said with reference to past events, 
the following forms of punishment may be cited : imprisonment and con- 
fiscation of property, Heb. x. 32-34; banishment, Rev. i. 9; Hermas, Sim. i. 
(cf. the writer’s Hirten des Hermas, S. 118-135) ; executions, Rev. ii. 13 (? see 
§ 73, n. 3), vi. 9,11, xii. 11, xvii. 6, xvill. 20, 24, xix. 2, xx. 4; Heb. xiii. 7 (Ὁ); 
Clem., 1 Cor. v. vi.; Herm. Vis. iii. 2. 1; Sim. viü. 3. 6 f., ix. 28: 2-4. All 
these cases are prior to the time of the letters of Ignatius and Pliny. 

8. (P. 181.) Κακοποιός, iv. 15, occurs in a list of offences of a more definite 
character, so that it is natural to take it in the more definite sense which 
maleficus (used to translate κακοποιός in Tert. Scorp. xii.and Cypr. Test. iti. 37) 
certainly came to have, =“ sorcerer, witch,” etc. Cf. the astrological term οἱ 
κακοποιοὶ τῶν ἀστέρων, Artemid. Oneir.iv.59; also Suet. Nero, xvi. “ Christiani 
genus hominum superstitionis nove et malefice.” The term is interpreted in 
this sense by Le Blant, Les pers. et les martyrs, 1893, p.62. But there is no cer- 
tain proof of the corresponding use of κακοποιός, and if this were the meaning, 
we should expect rather μάγος (Acts viii. 9-11, xiii. 8; Acta Thecle, cc. xv. xx.) or 
yöns (2 Tim. iii. 13 ; Orig. c. Cels. i. 6). Furthermore, the contrasted state- 
ments in 1 Pet. ii, 12, 14, iii. 17 show that the word was meant’ to be taken in 
an entirely general sense (cf. Mark iii. 4; Luke vi. 9; John xviii. 30 ; 3 John 
11). The word appears to be weaker and not so definite as κακοῦργος, Luke 
xxiii. 32 f.; 2 Tim. ii. 9 (“transgressor,” often with the special sense “rogue,” 
“cheat”; cf. πανοῦργος). The list of misdeeds with which the Christians 
were charged is concluded almost immediately with a general expression, 


190 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


With a new ὡς, as something of especial importance, ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος is 
subsequently added. This word, which does not occur at; all in the earlier 
literature, and, only at a late date in ecclesiastical literature, and then 
not independently of 1 Pet., means one who acts as an overseer of 
things and persons that are foreign, 1.6. a person who assumes to exert 
a determining influence and guardianship over men and affairs which 
do not concern him. While the word is omitted from the text altogether 
by Peshito, Tert. Scorp. xii. translates it alieni speculator; but in the 
oldest Latin Bible (see Cypr. Test. iii. 37) it is translated curas alienas 
agens. E. Zeller (Sitawngsber. der berl. Ak. 1893, S. 129-132) calls attention to 
the fact that this criticism was lodged against the Cynic philosophers, who 
made it their business to be the overseers (κατάσκοποι, ἐπίσκοποι) of the rest 
of mankind. Cf. especially the famous description Epict. iii. 22, and the 
answer to the criticism which it contains, ὃ 97, οὐ yap τὰ ἀλλότρια πολυπραγμονεῖ 
(the Cynic) ὅταν ra ἀνθρώπινα ἐπισκοπῇ, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἴδια ; and, on the other hand, 
the confession of the philosopher in Hor. Sat. ii. 3.19, “aliena negotia euro, 
excursus propriis.” Like the Cynics, the Christians were criticised for their 
inordinate zeal for making converts, for their unsolicited concern about the 
souls of ‚others, and for their interference in the most intimate aflairs of the 
heart and the home. But while the Cynics held that they were under obliga- 
tion to exercise their preaching and pastoral office in the most decisive; 
authoritative, and defiant manner possible, only denying that in so doing they 
were meddling with things that did not concern them, the apostles (ef. also 
1 Thess. iv. 11) condemn conduct which could be more or less justly described 
as ἀλλοτριοεπισκοπεῖν. Everywhere they exhort their followers in their inter- 
course with non-Christians to act with wisdom and modest reserve, to do 
good, and to suffer evil in silence (1 Pet. ii. 12, 18, 23, iii. 1, iv. 8-10, 15-17, 
v.65 1 Thess. iv. 12; Col.iv. 5 f.; Phil. iv. 8), which, of course, did not mean 
that when it was a question of witnessing to the truth this witness should 
not be given boldly. What 1 Pet. iv. 15 omits is almost as instructive 
as what it contains. There is no trace in 1 Pet. of the three famous charges 
of ddedrns or ἀσέβεια, of the eating of flesh of children, and of unchaste orgies 
in connection with Christian worship. The first charge was in vogue as early 
as the time of Domitian (Dio Cass. Ixvii. 14, Ixviii. 1), and was noticed by 
Pliny, since he required Christians who were accused to perform heathen 
acts of worship (Ep. ad Traj. xevi. 5). So also the second and possibly also 
the third charges came under his notice; inasmuch as, in the light of the 
confessions of persons who had been Christians, he describes their celebration 
of the sacrament in common as a “coire ad capiendum cibum, promiscum 
tamen et innoxium.” After the time of Justin there is constant reference to 
all three charges. 

9. (P. 184.) The opinion that 1. Pet. presupposes a persecution of the 
Christians at the instigation of the civil authorities (maintained still by 
Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 279-302 ; Exp. 1893, pp. 
285-296) is based primarily upon the words, ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, iv. 14, and 
ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι (al. μέρει) roir@ and ὡς Χριστιανός, iv. 16. But ὀνειδίζεσθαι 
does not mean “To be accused before a court,” and πάσχειν taken alone 
does not mean “To suffer punishment in consequence of a judicial sentence,” 
still less “To be executed.” A person convicted as a thief or ἀλλοτριο» 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS τοὶ 


ἐπίσκοπος would certainly not be punished with death. The exhortation 
“Tf anyone suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed,” would be very 
strange indeed, if this suffering were execution. When one is on the point 
of being executed, there are matters of deeper concern than whether one 
is ashamed of his position and confession, or proud of it. It is self-evident 
that God can be glorified in the name of Christ without sacrificing life 
(cf. Phil. i. 20), and there are classie instances which show that arrests and 
trials which end with acquittal can be regarded as suffering for Christ’s sake 
(see above, p. 183). But even granted that in iv. 16 the reference is to cases 
where Christians are executed as Christians, this is nothing essentially 
different from what happened in Rome in the year 64, Tac. Ann. xv. 44 ; for, 
according to Tacitus, with whom Suetonius (Nero, xvi.) and the Christian tradi- 
tions agree, this was not a case of the punishment of a few Christians along 
with other suspected persons, but those who bore the Christian name in 
Rome were accused, sought out, and executed, first as incendiaries, and then 
afterwards many of them merely on account of the misanthropy due to their 
religion. Quite in agreement with this description, the readers of 1 Pet. 
would then have been executed primarily as murderers and thieves; but 
where it was impossible to prove such charges, also as members of a dangerous 
society, ?.e. as bearers of the Christian name. It would then foreshadow what 
happened some months later in Rome on a larger scale. The uncertainty 
which Pliny desired cleared up (“nomen ipsum—aut flagitia coherentia”) 
has in a certain measure always existed, and has really never disappeared 
entirely, and is repeated in analogous cases even to-day. Were the Ar- 
menians massacred in 1895 and 1896 because of their nationality, or their 
Christian confession, or anarchistie intrigues? One is reminded also of 
the vacillations of the anti-Semitic movement of our own day. But, as has 
been shown (above, p. 184 f.), there is nothing which indicates that even indi- 
viduals who were Christians had up to this time suffered martyrdom, either 
in Asia Minor or in Rome, where the letter was written. This shows that 
the letter was written before July 64. It is true that the word ἀπολογία, 
iii. 15, does suggest a judicial process (Phil. i. 7,16; 2 Tim. iv. 16 ; cf. Ramsay, 
op. cit. pp. 280, 294), but it is employed in the N.T. (1 Cor. ix. 3; 2 Cor. 
vii. 11, xii, 19; Rom. ii, 15) as elsewhere in literature quite commonly with 
reference to other conditions, and the context (dei, παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι tpas 
λόγον) shows that it is used here in exactly the same sense as in Col. iv. 5f. 
(πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω. .. πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς Evi ἑκάστῳ ἀποκρίνεσθαι). Ramsay, who 
(op. cit. p. 281) discovers in iii. 15, and even in v. 8, the spying out of 
Christians by Roman officials at the behest of the authorities with a view 
to their judicial punishment, is far from doing justice to the text, when in 
the Expositor (1893, p. 288) he substitutes for the Roman officials, private 
inquisitors—delatores. 

10. (Pp. 182,185.) To find in the use of the word Χριστιανός (1 Pet. iv. 16) 
an indication that the letter was written later than the year 64 is to contradict 
all existing sources, Christian and heathen. While Baur (Christentum und 
Kirche der 3 ersten Jahrh. 432) questions the aceount in Acts xi. 26 because 
of the genuinely Latin form of the name, and elaims that the name originated 
in Rome, but without calling in question the correctness of Tacitus’ statement 
in Ann. xy. 44 (“quos . .. vulgus Christianos appellabat”), that in 64 the 


192 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


name was commonly used, Lipsius (Über den Ursprung und ältesten Gebrauch 
des Christennamens, Jena, 1873) endeavours to prove that the name is Greek in 
form, and probably originated in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first 
century. From the historical point of view, the following brief remarks may 
be made with reference to Lipsius’ statements, which are confusing and too 
long to be considered in detail here :—(1) To begin with, there seems to be 
nothing whatever suspicious about the statement that in Antioch during the 
year 43-44, in consequence of the extraordinarily rapid growth of a Church 
consisting mainly of Gentile Christian converts, the Gentile populace came 
to apply to them the name Χριστιανοί (Acts xi. 26), for the reason that when 
Acts was written, even if this was as late as the year 110, this name was 
anything but a designation of honour of which its bearers were proud. On 
the other hand, the statement is rendered all the more trustworthy by the 
faet that, according to the original recension of the text, the narrator states 
immediately after xi. 27f. that he was a member of the Antiochian Church of 
that time. The date of the origin of this name given in Acts is possibly 
confirmed by the reference of Jas. ii. 7 (vol. i. p. 99,n. 8). The incidental use 
of the name by king Agrippa II. some fifteen years later (Acts xxvi. 28) does 
not impress one at all as if Luke were trying in this way to confirm the 
historical invention which he had introduced in an earlier passage. If this 
had been his purpose, there were passages in Acts xii.-xx. better suited for it. 
(2) To explain the clear statement of Tacitus as an anachronism is unreason- 
able and purely arbitrary. Tacitus is not here referring conditions prevailing 
in the time of Trajan to the time of Nero, but is describing the events of 64 
in their true historical setting (ef. Ramsay, 229, 241). Why, if this were the 
case, did he not use appellat instead of appellabat? But his whole account 
hinges upon the words “quos vulgus Christianos appellabat” ; for, if the 
Christians were not known in Rome at that time as a society distinct from 
Jewish as well as heathen organisations, and if they were not designated by a 
special name, an intelligent man, who as a boy passed through the events of 
64, could not relate that Nero accused the Christians. To this is to be added 
the testimony of Suetonius (Vero, xvi.), who describes the event from a different 
point: of view, but also places the name Christiani in the time of Nero. 
(3) After all has been said, the fact remains that an inscription found on a 
wall in Pompeii in the year 1862, which became illegible shortly afterwards, 
contained at least the letters HPISTIAN ; and the common use of the name 
Christian in Pompeii prior to the year 79, when the city was buried, is proved 
by 0.1. L. iv, No. 679 ; Tab. xvi. 2,3; cf. de Rossi, Bull. di arch. christ. 1864, 
pp. 69 ff, 92 ff, Prof. Sogliano, who is opposed to this interpretation, 
reports, in an open letter to Prof. Chiapelli (Giornale d'Italia of October 11, 
1905), concerning an earthen lamp, with a monogram of Christ in the form 
of a cross, which was found on July 3, 1905, between the strata of ashes and 
of stone in a Pompeian villa, and, from its location, probably in the rooms 
of the slaves. More accurate proof of this statement must be left to the 
proper archeologists. (4) Since the Christians were compelled, probably as 
early as 64 (ef. Ramsay, 238, concerning the meaning of fatebantur in Tae. 
Ann. xv. 44), and from that time on with more and more frequency, to answer 
the question, “ Are you a Christian ?” it is easy to see how gradually the name 
came to be used within the Church itself. The first traces of this usage are 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 103 


to be found in Ignatius (Rom. iii. 2; Magn. iv. ; more clearly ad Polye. vii. 3; 
Χριστιανισμός, in contrast to J udaism and heathendom, Magn. x. 3; Rom. 
iii. 3; Phil. vi. 1). It oceurs also in Justin. In contrast to this usage, in 
1 Pet. iv. 16 it is employed in the original way, being used by heathen who 
condemned or persecuted the Christians, and occurs in no other sense. It is 
not necessary here to discuss the linguistic question whether the name as 
originally used among the heathen was incorrectly pronounced and written 
Χρηστιανός (thus cod. δὲ, Acts xi. 26, xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. iv. 16 5 Suet. Claud. xxv. 
Chrestus ; Just. Apol. i. 4, 46, 49, ii. 6; Tert. Apol. iii.; Nat. 1. 3; Lact. 
Inst.i. 4; I. Gr. Sicil. et Ital., ed. Kaibel, Nos. 78, 754; C. I. Lat. x. No. 7173; 
ef. Blass, Hermes, 1895, S. 465). It is of special importance to distinguish 
between adjectives ending in ävos, anus, and the formation which we have 
before us here of adjectives in cavds from a name (of a person, city, or country). 
The first formation is Greek as well as Latin, though much more frequently 
used in Latin than in Greek. Here belong naturally ᾿Ασιανός (Thucyd. i. 6, 
138), Σαρδιανός (Xenoph. Hellen. 111. 4. 21; Ionie Σαρδιηνός, Herod. i. 22), 
Τραλλιανός, Zovoravos, since in these cases the ı belongs to the stem. Conse- 
quently these words are not different from ᾿Αγκυρανός, and do not help in any 
way to explain formations in -savos. Just as little light is thrown upon the 
problem by the remarks of the older grammarians, who describe these and 
similar forms as τύπος τῶν ᾿Ασιανῶν (Lipsius, 13, A. 1), instead of which the 
modern grammarians remark more clearly, “The suffixes in avos, nvos, wos, 
are formed only from names of cities and countries lying outside of Greece” 
(Blass-Kühner, i. 2. 296)... But while these formations were used by the 
Attic writers of the best period, and to some extent were even borrowed 
by Latin writers (e.g. Asianus later than Asiaticus), adjectives in iänus derived 
from proper names are not a Greek, but a late Latin formation (Archiv f. lat. 
Lexikogr. i. 183). That they found their way from popular and provincial 
language into literature only gradually toward the end of the Republic, is 
illustrated by Gell. iii. 3. 10. While the learned Varro thinks that only 
Plautinus, and not Plautianus, ought to be derived from Plautus, he refers 
the fabule Plautiane to a comic writer, Plautius ; and it makes no special 
difference whether there was an obscure poet by the name of Plautius 
(Ritsehl, Parergon Plaut. 95) or not. This is confirmed by actual usage. 
While from names in 0, onis, Cicero constructs such forms as Milonianus, 
Pisonanus, Neronianus, Catonianus (ad Qu. fr. 11. 4 [6]. 5; also Catoninus, 
ad Fam. vii. 25, ef. Liv. xxiil. 38. 9, Varronianus), he avoids Cesarianus (since 
the true reading, ad Aff. xvi. 10, is Cesarinus), which is used by Auctor, Bell. 
Afric. 13 ; Nepos, Attic. 7—two writers whose style is said to be unrefined 
(Schwane, Röm. Lit., 5te Aufl. 8.384, 386). Cicero ventures once to construct 
the form Lepidianus (ad Att. xvi. 11. 8) from a noun in -us. Under the 
influence of false analogies from the older period (A¥mili-anus Pompet-anus), 
after the beginning of the imperial era these forms appear more and more 
frequently in literature; cf. Velleius Patere. ii. 72, 74, 76,78, Brutianus ; ii. 82, 
Crassianus ; Tac. Ann. ii. 8, Drusianus; Ann. i. 109, 57, 61, ii. 7, 15, 25, 
Varianus ; Ann. xiv. 15 (ef. Suet. Nero, xxv.; C. I. L. vi. Nos. 8640, 8648, 8649, 
12874), Augustianus, also Augustalis (Ann. i. 15,54 ; 0. I. L. vi. Nos. 909, 910, 
913), Augustanus (0. I. L. vi. No. 8651). Inasmuch as these forms originated 
in the provincial speech of the Romans, and since their adoption into litera- 
VOL. II. 13 


194 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ture was resisted by the stylists, it is possible that through the intercourse of 
daily life they became familiar to Greek-speaking Orientals before they made 
their appearance in literature. There is no occurrence of the same in Greek 
literature earlier than “Hpwé:avoi (Mark iii. 6, xii. 13 ; Matt. xxii. 16, and the 
names of heretical sects in Just. Dial. xxxv., ef. Apol. ii. 15 ?) ; but this does not 
prove that the word Χριστιανοί, which was of popular origin, was not used in 
Antioch as early as 44 a.p. (Acts 11. 26). A writer like Lucian (de Hist. 
conserib. 21) makes fun of the Atticists, who in their zeal to Hellenise 
everything Roman changed Tırıavös (which was possibly not formed from 
Titus, but from Titius) to Tıravıos. The less educated barbarians, Syrians, 
and Jews, who, through their intercourse with Roman officials and soldiers, 
must have taken over into their speech numerous Latin words and names, 
did not notice that Χριστιανός was not a genuine Greek word, and they did 
not concern themselves about this when they formed it. Regarding words 
borrowed from the Latin, see vol, i. p. 64f. Attention may also be called 
to Latin words used by Ignatius, a native of Antioch, in the year 110 ; ef. 
the writer’s Ignatius, ὃ. 530-533. 


§ 41. THE AUTHOR AND READERS OF THE SECOND 
EPISTLE OF PETER ACCORDING TO THE LETTER’S 
OWN TESTIMONY. 


Whereas in his First Epistle Peter designates accurately 
the group of Churches which he is addressing (i. 1), and 
indicates in an unmistakable manner the place from which 
he writes (v. 13), in 2 Peter there are no geographical data 
whatever. The designation of the readers is extremely 
indefinite, even when compared to that of Jas. i. 1 (2 Pet. 
i. 1). In 1 Peter, aside from the mention of his name in 
the greeting, Peter lets his own person fall into the back- 
ground in a way that seems strange, and only in three 
places (i. 3, 8, v. 1) does he make even slight reference to 
his own relation to the person and history of Jesus (above, 
pp. 146-156). On the other hand, in 2 Peter the writer 
calls attention repeatedly and emphatically to what he 
alone, or in company with others, heard Jesus say, and to 
what he had seen with his own eyes of Jesus’ doings 
(i. 14, 16-18, alsoi. 3; see n. 10). In 1 Peter the apostle 
addresses the readers as one who is personally unknown to 
them, introduces himself to them, and in a sense lets him- 
self be represented by Silvanus, one of their missionaries 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS τος 


(v. 12; above, pp.149, 175, 176); 2 Peter presupposes a 
relation between himself and the readers which was of long 
standing, and which is to be cultivated by continued 
intercourse until the death of the writer. 

To begin with what is relatively clear, Peter calls this 
his second letter in which he designs to stir up his readers 
to keep in remembrance the prophecies of the O.T., and the 
commandment which originated with the Lord and Saviour, 
and which has been brought to the readers by their 
apostles (i. 1, n. 1). This description of the purpose of 
the writer and the essential contents of his letter fits 
2 Peter exactly. In the opening passage 1. 5-11 emphasis 
was laid upon the active exercise of all Christian virtues, 
especially in view of the promised kingdom of Christ (ver. 
11); and even in 1. 4 attention was called to the great 
promises of Christ. Immediately after these exhortations 
to the practice of the Christian virtues in view of the 
coming of Christ, Peter speaks of his own obligation to 
keep the readers in remembrance of these things so long 
as he shall live, and of his earnest purpose shortly to 
fulfil this obligation again (1. 12-14),—all of which is in 
such entire agreement with what he says in in. 1 ff. con- 
cerning the purpose and essential contents of this and his 
former letter to the readers, as to make it certain that in 
writing the second passage he had the first in view. In 
both cases he calls his exhortations a διεγείρειν ἐν ὑπομνήσει 
(1. 13, iii. 1; οὗ ὑπομιμνήσκειν, 1. 12, with μνησθῆναι, iii. 2) 
and emphasises and justifies the designation of his exhorta- 
tions as mere reminders by recognising that the readers 
are already in possession of the truth (i. 12), or that their 
minds are pure (iii. 1; cf. Rom. xv. 14f.). The lack in 
1. 12f. of any specifie description of the teachings, such as 
is found in ii. 2, is supplied by the περὶ τούτων (1. 12), 
which refers back to i. 5-11. And although in this 
passage the eternal kingdom of Christ is not expressly 
called a subject of O,'T. prophecy, at the end of the first 


196 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


section of the letter very explieit reference is made to 
the prophetic utterances, the trustworthiness, value, and 
intelligibility of which for Christians is dependent wholly 
upon the self-revelation of Jesus (1. 19-21). 

But in. 1f is in no sense to be taken as referring 
exclusively or even mainly to the preceding parts of this 
letter. In that case the absence of any reference to the 
whole of the second section of the Epistle (chap. i.) would 
be strange. Consequently what is said in ii. 3f., which 
follows iii. 2 without any break in the sentence, is part 
of the description of what Peter intended to say to his 
readers in this letter as well as of what he had said in 
the one that preceded. At the same time, the participial 
sentence, ii. 3f, together with the explanatory clauses 
that follow (iii. 5-7), mark the transition to a new re- 
minder and exhortation (11. 8-18), not previously discussed 
with the same definiteness in this letter, to which new 
passage the description in ii. 1f applies far more than 
to i. 5-21. For, not only is reference here made to the 
“Day of God” (ver. 12) predicted by the prophets, and 
to the new world which they also predicted (ver. 13), but 
the readers are very strongly reminded of their obligation 
to live in accordance with these expectations, 2.e. with the 
“command” applicable to Christians (vv. 11 f., 14f., 17 £.). 
Thus in iii. 1f Peter not only describes the preceding 
parts of the letter, but, as he clearly says, has in view all 
that remains to be written. He describes in substance at 
this particular point the meaning and the purpose of the 
letter : because now, after the long discussion in chap. iL, 
which does not come directly under the deseription of 
iii, 1f., he is taking up again the thought of 1. 5-21, 
intending once more to exhort his readers more strongly 
and indeed, after what has been said in chap. i1., more 
definitely to the holy life enjoined by the prospect of 
the prophesied end of the world. There was no more 
necessity of proving in detail that the last things which 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS το, 


are recalled to mind in what follows were predicted by 
the O.T. prophets, than there was of showing that the 
moral requirements made in this same final section were 
in keeping with the command of Jesus and the moral 
recommendations of the apostles. The mere fact that at 
the beginning of the third section (iti. 2) the writer says 
that the prophecies of the O.T. and the command of the 
apostles originating with Christ are what he desires to 
recall to the readers’ minds in this letter, shows that the 
admonitions which follow go back to these sources. More- 
over, in i. 191. he had strongly urged upon his readers’ 
attention prophetic prediction as this was confirmed and 
interpreted by the gospel history. 

If, then, the description of the essential contents and 
purpose of the two letters of Peter in iii. 1 f. suits 2 Peter, 
it follows that the earlier Epistle of Peter to the same 
readers, referred to in this passage, was essentially the 
same as 2 Peter in the points mentioned. This being so, 
it is impossible to suppose that Peter here refers to 1 Peter. 
For, while there are numerous exhortations to moral 
conduct in 1 Peter, these are nowhere referred to the com- 
mand of Jesus and the teaching given by the missionaries 
to this group of readers. Still less can it be said that 
1 Peter is a reminder of prophetic utterances, more 
specifically of the end of the world, predicted by the 
prophets. There is only one passage where reference is 
made to the prophets (1 Pet. i. 10f.), and here they are 
represented as announcing beforehand the sufferings and 
glory of Christ, 2.e. the contents of the gospel; but where 
mention is made of the objects of the Christian hope, the 
day of judgment, and the glorification of the Church 
(1 Pet. i. 38-7, i) 12, iv. 13,17, v. 4,16, 10), there is no 
reference whatever to the O.T. prophets. 

The fact that since the fourth century our 2 Peter has 
followed our 1 Peter in most Bibles, cannot be used to 
support the claim that these are the two letters mentioned 


198 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


together in 2 Pet. iii. 1; for who can aftirm that Peter did 
not write twenty letters and send two or three letters to 
more than one group of Churches? From this description 
which covers both letters it follows that the earlier letter 
in question— which, however, was sent to the same readers 
—was not our 1 Peter, but a letter which has not come 
down to us. 

It is improbable, notwithstanding what is said in 
ii. 15, that 2 Peter, like our 1 Peter, was directed to the 
Gentile Christian Churches in Asia Minor. The urgent 
exhortation to live a life which shall be in harmony with 
the trustworthy prophecy of the Day of the Lord, of the 
end of the world, and of a new world, is concluded in 
i. 15 with an injunction to the readers, already intimated 
in 1. 9, to regard as their salvation the patience shown 
by the Lord Jesus in the deferment of His return. This 
injunction, which would be unintelligible apart from 
what is said in the passage at the conclusion of which it 
stands, and which, therefore, is not meant to be taken 
apart from i, 5-13, is now represented as being in 
harmony with what: Paul, the beloved brother of Peter 
and his readers, wrote to these same readers according to 
the measure of wisdom given him. The readers of 1 Peter 
were in large part at least identical with the readers of 
Ephesians (vol. i. p. 479 ff.). So long as it was maintained 
that the earlier letter of Peter mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 1 must 
be the letter which precedes 2 Peter in the Canon, unavoid- 
ably the letter of Paul referred to in 2 Pet. iii. 15 was 
connected with this same circular letter, namely, Ephesians 
(n. 2). But Ephesians does not agree with what, accord- 
ing to 2 Pet. iii. 15, Paul wrote in his letter directed to 
the readers of 2 Peter. What is said of all of Paul's 
letters (iii. 16, “As also in all his epistles, speaking 
in them of these things”) might be justified by occa- 
sional. remarks of Paul bearing upon the subject here 
under discussion, but not the reference to a letter dealing 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 199 


specifically with the same theme (iii. 15). The reference 
must be to a thoroughgoinge exposition of this subject, 
from which Paul’s specific teachings could be ascertained. 
The exhortations to a correct Christian life are throughout 
Ephesians based upon entirely different grounds (iv. 1, 
20-25, v. 1-3, vi. 1-3, 8, 9), and the argument of the 
duty of sanctification, on the ground of the expectation of 
Christ’s second coming, is much less frequent in Ephesians 
(iv. 80, v. 5f.) than in other letters of Paul (1 Thess. v. 
1-11; Rom. xii. 11-14; ef. 1 John iii. 3). It would be 
more natural to suppose that the reference is to Hebrews 
than to Ephesians, although in Hebrews reference is made 
to the promise which is certain, only delayed in its fulfil- 
ment, in order to exhort the readers not so much to a 
virtuous life, as to a steadfast maintenance of faith and 
confession, which is not possible without struggle against 
sin (Heb. iii. 7-iv. 13, x. 35-39, xii 1-17, 25-29). Τῇ 
only Paul had written Hebrews, or if the author of 2 Peter 
could have regarded Hebrews as a work of his! But this 
is impossible ($ 47); so that we are compelled to conclude 
that the letter of Paul mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 15 is in 
existence quite as little as Peter’s own earlier letter to the 
readers of 2 Peter mentioned in iii. 1. 

Moreover, we have no knowledge of the carrying out 
of the intentions expressed by the author in i. 12-15 
(n. 3). When he gives assurance that in the future he 
will be always ready to recall to the readers’ minds such 
things as are to be found in the present letter, and goes 
on to explain that he feels this to be an obligation for the 
rest of his life,—all the more because he ὙΕΙ͂ partly 
through a revelation made by Christ to him, that he will 
die a sudden death (n. 3),—the language used can apply 
just as well to oral teachings as to future letters. Only, 
in case the reference were to oral teachings, we should 
expect the contrast between the present written and the 
later oral reminiscences to be expressed, or, if both were 


200 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


meant, we should expect a distinction to be made in this 
double form of teaching between the oral reminiscences 
which he would give when present and the written com- 
munications he would send when absent (n. 4). Apparently, 
therefore, Peter declares his intention of sending to the 
same readers in the future an occasional letter like this 
present one. To be clearly distinguished from this state- 
ment is what Peter says in the words that follow: “I will 
give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my 
decease to call these things (truths or teachings) to remem- 
brance” (n. 5). Only, if Peter had previously expressed 
the intention or hope of visiting the readers again and 
impressing upon them once more orally the truths in 
question, could this statement be taken to mean that 
Peter, in view of the fact that seripta litera manet, is not 
satisfied with oral teachings, but when he leaves the 
readers, or afterwards, will put such teachings in written 
form, so that they may be permanently remembered by 
them, or will see to it that others do it for him. Since, 
however, there is nothing anywhere in the context to 
suggest this contrast between oral teaching and its em- 
bodiment in written form, the only contrast possible is that 
between such written communications as the present letter, 
the earlier letter mentioned in iii. 1, and similar letters 
which Peter intends to write in the future on the one 
hand, and a more extensive literary work on the other. 
The former are off-hand products, and are expected to 
have only a temporary effect ; the latter is designed to be 
of permanent value. No light is thrown upon the contents 
of this proposed work by the sentences that follow, in 
which Peter merely substantiates his right and the right 
of others, whom he mentions along with himself, to per- 
form such literary work (vv. 16-18), but, at the same time, 
its character is indicated by the sentences that precede. 
The τούτων of ver. 15 resumes the περὶ τούτων of ver. 12, 
although the expression which intervenes“ the truth 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 201 


which is with you (the readers)” (ef. Jas. 1. 21)—and the 
natural difference between letters of a merely temporary 
character and a book claiming to be of permanent value 
forbid limiting the contents of the latter to exactly the 
same topics as are discussed in 2 Peter. The work in 
question was clearly designed to be doctrinal in character 
like 2 Peter, not a historical work. Even if 2 Peter was 
written as late as 170, the Gospel of Mark cannot be the 
work in question ; for it was not until long after this date 
that the story originated according to which Peter com- 
missioned Mark to write his Gospel (n. 5); and even after 
this opinion had grown up, Peter could not be represented 
as expressing this intention in words applicable only to a 
religious treatise. A writing which might claim to be the 
product of the literary intention here expressed is not in 
existence, and so far as we know never existed. 

From the passages already considered it follows that 
Peter has stood for a long time in an official relation to 
the persons receiving this letter, which relation he feels 
himself under obligation to maintain until his death 
through instructions by letter, and after his death through 
a treatise designed especially for them, just as he has 
maintained it heretofore by a letter like 2 Peter. He had 
also brought them the gospel, not alone, to be sure, but 
in co-operation with other missionaries. For he can mean 
nothing less than this when he says of himself and of the 
companions whom he mentions along with himself, “ We 
have made known unto you the power and coming of 
Christ” (i. 16, n. 6). Even assuming that the δύναμις 
of Christ means only that power which Jesus obtained 
through His resurrection and exaltation, in contrast to the 
weakness in which He had previously lived and suffered 
(2 Cor. xiii. 4; Rom. 1. 4),—a view which has very little 
in its favour,—this sentence cannot be made to refer to 
the instruction of persons who are already believers con- 
cerning the exaltation to power and the coming of Christ 


202 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


—instruction which presupposes a previous preaching of 
the gospel—simply because there was and is no preaching 
of the gospel which does not make known to the hearers 
the resurrection, exaltation, and coming of Christ. All 
subsequent teaching can be only the recalling of these 
fundamentals of the gospel, or the indication of their 
consequences in the life or thought of believers. There- 
fore it is impossible to suppose that Peter is here referring 
to that earlier letter (iii. 1) and also to similar communica- 
tions to the same group of readers by his fellow-workers, 
or that he, in a manner so unclear as this, identifies the 
original preaching of the gospel with all later oral and 
written references to it. Our 1 Peter is quite out of the 
question ; since the gospel was not preached to Christians 
in Asia Minor by Peter, but by others from whom he dis- 
tinguishes himself (1 Pet. i. 12). Furthermore, there is no 
teaching in 1 Peter concerning the power and coming of 
Christ which begins with the gospel and develops the idea 
it contains. Those to whom 2 Peter is directed must be 
persons among whom Peter laboured as a missionary, 1.6. 
persons belonging to the circumcision. The language 
used to describe the gospel in i. 16 is applicable to it as 
it was preached in Israel—in other words, among the con- 
temporaries and countrymen of the Lord and His apostles, 
who were more or less familiar with the facts of the 
gospel history (Acts ii. 22, x. 37). They not only were 
externally acquainted with the historical appearance of 
Jesus, but also treated the same quite materialistically 
(cf. 2 Cor. v. 6); they therefore needed to have it made 
clear to them that in this weak man, who was denied, 
reviled, and put to death by His fellow-men, there dwelt 
a power which not only had found expression during His 
lifetime in wonderful miracles (Acts ii. 22, x. 38), but 
also had broken the bonds of death and raised Him to 
the throne of God (Acts ii. 24-35, 11. 15, iv. 2, 10, 38, 
v. 30), from whence He was to come again to finish His 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 203 


work (Acts iii. 20, x. 42). It would seem as if at times 
the preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles was con- 
fined to the word of the cross (1 Cor. 1. 17 ff, ii. 2); but 
in the preaching to Israelites who were contemporaries of 
Jesus emphasis was laid upon the resurrection of Jesus, 
the revelation of His power and His return. The faith of 
Jewish Christianity was faith in the glory of Jesus (Jas. 
ii. 1; ef. vol. i. p. 151, n. 7). 

It is also impossible to assume that Peter here identi- 
fies himself with Paul and his missionary helpers, such as 
Barnabas, Silvanus and Timothy, and connects his preach- 
ing with theirs. For, in the first place, Peter distinguishes, 
just as clearly as does Paul (Gal. 1. 17, it. 7-9; 1 Cor. 
xv. 11, ix. 5), between the missionaries to the Gentiles 
and the group to which he himself belonged (1 Pet. 1. 12); 
and although he calls Paul the beloved brother of himself 
and of the readers (2 Pet. iii. 15), he does not intimate in 
any way to them that Paul was one of their apostles 
(2 Pet. iii. 2). In the second place, in order to make 
this identification, it is necessary to assume, against 
the clear impression of the entire letter, that it was not 
directed to a definite, homogeneous group of readers, but 
to the whole body of Christians who owed their conversion 
to the apostolic preaching, to which also Paul, according 
to 11. 15, must on one occasion have addressed a letter. 
But even then the identification of Peter with Paul and 
his helpers in 1. 16 ff. is inconceivable; for the mission- 
aries to the Gentiles could not claim what Peter here 
claims for himself and his companions concerning their 
personal relation to the gospel history. This is the third 
reason which prevents us from identifying Peter’s work 
with that of Paul and his helpers. In preaching the 
gospel, Peter and his companions have not followed fables 
cunningly devised or artfully presented, but have preached 
as those who were eye-witnesses of the majesty of Jesus. 
Although Paul may have treated his experience near 


204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Damascus as a substitute for the fact that he was not 
like the earlier apostles, a personal disciple of Jesus (1 Cor. 
ix. 1, ef. xv. 8), he could not affirm with reference to 
himself, nor could anyone say of him, that he preached 
the gospel as one who was an eye-witness of the self- 
revelation of Jesus which formed the content of the gospel. 
The comprehensive language which Peter uses is compar- 
able only with what personal disciples of Jesus elsewhere 
affirm with reference to themselves (John 1. 14, ef. mi 11, 
xix. 835; 1 John 1.1 ἢ, iv. 14; Acts x. 39-41) and with 
what Peter himself at least intimates in 1 Pet. i. 8, v. 1 
(above, p. 147). 

» The group of preachers with which. Peter identifies 
himself is indicated by the reference to the particular 
experience on which he bases his claim that he and his 
companions have declared the power and return of Jésus 
to the readers as former witnesses of His majesty, i. 17 £. 
If it be certain that the event referred to is the trans- 
figuration on the mountain described in all three of the 
synoptic Gospels, then it is also to be assumed that the 
author of 2 Peter, like the evangelists, knew that the only 
eye-witnesses of this event were the three apostles, Peter, 
John, and his brother James (n. 6). Consequently these 
three are the preachers spoken of in i. 16, though, natur- 
ally, there is no exclusion in 1. 16 of other apostles who 
stood in essentially the same historical relation to Jesus. 
Just as Peter here identifies himself ‚with others of the 
twelve apostles by the use of “we,” so he does also in 
ii. 2, where he uses the expression of ἀπόστολοι ὑμῶν. 
“Your apostles” is not synonymous with “ The apostles,” 
but serves to distinguish from the entire class of men who 
may claim the apostolic name, those who have exercised 
the apostolic office among the readers here addressed, we. 
the missionaries to whom these Christians owe their con- 
version (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 2; Clem. 1 Cor. v.; ef. above, 
69, n. 6). The expression implies a contrast to other 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE. AND HEBREWS 205 


apostles who were not the apostles of the readers, and 
other Christians, to whom the apostles here intended were 
not apostles. It is thus quite impossible to suppose that 
the expression “ Your apostles” includes apostles who 
laboured in fields that were widely separated, much less 
can it include all the apostles without distinction. The 
suggestion that such language sounds strange on the part 
of one who himself belonged to the group of missionaries 
thus designated, is due to the misunderstanding of a mode 
of speech which is constantly being used, and which is 
sometimes extremely natural. On the other hand, to 
assume that the author does not identify himself with this 
group is to make i. 16 stand in glaring contradiction to 
ii. 2. This is sufficient to disprove the correctness of 
that interpretation of ii. 2, for which, in itself, there is 
no sufficient reason (n. 7). Taking these two passages 
together, it seems clear that 2 Peter was not directed 
toa single local Church, the origin of which was due to 
the preaching of Peter alone (ef. 1 Cor. 1. 10, iv. 15, 
ix. 2), but probably to a larger group of Christians, among 
whom Peter had laboured with other missionaries in the 
founding of Churches. Chap. iii. 2 alone is insufficient to 
prove that these were not Churches in Asia Minor, or any 
other region within the sphere of Gentile missions, but 
Churches within the sphere of Jewish missions, though 
this is established by the unavoidable connection between 
ii. 2 ἃπα 1. 106. The fact that later in the course of their 
hfe Peter and others of the twelve apostles engaged in 
missionary work among the Gentiles in Rome or in Asia 
Minor, does not justify, on the part of one speaking in their 
name, the use of such language as that in i. 16, to describe 
their relation to the Churches founded by Paul and his 
helpers, nor the distinction made in iii. 2 between them 
and other apostles who had no official relation to these 
Churches. Nor can the beginning of this letter be used 
in proof of this hypothesis, except by presupposing what 


206 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


cannot be proved, namely, that 2 Peter followed 1 Peter, 
and was intended as a second letter to the same group of 
readers. 

The statement of Peter in i. 1, that the readers, through 
the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, 
have obtained faith of like value with that of Peter and 
his companions (n. 8), might be taken as implying a 
contrast between the Jewish Christians, in whose name 
Peter here speaks, and the Gentile Christians, whom. he 
addresses ; since by making no distinction in this regard 
between Jews and Gentiles, God shows Himself a fair- 
minded and just judge (Acts x. 541, 47, xi 17f, xv. 
8f.; Rom. 11. 11-29, i. 22-30, x. 12). If there were 
only something in the context to indicate a distinction 
between Jews and Gentiles within the Church! The 
author begins by calling himself by the name which he 
had always borne, using the form most distinctively 
Jewish, and then adds the surname which Jesus gave him 
in token of his position among the disciples, and his place 
in the future Church (n. 9). Quite in harmony with the 
use of these two names, he calls himself, from one point 
of view, a servant of Christ, and, from the other, an apostle 
of Christ. The former title is appropriate to Simeon of 
Bethsaida, who, with his brother Andrew and many others 
after them, when they believed on Jesus, accepted Him 
as their Lord. On the other hand, the apostolic title 
corresponds to Cephas or Peter, to whom the Lord, by the 
bestowment of this surname, held out the prospect of a 
special calling, to which he was appointed when the twelve 
apostles were chosen, and which was confirmed subse- 
quently more than once. But neither the position which 
Simeon occupies as the first of the personal disciples. of 


Jesus, nor the position which Cephas has as foremost 
among the apostles, prevents him from recognising that 
the faith to which the readers have been brought through 


his own and his companions’ preaching (1, 16) is of like 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 207 


value with his own faith and that of his companions. 
The distinetion thus removed, or at least stripped of its 
religious significance, 1s simply that between personal 
disciples and apostles of Jesus, on the one hand, and, 
on the other, all those Christians who had not stood in 
such personal relation to Jesus, nor received the special 
calling corresponding to this personal relation, but had 
nevertheless been led, through the efforts of disciples and 
apostles, to believe on the Lord, who had bought them 
(ii, 1). The distinction is essentially the same as that 
between eye-witnesses of the majesty of Jesus and those 
to whom the eye-witnesses had brought the knowledge 
of it (i. 16; ef. John xix. 35, xx. 29,31; 1 John 1. 3). 
The same distinction is apparently expressed also in the 
sentences that follow, i. 8 f., which are not very clear, nor 
textually certain (n. 10). Here Peter identifies himself 
with the other disciples and apostles of Jesus, whom He 
called personally by the revelation of His glory, and by 
the demonstration of His moral power, to whom also 
through the knowledge of Himself He gave all that was 
needful for a true life and a pious conduct. He then 
contrasts himself and the other disciples and apostles with 
the readers to whom the Lord, through these disciples and 
apostles,—namely, through their preaching of the gospel, 
—has given very great promises, by virtue of which here- 
after they may become partakers of the divine nature, 
having escaped the perishable pleasures of this world. 
While it is true that this distinction between the personal 
disciples of Jesus and other Christians, who have not seen 
and heard Jesus, is sometimes expressed where the former 
are addressing Gentile Christians (1 Pet. 1. 8; 1 John 1. 
1-4; John i. 14, xix. 35), exactly the same distinction 
existed within Jewish Christianity from the beginning of 
the apostolic preaching. 

Inasmuch, therefore, as there is not a single word in 
2 Peter which suggests the Gentile character of the 


208 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


readers, and since it has also been shown that 2 Pet. iiil 1 
cannot refer to 1 Peter nor 2 Pet. iii. 15 to Ephesians, the 
evidence of the statements in 2 Pet. i 16-18, which are 
in perfect agreement with i. 1-4 and iii. 2, retains its full 
force. The letter is shown to be a hortatory writing of 
Peter's to a large group of Churches, who owed their 
Christianity to the preaching of Peter and other men from 
among the twelve apostles and the personal disciples of 
Jesus. From this it follows that the readers were, for 
the most part, if not altogether, Jewish Christians, and 
that they are to be sought in Palestine and the regions 
adjoining, but not in the regions north and north-west of 
Antioch ; because until the death of Peter (64 A.D. ; above, 
ΠΡΟΙΘῚ Ἐ) the agreement of the year 52 (Gal. ii, 7-9 + ef 
Matt. x. 23) was kept by all the missionaries, one of 
whom the writer indicates himself to have been (i. 1-4, 
16-18). It was probably in Palestine and the adjoining 
regions that the preaching journeys of Peter and his 
companions, referred to by Paul in the year 57 (1 Cor. 
ix. 5), were made. The journey of Peter to Rome at the 
very end of his life, and the composition in Rome of his 
letter to the Gentile Christian Churches of Asia Minor 
(above, p. 158 ff.), did not make him a missionary to the 
Gentiles, and did not bring him into such a relation as 
that expressed in 2 Peter with any Church outside the 
“Land of Israel.” In this entrance of Peter as an element 
in the life of the Gentile Christian Churches organised in 
Asia Minor by Gentile Christian missionaries, and as a 
factor in the development of the Roman Church, in the 
building of which Gentile Christian and Jewish Christian 
missionaries worked together, we have a foreshadowing— 
but only a foreshadowing—of the development which, at 
a date considerably later than the death of Peter and 
Paul, took men like John and Philip to Ephesus and 
Hierapolis. 

There is no means of determining more definitely the 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 209 


geographical position of the readers. The use of the 
Greek language is no objeetion to the supposition that 
Peter was intended for the whole circle to whom James 
also wrote in Greek. Nor does the use of the name 
“Simeon Petros” imply anything more (Acts xm. 1, 
xy. 14,n. 9). The reference to a letter of Paul’s to the 
same readers (iii. 15) does not help us, for the reason that 
this letter has not come down to us (above, p. 198f.). It 
is very natural to suppose that during the two years of 
enforced idleness in Cwsarea (from 58-60 A.D.), when his 
arrest put an end to the exercise of all personal influence 
among them, Paul took occasion to send some written 
word to the multitudes of believing Jews (Acts xxi. 20), 
on whose behalf he had made his last journey to Jeru- 
salem. Or it may have been a smaller group of Churches, 
mainly Jewish Christian, to which this lost letter of Paul’s 
and 2 Peter were directed, e.g. the Churches in Ptole- 
mais, Tyre, and Damascus, with which Paul was personally 
acquainted (Acts ix. 22-25, xx. 32713,0f. oxiod Yızy.08), 
and others in the regions indicated of whose history we 
know nothing. 

The time at which 2 Peter purports to have been 
written can be more aceurately determined than the loca- 
tion of the readers. Although it is not directly stated 
ini. 14 that Peter knows his death is near (n. 3), and 
although we do not know that this expectation was ful- 
filled, even if Peter entertained it, 1. 12-15 does convey 
the general impression that it is an aged man who is 
speaking. In iii. 16 mention is made not only of a letter 
of Paul’s to the readers of 2 Peter, but also of many other 
letters of his which had found some circulation and had 
been misunderstood. This could hardly have taken place 
before the year 60. Furthermore, the way in which the 
doubt as to the fulfilment of the prophecy concerning the 
end of the world is expressed (iii, 4; ef. § 42, n. 5), 
indicates the end of Peter’s lifetime. The first generation 

VOL. I. 14 


210 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of Christians is beginning to disappear. On the other 
hand, there is nothing to indicate that Peter had reached 
Rome, the goal of his life-journey. It is natural to 
suppose that, if Peter had recently come to the capital of 
the world for the first time in his life, he would indicate 
in some way his residence there, as he does in 1 Pet. v. 
13. On the other hand, he is not in the immediate 
vicinity of his readers. He has written them previously, 
expects to do so soon again, and anticipates the sending 
of frequent letters (above, p. 198 f.). He shows familiarity 
with ecclesiastical conditions and movements outside the 
world of the readers; indeed, he shows familiarity with 
the same within the sphere of Gentile Christianity. We 
should probably be able to locate the place where the 
letter was written more exactly, if we knew from what 
point and by what route Peter went to Rome sometime 
in the autumn of 63. It is natural to think of Antioch. 
Taking everything into consideration, and assuming for 
the time being that 2 Peter is genuine, we may date it 
somewhere between 60 and 63. ‘This makes it earlier 
than 1 Peter. 

1. (P. 195.) In view of the character of what precedes and follows, the 
reference of iii. 1 f. to the entire Epistle yet unfinished—and in particular to 
the third section of the Epistle which begins at this point—is quite as certain 
as is the similar reference of ταῦτά σοι γράφω, 1 Tim. iii. 14 (see above, p. 39, 
n. 2); and here the ταύτην... ἐπιστολήν makes the reference more definite 


than the ambiguous ταῦτα in 1 Tim. iii. 14. That this description is meant 
to apply equally to the first Epistle, to which reference is here made, is proved 
by the use of ev ais instead of ev ἧ. The difficult expression τῆς τῶν ἀποσ- 
τόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος undoubtedly means the same as 
that which in ii. 21 is described as the holy commandment handed down to 
the Christians, or the same as διδαχὴ κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων, the 
title of the so-called Didache. In form the expression finds a parallel in 
Acts v. 32, if the correct reading there be αὐτοῦ μάρτυρες τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων 
(ef. Winer, Gr. § 30, 3, A. 3 [Eng. trans. § 30. 3, A. 3]), as the present writer 
believes to be the case. The expression is a harsh one, but even titles such 
a8 Ξενοφῶντος Σωκράτους ἀπομνημονεύματα are quite as inelegant (GK, i. 475, 
A. 2). In fact, the harsher the words (rod κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος), the more 
arbitrary it is to strike them out as a gloss; while to derive them from Jude 
17 (Spitta, 224), where they are not found, is altogether impossible. _ No 
mistake has been made in the transmission of the text of the passage, since 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 211 


the Syrians [“ The commandment of our Lord and Saviour, which” (sc. was 
communicated) “through the apostles”] were able to get over the difficulty 
only by a free translation, while the impossible combination of ὑμῶν with 
κυρίου, which occurs here as in the Sahidie, Coptic, and Ethiopic versions, is 
not made less difficult by the reading ἡμῶν instead of ὑμῶν---ἃ variant found 
only in a few cursives. In this connection it may be remarked that the 
historical investigation of 2 Pet. is rendered difficult, not only by the style, 
which is often obscure, but also by the text handed down, which is in an 
especially bad condition. Readings which could not have been invented and 
which are certainly original, such as the order of words in i. 17 preserved by 
B alone (below, n. 6), and passages which can hardly be understood without 
resort to conjecture, such as i. 20, will suffice as illustrations. Tischendorf’s 
apparatus in ed. viii. has been enlarged and corrected since its appearance, 
especially by Le Palimpseste de Fleury, ed. Berger, 1887, p. 41 f., and by 
Gwynn’s investigation of the ancient Syriac version, which was probably a 
part of the Philoxenian text, in Hermathena, vol. vii. 1890, pp. 281-314. This 
translation (called in Tischendorf, Syr. bodl.) is designated S? by the present 
writer (see list of abbreviations). One source of the corruption of the text was 
the comparison of readings in 2 Pet. with Jude. This, however, can be used to 
correct the text. Whether we hold 2 Pet. to be dependent upon Jude or the 
reverse, the one document is certainly a very ancient witness for the text of 
the other. If the correct reading in Jude 12 be ayarraıs, then it must be that 
Jude read dydras in 2 Pet. ii. 13, and that this, therefore, is the correct read- 
ing in the latter passage ; or, if 2 Pet. is dependent upon Jude, then it is hard 
to conceive how Peter could change the clear ἀγάπαις of Jude to ἀπάταις, 
which does not make as good sense. So in this case also the original reading 
in 2 Pet. ii. 13 seems to have been ayaraıs. 

2. (P. 198.) Most modern interpreters take the letter of Paul’s mentioned 
in 2 Pet. iii. 15 to be Eph.—with especial positiveness Hofmann (vii. 2. 
113 ff.). Grotius (p. 1060) and Dietlein (Der zweite Petrusbrief, 229-235) 
think that Rom. is meant; the elder Lightfoot (Opp. ii. 109, 116) and 
Bengel in his Gnomon think that the reference is to Hebrews. The last 
hypothesis would be impossible, even if 2 Pet. had been written at a time 
when Heb. had come to be regarded by part of the Church as an ‘Epistle 
of Paul’s; because a pseudo-Peter who undertook to compose an Epistle of 
Peter to the Ἑβραῖοι, to whom Paul had previously written Heb., could 
not have been content with a salutation, not a word of which refers clearly 
to the Ἑβραῖοι, nor would he have ventured in iii. 1 to lead the readers to 
suppose that 2 Pet. was meant for the same readers as 1 Pet. The credit 
for having broken radically with exegetical traditions regarding the letter of 
Paul mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 15, and the letter of Peter mentioned in 2 Pet. 
iii. 1 belongs to Spitta (221-227, 286-288). 

3. (Pp. 199, 209.) As toi. 12-15, μελλήσω with the present infinitive is 
hardly to be taken, as in Matt. xxiv. 6, or as μέλλω with the future infinitive 
(Acts xxiv. 15, xxvii. 10), as a mere periphrasis for the future; butis intended 
to express the thought that the writer will be ready in the future, as often as 
necessity arises, to recall to the minds of the readers truths with which they 
are familiar, as he has done in the past, and as he does now throughout this 
entire letter. Copyists and translators, who knew nothing of the fulfilment 


212 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of the promise here made, found the expression too strong, and changed it in 
some instances to οὐ μελλήσω (in the sense of “I will not hesitate ”—non 
differam, Palimps. Flor. and other Latin MSS), in other cases (the Antiochian 
recension and the Syriac versions) to οὐκ ἀμελήσω. The only other thing to 
be noted with regard to the variant readings is the fact that in ver. 15, besides 
N, the Armenian version and one cursive also S? read σπουδάζω (see Gwynn, 
op. it. 391). But this is an intentional alteration, designed to make it possible 
to connect the sentence with the letter which Peter was writing at the time. 
Even the σπουδάσατε of S? and a few cursives, if taken as an aorist used in 
the graphie sense, tends, on the one hand, to confirm the reading σπουδάσω 
against σπουδάζω, and, on the other hand, shows, as does also the latter read- 
ing, that copyists and translators could not bring themselves to read here 
again a promise of Peter’s which he seemed not to have fulfilled, What 
Peter says about his future literary plans is conceived altogether in the light 
of the end of his life. He refers to it three times in vy. 13, 14,15. Only 
in ver. 14 is there a definite view expressed regarding its manner or time. 
His knowledge concerning his death, while not based exclusively upon a 
revelation of Christ, is due in part to this; since it is inadmissible to take 
the «ai here as the pleonastic καί which is common with particles of eom- 
parison (so Hofmann, Spitta), for καθώς does not here introduce a comparison, 
but a determining authority. With regard to the question what or what 
kind of a revelation is meant, it is to be observed : (1) That Peter refers to 
this revelation of Christ quite incidentally, and only in order to confirm an 
expectation certain on other grounds. ΤΠ view of the fact that Peter was one 
of the missionaries who preached the gospel to the readers, and that there 
had been frequent intercourse between him and them, it is not likely that 
the readers were wholly unfamiliar with it, so that the reference is not to a 
communication from Christ which Peter had recently received. How great 
an interest these Christians who were intimately acquainted with Peter must 
have had in learning from him that the Lord had recently appeared to him 
in a vision, and made known to him that he was to die quickly, or soon, or 
suddenly! As a matter of fact, however, the simple expression used, 
ἐδήλωσέν μοι, does not indicate any such wonderful revelation. (2) Taken 
alone, raxıvos, like ταχύς, does not mean either “soon” or “sudden,” but 
“quick,” “rapid.” It may mean (a) the speedy termination of an action 
(John xx. 4; Jas. i. 19), and, taken in that sense here it would designate a 
quick death as contrasted with a death following long sickness, Since, how- 
ever, the whole future may be conceived as something coming, approaching 
the subject, and since the rapid completion of this conceived movement 
involves the early appearance of the coming event, (b) the adverbial expres- 
sions ταχέως, τάχιον, τάχιστα, ταχύ, ἐν τάχει, especially when used with 
futures and imperatives, frequently mean “soon, without delay” (cf. Luke 
xvi. 6, xviii. 2; Matt. v.25; 1 Cor. iv. 19; Phil. ii. 19, 24; 1 Tim, iii. 14; 
Heb. xiii. 19, 23). In all these cases the thing signified is not the quick 
termination of the action itself, writing, journeying, ete., but the immediate 
happening of the event in question. But (0) the approach of the future so 
conceived can itself be represented as a slow or rapid process, according as 
the future event is thought of as approaching gradually, or as coming with- 
out perceptible preparation and warning, like a bolt of lightning. So we get 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 2159 


the meaning “sudden ” ; ef. Rev. ii. 16 (=iii. 3; 1 Thess. v. 2-4 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10) ; 
also Gal. i. 6; 2 Thess, ii. 2. It is in this sense that we say in the Litany, 
“Deliver us from evil and sudden death.” The first meaning (a) “quick” is 
not applicable here ; for, no matter whether he expects to die and be taken 
from his work by a death struggle lasting only a few minutes, or only after 
years of illness, this can hardly have any important influence upon his 
valuation and use of the time remaining until he is called upon to meet this 
quick or gradual death. The second meaning (Ὁ) “soon” suits better ; since 
the consciousness that only a short span of life remains, may make one 
zealous in the performance of his calling, and remind him of the necessity of 
providing for the time after his death. Cf. Ep. Clem. ad Jac. ii. (Clementina, 
ed, Lagarde, p. 6). Against this interpretation there are the following objec- 
tions: (1) This certain knowledge that he was soon to die Peter could have 
obtained only through a revelation from Christ made to him recently, unless 
recourse is had to the improbable supposition that Christ had told him long 
before just how many years he was to live. In neither of these cases could 
he refer as incidentally as he does to this revelation of Christ as something 
with which the readers are already familiar. (2) The use of the adjectives 
ταχύς and ταχινός in this sense is certainly rare. ταχὺς καρπός, Clem. 2 Cor. 
xx. 2, cited by Spitta (87), is not a clear illustration of this usage. (3) ταχινὴ 
ἀπώλεια (2 Pet. ii. 1), with which it is most natural to compare this passage, is 
manifestly used in the third sense (c) “sudden,” meaning a destruction 
coming unexpectedly—unprepared for by sinners (cf. 1 Thess. v. 3; Luke 
xvii. 27, xxi. 35 ; Mark xiii. 35 ; Matt. xxiv. 37-xxv. 13). It isnot a catastrophe 
coming soon, since there was no point of time from which this event could be 
reckoned. Good illustrations of this usage are the examples cited by Hof- 
mann (vii. 2. 29) from Thucyd. iv. 55. 1, πόλεμος ταχὺς καὶ ἀπροφύλακτος, 
and Eurip. Hipp. 1044, ταχὺς döns (“sudden death”). Anyone knowing and 
pondering the fact that he is to die a sudden death, will not in any given 
instance put off what he regards as his duty until another day which seems to 
him better adapted for its performance or which is more convenient ; rather, 
not knowing whether he may claim the next day as his, he will always be 
ready to do what the present day demands. But it was just this which Peter 
promised in ver. 12 with regard to the instruction of the readers during the 
remainder of his life. We have seen how the certainty with which Peter 
expected a sudden death is based only in part upon the revelation of Christ 
to him, or, to speak more accurately, how he finds this knowledge to be in 
harmony with the revelation of Christ, from which it is to be inferred that he 
believed this to be certain quite apart from the revelation, which is) practi- 
cally the same conviction Paul had as to the martyr’s death he was to die (see 
vol. i. p.546f.). Furthermore, it is not to be assumed that Christ had said to 
Peter in so many words what he here gives as his own conviction. In this 
case his conviction would rest entirely upon the words of Christ, and nothing 
could be said of Peter’s independent knowledge about the same thing. There 
is nothing, therefore, which prevents our taking the words of Jesus preserved 
in John xiii. 36 and xxi. 18f. as the foundation of 2 Pet.i. 14. The former 
saying contains no clear statement as to the manner of Peter’s death, but, in 
the light of later reflection upon it, Peter could say that it did mean some- 
thing more than that he was to die at some future time like other men, and, 


214 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


like all other diseiples, through death to come into the presence of Jesus in 
heaven. If he came to feel that he was to die suddenly, then this word of Jesus 
must have been confirmation of the feeling; it could hardly mean to him 
anything else than that he, like Jesus, was to die a violent death. While it is 
true that sudden death is not always violent death, violent death, murder, or 
execution is always a sudden death, and stands in contrast to death which 
approaches gradually through sickness or old age. The other saying of Jesus, 
John xxi. 18, does convey primarily the idea that Peter, who is now young and 
impetuous, will become a helpless old man. But with this is connected the 
other thought that in his old age he shall fall into the hands of hostile men. 
The narrator of the story in John xxi. 19 takes the entire saying as a 
prophecy of Peter’s martyrdom, and, in one feature of the picture (ἐκτενεῖς τὰς 
χεῖράς σου), he finds a reference to the definite manner of his death, namely, 
crucifixion. If this interpretation, like other interpretations of obscure pro- 
phetic utterances of Jesus (cf. John ii. 22, vii. 39, xii. 33), was not made until 
after the prophecy was fulfilled,—z.e. until after Peter’s crucifixion,—it does 
not follow that Peter and the others who heard Jesus say this word had no 
thoughts about the prophecy. The reference to violence which he was to 
suffer at the end of his life (ἄλλος ζώσει σε καὶ οἴσει ὅπου οὐ θέλεις) was sufli- 
cient to enable Peter to say that his premonition of a violent death was 
confirmed by the Lord Himself, and at the same time to regard it as a second 
saying of this character (cf. John xiii. 36). Peter does not quote the word 
spoken by Christ to him, but says that his expectation is in accordance with 
a saying of Jesus. He describes the laying aside of his earthly tabernacle as 
sudden rather than violent, because the latter thought is appropriate in this 
context only as it is involved in the former. On the other hand, the language 
of Peter is extremely unnatural if the reference is to the legends already men- 
tioned (see above, p. 168f.). The saying of Jesus, ἄνωθεν μέλλω σταυροῦσθαι, 
quoted by Origen (tom. xx. 12 in Jo.) from the Acts of Paul, does not 
appear in this place to have reference to Peter at all; and, according to 
Origen’s interpretation, it does not refer to the physical crucifixion of a 
disciple. In the Gnostie Acts of Peter, however, this saying is made to refer to 
the crucifixion of Peter in Rome—and that in the double sense in which ἄνωθεν 
may be used (“again” and “from above”). In the crucifixion of Peter, Christ 
experienced His own crucifixion again; Peter was erncified head downwards 
(ed. Lipsius, 88, 92f.; GK, ii. 846, 853, A. 3, 878f.). Reference to this 
blunt μῦθος σεσοφισμένος is not in harmony with the delicate and modest 
recalling of the saying of Jesus in 2 Pet.i. 14. If this legend is based upon a 
saying of Jesus—specifically of the risen J esus—preserved in the more original 
form in the Acts of Paul (GK, ii. 879), in the first place it is, to say the least, 
extremely doubtful whether it refers to Peter. But if it does, and describes 
his future crucifixion, then, from the critical point of view, it can be regarded 
only as a fanciful development of John xxi. 18 f. Whereas the canonical 
account distinguishes between the mysterious saying of Jesus and the inter- 
pretation of the same made in the light of the event, this fanciful story, and 
the later tale of the Acts of Peter, put into the mouth of Jesus Himself a 
prophecy exactly suited to the subsequent events. However, it is not witha 
fable like this that 2 Pet. i. 14 shows affinity, but with the words of Jesus 
preserved in John xiii, 36, xxi. 18. 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 215 


4. (P. 200.) With what has been said above, p. 199 f., ef. 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; 
2 Cor. x. 10, xiii. 10; Phil. i. 27; Polye, ad Phil. iii. 2. 

5. (Pp. 200, 201.) Michaelis (Einl. 1056), Schwegler, and others compare 
μετὰ τὴν ἐμὴν ἔξοδον, i. 15, with Iren. iii. 1.1: μετὰ de τὴν τούτων (i.e. of Peter 
and Paul) ἔξοδον Μᾶρκος ra ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν. 
See also 849. Inasmuch as the death of Peter is clearly spoken of in ver. 14, 
ἔξοδος in ver. 15 can be understood only as referring to him ; ef. Luke ix. 31; 
Heb. xiii. 7; Acta Jo. (ed. Bonnet, p. 184. 9), probably also Hermas, Vis. iii. 
4.3. Nor is Irenzus’ meaning different in the passage cited. The strong 
emphasis of τὴν ἐμὴν €£., used instead of τὴν ἔξ. μου, is to be noticed. After 
Peter dies others will teach and write; but he desires that after his death it 
shall still be his voice that exhorts the readers. 

6. (P. 201, 204.) With regard to i. 16 ff., it is to be borne in mind first of 
all that γνωρίζειν τινί τι means, “ To make known to one something that he 
has not known before.” This is its meaning even in 1 Cor. xv. 1, where, not 
without irony, Paul uses a certain contradictio in adjecto. Also in 1 Cor. xii. 3 
and Gal. i. 11, truths and facts with which the readers could not have been 
wholly unacquainted are intentionally spoken of as if they were entirely 
unknown. The expression has the force of an emphatic od θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν 
or ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε. Furthermore, although παρουσία, like ἐπιφάνεια (see above, 
p- 133), can be used of the first as well as of the second coming of Christ 
(cf. Luke xii. 51 ; Heb. ix. 11), here, in accordance with the uniform usage of 
the N.T. (Matt. xxiv. 3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 19, iii. 13, 
iv. 15, v.23; 2 Thess. ii. 1, 8; Jas. v. 7f.; 1 John ii. 28; cf. also 2 Pet. iii. 
4, 12), it can refer only to the second coming, especially in view of the fact 
that otherwise it would have to precede δύναμις. But the interpretation of 
δύναμις as meaning the power manifested by Jesus while still upon the earth, 
is in keeping not only with the usage of the Gospels and of Acts in describing 
the miraculous work of Christ (Mark v. 30, vi. 2, 14, ix. 23; Luke iv. 14, 36, 
v. 17, xxiv. 19; Acts ii. 22, x. 38), but also with the usage of 2 Pet. itself 
(i. 3; seen. 10). There is no reason, however, why the conception should be 
limited to this power, and that power excluded which was shown by Jesus as 
He passed through death and resurrection to heavenly glory, which also will 
be fully manifested at His coming. It is just as arbitrary to limit ἐπόπται 
γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου μεγαλειότητος either to the transfiguration upon the 
mountain, which is not mentioned until ver. 17, and then only in order to 
illustrate and confirm what has just been said (still advocated by Spitta, 97), 
or to the appearances of the risen Christ (as Hofmann, vii. 2.33). There is 
nothing in the expression itself which would limit it n this way ; since 
Jesus’ own μεγαλειότης comes to view, not only in these particular events, but 
in everything in which a θεῖα δύναμις of Jesus (i. 3) was expressed, or His ἰδία 
δόξα (i. 3) became manifest to those of His contemporaries who believed 
during His earthly life (John i. 14, ii. 11; ef. 2 Cor. iv. 6), in all those μεγαλεῖα 
τοῦ θεοῦ (Acts ii, 11) in which in and through Jesus God showed His 
μεγαλειότης (Luke ix. 43),—just as the glorification of God through Jesus is 
at the same time a glorification of Jesus (John xi. 4, 40, xii, 28, xiii. 31, 
xvii. 4, 10). The transfiguration upon the mountain and the appearances of 
the risen Christ are a part of these experiences of Peter and his fellow- 
diseiples ; but only when what they witnessed is conceived of in the entirely 


216 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


general sense implied by the absence of every specification, does the term 
serve as an adequate contrast to μῦθοι σεσοφισμένοι, and a suitable description 
of those experiences on which the preaching of the apostles was based. Nor 
does the ἐκείνου necessarily refer to one “beyond us,” 1.6, to the exalted 
Christ (Hofmann), but applies equally well to Him who lived once here upon 
the earth (1 John ii. 6, iii. 5, 16), but now can be no more seen even by His 
own. In this rests the peculiar significance of those preachers of the gospel 
who, by reason of the fact that they saw and heard what Jesus did and said 
in His earthly life, were able to declare what had happened as well as what 
was to take place in the future (Johni. 14; 1Johni.1f.,iv.14; Acts x. 39-41). 
The interpretation of 1. 17f. is rendered difficult, but not made impossible, by 
the anacoluthon. If, as is certainly the case, vv. 175, 18 refer to the event 
described in Matt. xvii. 1-13, Mark ix. 2-13, Luke ix. 28-36, λαβὼν παρὰ 
θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν cannot be taken in the sense in which Hofmann 
takes it, as referring to the glorification of Jesus completed at His resurrection 
(cf. 1 Pet. i, 21; John vii. 39, xiii. 32) ; for then there is no intelligible con- 
nection between this final glorification and the heavenly voice at the 
Transfiguration. Nor does the honour and glory received consist of the voice 
from heaven, which thought would necessarily be expressed by φερομένης, 
in the sense of an imperfect participle, instead of evexdeions. The only other 
meaning possible is the visible glorification of Jesus in the scene upon the 
mountain. The dazzling light, by which the disciples saw the countenance 
and garments of Jesus illumined, can be called glory and honour which Jesus 
received at that moment from the Father (cf. Luke ix. 39, εἶδον τὴν δόξαν 
αὐτοῦ), with just as much appropriateness as the saying in Ps. vill. 6 about 
the crowning of mankind with δόξα καὶ τιμή can be applied in Heb. ii. 9 
(cf. iii. 3, v. 4 f.) to the earthly life of Jesus while He had death yet before 
Him. Spitta’s opinion (104, 496), that Peter, in contradiction to the Gospels, 
conceived the voice from heaven as preceding the visible transfiguration, 
cannot be justified from the text ; for even if the words be translated, “ After 
a voice sounded,” it is by no means certain that the genitive absolute is 
dependent upon the participle λαβών. It is rather like λαβών, dependent 
upon the principal clause of the sentence, which is left unexpressed. The 
latter is the more probable construction, for otherwise ἐνεχθείσης would 
certainly precede λαβών (cf. Heb. ix. 19). Furthermore, in the description 
of similar events, such as the appearance of the angels to the shepherds, the 
baptism of Jesus, the conversion of Paul, the visible phenomenon always 
precedes the audible. Why not here, as in the Gospels, without making 
Peter contradict these accounts? Nor does the present writer agree with 
Spitta when he claims that “ it is possible to determine with entire certainty” 
(Spitta, 106) the originally intended continuation of the sentence beginning 
with ver. 17, though he regards it as quite possible that Peter did intend to 
say practically what is found in ver, 18 without breaking the construction of 
the preceding verse. Possibly he meant to write διελέχθη ἡμῖν περὶ τῆς 
παρουσίας αὐτοῦ, which is not expressly stated in the Gospels, but quite in 
harmony with Matt. xvii. 10-13; Mark ix. 11-13; cf. Matt. xvi, 28; Mark 
ix. 1; Luke ix.27; or he may have meant to write διεστείλατο (ἐνετείλατο) 
ἡμῖν, wa μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὐτοῦ πᾶσι γνωρίσωμεν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν 
παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ, Which might be suggested by Matt. xvii. 9; Mark ix. 9f.; 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 217 


Luke ix. 36. These conclusions of the sentence agree better with the contents 
of ver. 16 than do ἡμᾶς εἶχε σὺν αὐτῷ ὄντας ev τῷ ὄρει τῷ ἁγίῳ (Spitta) and 
other similar expressions, which, moreover, leave the break in the construction 
unexplained. On the other hand, it is perfectly conceivable that, having 
expressed with vivid realisation in an independent sentence (ver. 18) the 
important circumstance that he and his companions themselves had heard the 
voice and been witnesses of the whole scene, Peter might leave the intended 
principal clause of the sentence unexpressed. Whatever the grammatical 
form of the intended principal clause, the clause itself was not necessary in 
order to complete the sense ; for the thing of chief importance—correspond- 
ing to the ἐπόπται γενηθέντες of ver. 16, which is the chief point to be 
established—Peter has already expressed. In fact, neither this nor any 
other passage in 2 Pet. can be shown to contradict the view of the events 
on the mountain, given in the Gospels. In Matt. xvii. 5, Mark ix. 7, Luke 
ix. 35, it is said that the voice sounded from the cloud which afterwards 
overshadowed the scene ; in 2 Pet. it is said that it came from heaven ; but 
these two passages are related in the same way as the narrative in Acts 
i. 9 is related to the reminiscence of the same in Acts ii. 34. In the Gospel 
passages the fact that it is God who speaks appears only from the contents 
of the call; in 2 Pet.,on the other hand, God is also expressly called the 
“majestic glory,” ü.e. God in His majesty is declared to be the efficient 
cause of this revelation ; but this would not imply a contradiction, even if 
the thought were here expressed that God in this phenomenon of brightness, 
νεφέλη φωτεινή (Matt. xvii. 5), became visible (ef. Ex. xiii, 21, xiv. 24, xvi. 
10, xxiv. 16). But there is no ground for even this assumption. The attri- 
bute μεγαλοπρεπής can be used with reference to the audible voice itself (Ps. 
xxix. 4), and the μεγαλοπρέπεια of God (Ps. exlv. 5, exi. 3; Clem. 1 Cor. 
lx. 1, Ixi. 1) or of His name (2 Mace. vil. 15 ; Clem. 1 Cor. xiv; cf. ix. 1, 
xix. 2, xlv. 7), also His δόξα (Rom. i. 23, vi. 4), or even the μεγαλοπρεπὴς 
δόξα (Clem. 1 Cor. ix. 2), are spoken of where there is no reference whatever 
to physical perceptibility. Further comparison with the Gospels brings out 
clearly the fact that the presentation by Peter is an independent one. Thus 
(1) the most interesting and remarkable features are omitted by Peter, e.g. 
the appearance of Moses and Elias, although, in view of the purpose expressed 
—to speak of the word of the prophets (i. 19 f.)—it was most natural to recall 
just these things. (2) The language of the heavenly call differs from the 
account given in all three of the synoptics in the following particulars :— 
(a) The omission of αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε at the close ; (Ὁ) the insertion of eis ὃν ἐγὼ 
εὐδόκησα, the only parallel to which is the ev ᾧ εὐδόκησα of Matt. xvii. 5; the 
ἐγώ of Peter is not found in any of the parallels (Matt. iii. 17, xii. 18, xvii. 5; 
Mark i. 11 ; Luke iii. 22) ; (c) most unparalleled of all is the order of words, 
6 υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός μου οὗτός ἐστιν, witnessed only by Cod. B, but rightly 
adopted by Westeott-Hort. The τοιᾶσδε (not ταύτης) is apparently designed 
to indicate that Peter does not claim absolute accuracy in his reproduction of 
the words spoken from heaven. (3) The twice-repeated φωνὴ ἠνεχθεῖσα, 
vv. 17, 18, seems to presuppose ἃ φωνὴ ἠνέχθη in the underlying narrative, 
which, however, is not found in any of the Gospels (but cf. Acts ii. 2). (4) The 
fact that the place where the Transfiguration took place is here called τὸ ὄρος τὸ 
ἅγιον, but is not so designated in the Gospels, is explained by the fact that this 


218 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


mountain was not in itself holy, but was made a holy mountain for Christians 
by the knowledge of what J esus, in company with His most trusted diseiples, 
experienced there. Consequently in the narrative, in which the point of 
view is before the event, it is called a high mountain (Matt., Mark), or a 
(neighbonring) mountain (Luke), but in the retrospect of the eye-witness it 
becomes the holy mountain. If, on the other hand, Peter meant to refer to a 
mountain which was already venerated by the readers as a holy place, and 
even visited by pilgrims, he would not have failed to mention it by name, or 
in some other way to indicate its geographical location ; for if at the time 
when 2 Pet. was written there was any holy mountain so venerated by 
Christians, there were other mountains—e.g. the Mount of Olives, from which 
the ascension took place—that had at least as much claim to this designation 
as the mount of transfiguration. But the term which Peter chooses, taken 
out of its connection, is far more applicable to Zion (Ps. ii. 6, iii. 5; Joel 
iv. 17; Zech. viii. 3; Dan. ix, 16-20; Acts vi. 13; Rev. xiv. 1), or Sinai 
(Ex. xix. 3; 1 Kings xix. 8) than to any mountain in Galilee. The ex- 
pression, therefore, is not due to the fame of the locality already established 
and expressed by use of the common name “ The holy mountain,” but grows 
out of associations of the event recalled. It is also to be observed that there 
is no ancient local tradition with regard to the place of the transfiguration. 
The tradition which makes Tabor the scene of this event is no older than that 
which places the temptation of Jesus upon the same mountain, and both 
traditions grew out of the almost identical designation of a mountain in 
Matt. iv. 8 and xvii. 2 (GK, ii. 690 f.). In the Gnostie Acts of Peter (ed. Lipsius, 
67. 10), Peter speaks as follows in connection with a lesson just read from the 
book of the gospel (perhaps Mark ix. 2-13): “ Nune quod vobis lectum est, 
jam vobis exponam. Dominus noster volens me majestatem suam videre in 
monte sancto, videns autem luminis splendorem eius cum filiis Zebed:i, cecidi 
tamquam mortuus et oculos meos conclusi et vocem eius audivi talem, qualem 
referre non possum, qui me putavi exorbatum ab splendore eius ; et pusillum 
respirans dixi intra me : “Forsitan dominus meus voluit me hie adducere, ut 
me orbaret.’ Et dixi: ‘Et hee tua voluntas est, non contradico, domine,’ 
Et dans mihi manum elevavit me, et exsurgens iterum talem eum vidi, qualem 
capere potui.” The words majestatem (cf. Palimps. Flor. 2 Pet. i. 17, de mag 
nifica majestate, Vulg. a magnifica gloria) and in monte sancto, perhaps also 
vocem talem, are taken from 2 Pet. i.17f. In the Acts of John also (ed. 
Bonnet, p. 195. 8-11) the event is described briefly, in order to connect with 
it a related story purely fictitious in character. 

7. (P. 205.) For the impersonal designation of the apostles by one who 
belonged to the apostolic body (iii. 2), ef. Eph. iv. 11 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28; vol. i, 
p. 506 f, Every preacher or teacher is apt occasionally to say to his hearers 
or pupils, “ Your preachers or teachers,” without prefacing it with a “ we.” 
The aged preacher in Clem. 2 Cor. xvii. 3, 5, goes so far even as to employ a 
“we,” including himself and listeners, and then to contrast the two together 
with the presbyters who preached to his hearers, although he himself is now 
preaching to them. y 

8. (P. 206.) The interpretation of πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κτλ.» i. 1, to 
mean “Faith in the righteousness,” ete., which led to the change of the 
reading in δὲ to els δικαιοσύνην, is to be rejected for the following reasons ; 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 219 


(1) Such a description of the essential element in Christian faith is un- 
paralleled, and there is nothing in the rest of the letter that would oceasion 
such a description here. (2) δικαιοσύνῃ is without the artiele which would 
necessarily be used, if the reference were to a righteousness of Christ upon 
which the Christian based his hope of salvation. Moreover, such a righteous- 
ness would be more properly described as that of the man Jesus, than as the 
righteousness of “ our God and Saviour.” (3) There is a question about this 
construction of πίστις in all the N.T. passages where it is supposed to exist 
(Gal. iii. 26 ; Eph. i. 15 ; 2 Tim. ini. 15 ; cf. 1 Tim. i. 14; 2 Tim. i. 13). ἐν 
δικαιοσύνῃ is therefore to be taken with λαχοῦσιν. The assignment of human 
destinies has been made in righteousness (ef. Tit. iii. 5; Acts xvii. 31; Rev. 
xix, 11), and it is due to the righteous act of the Lord that those converted 
by the apostolic preaching, who have not seen nor heard Him, have come 
into the possession of a Christianity of no less value than that of the original 
disciples (cf. Cat., ed. Cramer, 85), eis τὸ ἴσον αὐτοὺς τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ἀναφέρων 
χάρισμα. 

9. (Pp. 206, 209.) With regard to the use of Συμεών instead of Σίμων, see 
vol. i. p.29f. Leaving out of account the thoroughly Jewish character of the 
name, the use of this original name along with Πέτρος proves that the writer 
did not intend his letter for the same group of readers for whom the greeting 
in 1 Pet. i. 1 was meant. The Concordance shows how uncommon outside of 
Palestine was the use of Simon or Simeon to designate the apostle Peter, 
whether used in place of the latter name or along with it. Paul calls him 
only Peter, or, what is the same thing, Cephas, which corresponds to Peter's 
own usage in 1 Pet. i. 1 (above, p. 155). Mark calls him Simon until he is 
given a surname in iii. 16; from that point on only Peter is found in 
the narrative, which is all the more striking because Mark does not conceal 
the fact that Jesus called him Simon to the end (xiv. 37, λέγει τῷ Πέτρῳ 
Σίμων). Luke also calls him regularly Simon until he is given another 
name (vi. 14); then he uses just as regularly Peter in both books, even 
when he is addressed by Jesus, Luke xxii. 34 (alongside of Σίμων, xxii. 31; 
cf. Mark xiv. 37); Acts x. 13; although he lets us know that he was 
generally called Simon (Luke xxiv. 34), or Symeon (Acts xv. 14), by 
his companions in Jerusalem. Simon Peter occurs only once (Luke v. 8) ; 
“Simon with the surname Peter” is used in the Cornelius passages where 
Peter is thought of as being at a distance (Acts x. 5, 18, 32, xi. 13), 
though the simple designation Peter is found in the same narrative (fourteen 
times in the passage Acts x. 1-xi. 18, fifty-two times altogether in Acts). In 
John, Simon alone occurs only in i. 41, Simon son of John in i. 42, xxi. 
15-17; from i. 40 on, Simon Peter is used seventeen times, from xiil. 8 on 
it is used interchangeably with Peter fifteen times. Except in address (xvii. 
25, Simon ; xvi. 17, Simon Barjona), Matthew never uses Simon ; Simon with 
the surname Peter occurs only in the call and in the list of the apostles 
(iv. 18, x. 2), and on one other solemn occasion (xvi. 16) ; in all other cases 
Peter is used, occurring some twenty times. There is no means of determin- 
ing whether the person who translated this Gospel into Greek found uni- 
formly in his original Kepha, or in passages where he found Simon replaced 
it by Peter, which was more familiar to his Greek readers, With regard to 
the interchange of the Aramaic Kepha and the Greek Πέτρος, it may be said 


220 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


that the latter once adopted as the translation was more natural to the Greek 
language. Just as Syrian translators and theological writers always wrote 
Kepha, so the N.T. writers used regularly Πέτρος. The former is found only 
once in the Gospels, John i. 42, where the writer, following an inclination 
which he often manifests, retains the original words of the saying which he 
is reproducing. All the cases where Paul writes Kepha are explained by the 
reference which he has to the “ Hebrews,” who, with appeals to the authority of 
Peter, were meddling with his affairs in Galatia and Corinth (above, p. 155, n. 8). 

10, (P. 194, 207.) The present writer regards it as certain that ver. 3f. fol- 
lows ver. 2 without any break in the grammatical construction, as held by Lach- 
mann and by Spitta (27 f.), who has proved this to be the case particularly by 
a correct interpretation of Ign. ph. i., Rom. 1., Smyrn. i., Philad. i., correcting 
fundamentally the writer’s edition. He also holds that in ver. 2 τοῦ θεοῦ 
καὶ Ἰησοῦ and similar words are to be omitted before rod x. ἡ. and rod κυρίου 
ἡμῶν, read with P, Vulg. (in the best MSS.), to which 5°, S%, Aug. Speeul. 
pp. 606. 16, 630. 1, and some cursives add simply Ἰησοῦ Xp. The same theme 
is dealt with here as in i. 8, ii. 20, iii. 18, namely, the knowledge of Christ. 
Therefore it is Christ who is referred to in i. 3, It is commonly held that in 
the N.T. only God, never Christ, is described as calling men; but that this claim 
is erroneous is evidenced not alone by Gal. i. 6 and 1 Pet. ii. 9, regarding 
which there may be difference of opinion, but by the expression κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ 
Xp., Rom. i. 6, and passages like Matt. ix. 13; Mark ii. 17 ; Luke v. 32. So 
also the expression κλητὸς ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ, 1 Cor. i. 1, represents Christ as 
calling His disciples as well as sending them (1 Cor. i. 17), cf. ZKom. Gal. 43 f, 
If ver. 3f. is thus closely connected with ver, 1 f. the ἡμᾶς (and ἡμῖν) of ver, 3 
cannot be taken other than as ἡμῖν, ver. 1, namely, as referring to the apostles 
and personal diseiples of Jesus, as distinguished from the Christians who 
were not called until they were called through their preaching. This dis- 
tinction is also expressly made in ver. 3. Whereas God or Christ calls all 
other Christians through the preachers of the gospel, He called the apostles 
by the manifestation of (His) own glory and virtue. It was particularly 
natural for an apostle, whom Jesus Himself in the most literal sense of the 
word had called (Matt. iv. 19-22; Mark i. 17, 20, ἐκάλεσεν αὐτούς ; Matt, 
viii. 22, ix. 9; Mark ii. 14; Luke v. 10f., 27, ix. 57-62; John i. 39, 43), to 
speak of Jesus as the one who called men, and to emphasise the fact that 
Jesus had called him and his companions directly through His own personal 
act, through the demonstration of His own glory and moral power, in contrast 
to the fact that all other Christians owed their call to the preaching of weak 
men, even that of Peter bimself (i. 16). The words δόξα καὶ ἀρετή are 
intended to suggest the evidences of miraculous knowledge and power, which 
Jesus had shown at the time of these calls (John i. 42, 47-51 ; Luke v. 4), 
and the impression of His moral greatness (Luke v. 8; John i. 49), which 
rendered impossible or overcame any resistance on the part of the one who 
was called. Especially in the first word we have expressed the same view of 
Jesus, as He lived in intereourse with His diseiples upon earth, that is found 
in i. 16 (above, p. 215) and in the words immediately preceding in ver. 8, τῆς 
θείας δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ ; for it may be regarded as certain that the reference in 
these expressions is to the supernatural power which dwelt in the man J esus, 
and not to the power of God as the Creator and Ruler of the wniverse— 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 221 


partieularly in view of the fact that in ver. 1 Jesus is called our God and 
Saviour, and of the fact that, according to the more probable reading, God 
the Father is not mentioned at all in ver. 2. The same Jesus who personally 
called the apostles, by reason of His own divine power and through the 
knowledge of Himself, to which He led them, also bestowed upon them all 
true blessings (ra πάντα, NA ; cf. Rom. vili. 32), especially the things necessary 
for the true life and pious conduct (Matt. xi. 25-30, xiii. 11-17, xvi. 16-19 ; 
Luke xxii. 28-35 ; John vi. 68f.). It is this personal experience (cf. John i. 
16, xvii. 2f., 6-18) from which the apostle derives the authority and the 
courage to express the wish for the readers in ver. 2. To this he comes back 
in ver. 4. With regard to variant readings, which are numerous, those 
affecting the order of the words are not of any great importance ; for even if 
ἡμῖν (or ὑμῖν) belongs between τίμια and καὶ μέγιστα, it must be taken. with 
δεδώρηται (having here also the force of a middle—“ He hath bestowed ”). 
ὑμῖν does not have very strong MS. authority (AS?, cursive 68), but the 
following may be said in its favour: (1) in the use of the N.T. Epistles in 
public worship, ὑμεῖς, which excluded the reader and preacher, was much more 
easily and frequently changed to ἡμεῖς, or entirely left out, than the reverse 
(ef. iii. 2); (2) the sudden transition to an address to the readers in ver. 4b 
without the insertion of a καὶ ὑμεῖς is intolerable, unless in 4a the readers are 
already clearly contrasted with the ἡμῖν, ἡμᾶς of ver. 3, through the use of 
ὑμῖν. Moreover, 8’ ὧν does not refer back to δυνάμει καὶ ἀρετῇ, Which would 
require δὲ ἧς ; still less does it refer to πάντα, which is far removed from the 
relative; but it does refer to ἡμᾶς, ü.e. the apostles. Christ called the apostles 
in person, through whom, i.e. through whose preaching, He had bestowed 
upon the readers precious and very great promises. 


§ 42, THE OCCASION OF THE SECOND EPISTLE 
OF PETER. 


From i. 12-14 alone the impression might be gained 
that the only purpose which the writer had in this letter 
was to exhort now from a distance the readers to whom 
he had once preached the gospel, by sending them a letter 
intended to take the place of the oral instructions he 
would not fail to give them were he living among them. 
This he promises also to do occasionally in the future: 
That he had a more definite purpose than this, however, 
is evidenced, first of all, by the fact that the encourage- 
ment of the readers to a well-rounded moral life on the 
basis of their Christian faith (i. 5) and knowledge (i. 8, 12; 
ef. 1. 2, iii. 18) is so variously reinforced by the prospect 
of the completion of their salvation. Even in the restate- 


222 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ment of the apostolie preaching the fact is strongly 
emphasised that in this preaching the return of Christ 
was made known to the readers (1. 16), and that the Lord 
had bestowed upon them through His disciples great and 
precious promises (1. 4; above, p. 220). The purpose of 
this revelation of the gospel is declared to be that the 
readers may become partakers of the divine nature in the 
future world, in contrast to the destruction which follows 
the indulgence of pleasure in this world (i. 4). In view 
of this glorious prospect, they are to spare neither pains 
nor sacrifice to make their faith and knowledge fruitful in 
the exhibition of all Christian virtues, in order that finally 
they may experience in rich measure God’s generous kind- 
ness in that great day when it is decided whether entrance 
is to be had into the eternal kingdom of Christ, or 
destruction with the world and its pleasures (i, 5-11). 
Reference is made to this day again in i. 19, and the 
readers are exhorted to give heed, until this day comes, 
to the word of the O.T. prophets, which the self-revelation 
of Jesus has only served to make more trustworthy for 
the apostles and all Christians, and which has lost none 
of its usefulness. The same combination of the thought 
of moral obligation and the expectation of the end of the 
world meets us again in ili. 2, where the words of the 
prophets are connected with the commandment of Jesus 
handed down through the apostles, and is found also 
throughout iii, 10-18 (above, p. 196). 

There is also a polemical note to be observed in both 
chap. i, and chap. iii. The moral requirements of i. 5-8 are 
reinforced by the warning reference to those with whom 
these Christian virtues are not to be found, and concern- 
ing whom it must be denied that they have the Christian 
knowledge; since by their conduct they show that they 
have forgotten the purification from their former sins 
which they experienced in baptism (i. 9, n. 1). These 
terrible examples do not seem to have belonged to the 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 223 


circle of the readers; for although the readers are ex- 
horted to growth in virtuous living (i. 8, iii. 18; ef. i. 2) 
and to zeal in their own sanctification (i. 10), yet the 
fact that they are addressed as brothers in this particular 
passage and nowhere else in the letter, the even more 
fervent ἀγαπητοί of 11. 1, 8, 14, 17, and the whole of the 
remainder of the Epistle, make it evident that Peter had a 
good opinion of them and full confidence in them. They 
not only possess and know the truth, but they stand fast 
in it (i. 12; ef. i. 17). But among those who confess 
Christianity there are persons who have learned nothing, 
who are not firm in the truth, and who thus easily become 
the prey of error and seduction (ii. 16; ef. ii. 14). And 
these persons who lack the Christian virtues, and are 
therefore immoral in character, are not only evil examples 
to the readers (1. 9), but also a threatening danger, against 
whom the readers must be warned beforehand, in order 
that they may not be led astray by them and so fall from 
their own established position (11. 17). 

A third thing to be noticed is the apologetic tone in 
the restatement of the apostolic preaching in i. 16-18. 
This must be explained as due to opposition, either to 
a depreciatory judgment of the apostolic preaching, or to 
other teachers who actually followed invented stories, and 
did not, like the disciples of Jesus, speak of the things of 
Christianity from their own personal knowledge of Jesus’ 
self-revelation. The latter view is favoured by the em- 
phatic way in which Peter says of himself and his com- 
panions, that they are the persons who have heard with 
their own ears the heavenly testimony concerning Jesus 
(i. 18, ἡμεῖς, omitted ini. 16); the former view is supported 
by the emphasis with which he assures the readers that he 
and his fellow-apostles were called by Jesus Himself (i. 3 ; 
above, p. 220). 

Thus, in brief, almost every one of the more noticeable 
statements of chap. 1. points forward to the contents of 


224 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


chap. ii. and chap. i., and gets its full meaning in the 
light of these chapters. It is here that the occasion of 
the letter first comes clearly to view. After the mention 
of the O.T. prophets in 1. 19-21, Peter goes on to say in 
ii. 1-3 that, just as in Israel the true prophets opposed 
those who wrongly claimed this name, so also among the 
readers, teachers will appear who do not deserve the 
name,—teachers who will smuggle in destructive heresies, 
find numerous followers, and covetously, by means of 
cunningly invented words, get gain at the expense of 
the Churches to which the letter is addressed (n. 2). The 
comparison with the false prophets of the O.T. does not 
imply that the persons in question claimed to be prophets ; 
but just as the false prophets in the O.T. were resisted 
by the true prophets, so in N.T. times the divinely com- 
missioned teachers of the Church, that is to say, the 
apostles, oppose those who set themselves up as teachers, 
and affect the teachers’ appearance and name—an opposi- 
tion which we saw appearing earlier in 1. 16-18 (see above). 
Just as the O.T. prophets and the apostles go naturally 
together (iii. 2; οὗ 1. 16-21), without their vocations 
being in any sense the same, so the false prophets of the 
O.T. and the false teachers in the Church are associated 
with each other, . These false prophets originated in 
Israel itself: so the false teachers arise out of the Church, 
Once they knew the way of righteousness and the Lord 
Christ, and through this knowledge escaped the impuri- 
ties of the worldly life. They have been washed from 
their former sins by baptism, have submitted themselves 
to the holy commandment, and for a time have walked in 
the straight way of truth and righteousness. Now, how- 
ever, they have given up all this, and have become worse 
than they were before their conversion (11, 15, 20-22, 
i. 9); by their deeds they deny the Lord who bought 
them that they might be Ilis servants (ii. 2). In ehap. 1]. 
they are charged with various forms of immoral living, 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 225 


especially unchastity (11. 10, 14, 18, 20). It is in this 
that they will find many followers, and so cause the 
Christian doctrine to be blasphemed (ii. 2). The reference 
to the trespass of the angels who before the Flood had 
sexual intercourse with women (ü. 4; Gen. vi. 1-4), and 
to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (ii. 6 f.; Gen. 
xix.), suggests the unnatural vices of which they were 
the slaves. In particular, they made the love-feasts an 
oceasion not only for gluttonous eating, but for seducing 
unsteadfast souls (11. 13f; n. 3). They preferred to use 
their seductive arts on those recently converted, who 
were not yet firmly grounded in the Christian life (ii. 
14, 18). In doing this they claim to be teachers. of 
Christianity (ii. 1). They make of their teaching a 
prosperous business at the expense of the Churches: (ii. 
3, 14). This is one of the points in which they resemble 
the heathen prophet Balaam (11. 15). The other point in 
which they are like him is in the evil counsel which 
Balaam gave, 1.6. the betrayal of the people of God into 
unchastity, for which he was responsible (n. 3). The 
cunningly chosen language by which they endeavour to 
deceive the Churches and to lead individuals astray (ii. 3 ; 
ef. Rom. xvi. 18), sounds like promises of freedom (ii. 19). 
This same unbridled indulgence of the passions which 
makes these persons themselves slaves of sin and destrue- 
tion they recommend to others, who heretofore have lived 
honourably, as the Christian freedom which they still lack 
(cf 1 Pet. ii. 16). Another indication of the character of 
their teaching is seen in the fact that they despise the 
ruling powers of the other world, and revile them without 
fear and trembling, even evil spirits against which angels 
themselves do not dare to utter a reviling and disparag- 
ing judgment (11. 10 ἢ, 18). While Peter accuses them 
of ignorance, or at least insufticient appreciation, of the 
evil spirits they blaspheme (ii, 12; cf. i. 9, iii, 16), they 
themselves boast a full familiarity with them (Rey. ii. 24), 
VOL. II. τς 


226 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which accounts for the confidence with which they speak 
so contemptuously of the devil and his servants, treating 
them as harmless beings. It is also to be observed that 
they mock the vain waiting of Christianity for the return 
of the Lord (ii. 3f.). For it is impossible to distinguish 
between the libertines of chap. ii. and those who make light 
of prophecy in chap. ui. The latter also are immoral 
in their lives, and from their immoral tendencies Peter 
explains their denial of the prophecy concerning the end 
of the world (ii. 3 £.); just as, on the other hand, he 
derives the obligation to sanctification from the well- 
grounded hope of the disappearance of this world and 
the coming of another in which righteousness dwells (iii. 
10-14). In this same connection also he speaks once 
more of seduction on the part of wicked men, against 
whom he would have the readers forewarned (iii. 17). 
The combining of moral demands with the expectation of 
the end of the world, which comes to light in chap. i. and 
runs through the entire letter, is due to the fact that 
Peter designs to warn his readers against alleged teachers 
of Christianity, who unite immoral theories and practices 
with contempt for prophecy. 

So long as the discussion of this Epistle proceeded on 
the basis of the undemonstrable hypothesis that 2 Peter, 
like 1 Peter, was directed to the Gentile Christian 
Churches of Asia Minor, there remained the insuperable 
difficulty that, while the appearance of the false teachers 
and scoffers is prophesied to take place in the future 
(ii. 1-3, im. 3), and the readers are forewarned against 
them, ii. 17 (11. 10-22, ili, 4 ἢ, 9, ὥς τινες βραδυτῆτα 
yyodraı; cf. also i. 9, iii. 16), the same persons are de- 
scribed connectedly, accurately, and apparently from life 
in the present tense. The transition from the prophecy 
of future phenomena to the description of present condi- 
tions in 2 Tim. iii. 1-9 and other passages of the last 
Mpistles of Paul, is not really parallel with the present case 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 227 


above, p. 1111} Even less satisfactory is the citation of 
such passages as Rey. xi. 4 ff. (Hofmann, vii. 2. 60). On 
the other hand, the explanation is simple, if it be recog- 
nised that 2 Peter was, or purported to be, directed to a 
sroup of Jewish Christian Churches between 60 and 63 
(§ 41), in addition to which there existed a widely spread 
Gentile Christian Church. The writer distinguishes clearly 
between his readers who uniformly hold and steadfastly 
maintain a true faith, which they need only to assert and 
to put into general practice (1. 1, 5, 10, 12, i. 1, 17 f.), 
and the false teachers and the circles in which they exert 
their influence. The false teachers will not arise out of 
their midst (cf. Acts xx. 30; 1 Johnüi. 19; Rev. 11. 14-16, 
20-23), but will come from without—appear among them, 
and seek to profit by them, and lead them astray (2 Pet. 
1. 1-3; cf. Acts xx. 29). It is not their existence but 
their appearance that pertains to the future. The contrast 
is not between the loyal and genuine Christians among 
the readers, and others among them whose lives are un- 
christian and whose faith is wavering, as, for example, in 
Rev. ἢ. 24, ui, 4. Rather, the readers as a body, who are 
regarded as having been up to this time faithful, and as 
maintaining a correct faith and a true knowledge, are 
contrasted not only with the immoral persons and false 
teachers who will attack them in the future (iii, 17, i. 9), 
but also with another group of Christians, or Churches, 
in which conditions are to be observed that are as. yet 
foreign to the readers. This is shown with especial clear- 
ness by the transition from ii. 16 to 111. 17. Peter could 
not address the readers as a whole with an emphatic ὑμεῖς 
οὖν, nor speak of their ἴδιος στηρυγμός, if the persons previ- 
ously described (οἱ ἀμαθεῖς καὶ ἀστήρικτοι) as perverting 
certain difficult passages in the Epistles of Paul to their 
own destruction, had belonged to their own circle. Paul 
once wrote a letter to the readers of 2 Peter (iii. 15; 
above, p. 199), which has not come down to us. ‚The 


228 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


numerous other letters of Paul, concerning which Peteı 
has knowledge (iii. 16), were addressed to other Churches, 
and, excepting only Romans of the letters known to us, to 
Gentile Christians. It was among Gentile Christians that 
they were read. Consequently it is here that we must 
seek the Christians who lacked adequate knowledge of 
Christianity, and requisite stability of moral or religious 
training, and who therefore wrested difficult single state- 
ments in the letters of Paul from their natural connection, 
perverted them, and applied them to life in a way that 
was harmful to themselves. 

It will be observed that this takes place in the present, 
not in the future, concerning which prophecies are made 
in ii, 1-3, and which is referred to in iii. 17 (προγινώ- 
oxovtes), These persons belong in the future only in 
relation to the readers, who are warned against them 
beforehand. The two adjectives in iii. 16, which are used 
with only one article, do not describe two distinct classes. 
As regards their moral condition, these same persons are 
portrayed in i. 17 by a single word, of ἄθεσμοι. But the 
expression ἀστήρικτοι suggests immediately 11. 14, where it 
is said that these false teachers prefer to entice unstead- 
fast souls. These unsteadfast souls are identical with 
those who in ii. 18, according to the correct reading, are 
called τοὺς ὀλύγως ἀποφεύγοντας, 1.6. persons who are just 
escaping the sinful life and its consequent destruction (ef. 
i. 4, il. 20), who are, in fact, only a few steps removed 
from it, and therefore possessed of thoughts and habits to 
a large extent such as held them before they became 
Christians, or, in ecclesiastical language, catechumens or 
neophytes (ef. 1 Cor. ii. 2 ἢ, v. 1, 6, vi. 1-20, xv. 33%. ; 
2 Cor. vi. 14-18; 1 Tim. iii. 6). Thus ἀστήρικτοι refers 
more to the persons enticed by the false teachers than to 
the seducers themselves. Naturally the ἀστήρικτοι are 
also ἀμαθεῖς ; since, if they had learned what was correct, 
they would have been confirmed by the truth dwelling in 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 229 


them, as were the readers of 2 Peter (i. 12, mi. 17). But 
when it is borne in mind that Peter does not charge those 
who allow themselves to be led astray by false teachers so 
much with ἀμαθία as with a lack of experience and con- 
firmation in Christianity (11. 14, 18), while, on the other 
hand, he uses various expressions for accusing the false 
teachers of an ignominious ignorance, a loss of their first 
knowledge of Christ, and a thoughtlessness about Chris- 
tian things (il. 12, 16, 20f., i. 5), it becomes apparent 
that it is especially for the latter that ἀμαθεῖς is in- 
tended, so that it quite appropriately precedes ἀστήρικτοι. 
Seducers and those enticed by them alike believe or 
pretend that in certain passages of Paul’s Epistles, and in 
other writings which they similarly misinterpret, they 
find support for their immoral teachings. 

In the same manner as in 111. 16, the present tenses in 
i. 10-22 describe existing phenomena with which Peter 
had become familiar elsewhere than among the readers. 
In particular, what Peter says in 11. 13 f. about the misuse 
of the Agape by the libertines is inappropriate to a 
prophecy intended to describe future phenomena in large 
outlines or in a symbolic form. It is especially inap- 
propriate to the prophecy of 2 Peter which deals with 
future phenomena among the readers of this Epistle. 
Moreover, according to the corrected text of 11. 13, these 
love-feasts, the name and holy purpose of which the 
libertines profane, are celebrated outside of the circle of 
the readers. Whether such feasts were common among 
the readers and called ayaraı, it is impossible to say 
(n. 3). 

Peter foresees and predicts that these teachers will 
find numerous followers in their immoral living, which 
implies that this was not yet the case (ii. 2). Since the 
region where they will gain this following is not named, 
and since this prediction is accompanied by another quite 
independent prediction that these teachers will make their 


230 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


appearance among the readers and endeavour to lead them 
astray (1. 1,8, i. 17), it follows that u. 2 refers te 
results in the same region where they have been active 
heretofore, ae. outside the circle of the readers, or, in 
other words, among Gentile Christians. Eventually also 
these persons will) brmg their arts to bear upon the 
spiritual children of Peter and the other immediate dis- 
ciples of Jesus. What the result will be is, to say the 
least, not clearly stated, not even in 11. 1 (αἱρέσεις). Peter 
makes every endeavour to prevent their gaining followers 
among his readers, and says simply that judgment upon 
them has long been impending and will not be delayed 

Of an altogether different character is the prediction of 
ii. 8. Here Peter himself is not directly the prophet. 
The manner in which the revelation of the end of the 
world is introduced (τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες, 11]. 3; cf. 
i. 20; 2 Tim. im. 1; Rom. vi. 6; Jas. i. 3), shows that he 
does not intend to say here anything really new, but 
merely to remind the readers of the prophesied appear- 
ance of immoral scoffers, and of how they are to be 
answered, just as they are reminded of the commandment 
of Jesus and the prophecies of the O.T. prophets (ii. 2, 
n. 4). Here he appeals, just as Paul does (above, p. 111 ff), 
to prophecy, which was still current in the Church. Not 
altogether independently of traditional sayings of Jesus, 
this foretold a falling away, and moral degeneracy within 
the Church in the last days. Probably also prophecy 
declared, following again predictions of Jesus (Luke 
xvii. 26f.; Matt. xxiv. 37 ff.; cf. 1 Pet. ii. 20; 2 Pet. ἃ, 5, 
iii. 5), that, owing to the long time it would be necessary 
to wait for the parousia of the Lord (Matt. xxiv. 48, 
xxv. 5; Luke xii. 45), degenerate members of the Church, 
who were sunk in the life of the world, would go so far as 
to seoff at the promise. Prophecy declared this to be a 
sign of the last days; but Peter does not say that for 


EPISTLES OF PETER); JUDE, AND HEBREWS 231 


him and the readers these are future days. In fact, 
inasmuch as he uses direct discourse in quoting the scoffers, 
—employing language which is apparently reproduced 
from life (111. 4, n. 5),—and imasmuch as he describes the 
ignorance to which this insolent language is due in the 
present tense (ii. 5), it is clear that he regards this pre- 
diction as already fulfilled in definite persons and events 
existing in the present. The time which to him is present 
is the last time (cf. 1 John ü. 18; Jas. v. 3, 7-9). But 
since, as has been shown (above, p. 226), these scoffers, 
whose scornful language concerning the parousia was only 
one of their characteristics, are not different from the 
libertines, we know also that Peter became acquainted 
with them among the Gentile Christian Churches outside 
the circle of his readers. That they, too, would make 
their way to the readers, he does not need to repeat. The 
earnest effort to guard his people against. the treacherous 
power of these particular ideas of the false teachers (ii. 
8-13), shows that Peter did not expect the appearance 
among them of harmful ideas of every kind, but of false 
teachers of a definite character, who were both libertines 
and despisers of prophecy. This, however, does not 
exclude the possibility that those among whom they find 
entrance will appropriate in some cases one, in other 
instances the other side of their doctrine and, view of the 
world, and thus give rise to various movements or parties, 
all of which would be harmful (ü. 1). 

Although in this letter, as in the earlier one to which 
reference is made in iii. 1, Peter may have met a pressing 
need, and fulfilled his obligation to give to the Churches, 
to which he along with others once brought the gospel, 
the benefit of his fatherly instruction by writing to them 
now from a distance, at the same time the occasion for 
letters such as this and the earlier one like it, was the 
experiences he had recently had in Churches outside that 
were for the most part Gentile Christian. There he saw 


232 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the representatives of a dangerous tendency gaining an 
influence both by teaching and example, —a tendeney 
which he, without being himself a prophet, but simply 
under the influence of prophecy as it existed in the 
Church, foresaw would increase in power and make its 
way into the Jewish Christian Church. 

Whether it is really Peter who utters this warning 
against such a movement, or someone in the second 
century, who, under the mask of Peter as a prophet, 
describes what had actually taken place since Peter’s time, 
cannot be decided until after the Epistle of Jude, which 
contains references to similar phenomena, has been in- 
vestigated. | 


1. (P. 222.) Καθαρισμός, 1. 9, cannot mean, as Spitta supposes, continuous 
self-purification, for the reason that this has not been forgotten (λήθην 
λαβόντες) by the persons here described, but left off by them at the present 
time. Moreover, ra πάλαι ἁμαρτήματα (NAK, etc.) are not the sinful habits 
formed before their conversion and not yet entirely overcome, which might 
possibly be called παλαιαὶ ἁμαρτίαι (ef. 1 Cor. ν. 7; Rom. vi. 6, vii. 6; Eph. 
iv. 22), but their sins committed aforetime (Rom. iii. 25; Heb. ix. 15; cf. 
1 Pet. i. 14, iv. 3; Eph. ii. 2; Justin, Apol.i. 61, τὰ προημαρτημένα ; Hermas, 
Vis. i. 3.1; Mand. iv. 3. 3; Sim. viii. 11. 3). Accordingly, καθαρισμός can 
mean only the purification from the guilt of sin, which Christians experience 
once for all (Mark i. 44; Heb. i. 3) when they are called and chosen (2 Pet. 
i. 10), and are cleansed in baptism (1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 26; 1 Pet. i. 2; 
Heb. x. 22; Acts xxii. 16). Also in 2 Pet. ii. 20-22, where the word xa@a- 
ρισμός is not found, the figurative λουσαμένη, ver. 22, refers to the washing 
of baptism, and the ἀποφυγόντες τὰ μιάσματα τοῦ κόσμου, ver. 20, to the 
salvation from the curse of sin which takes place once for all and accompanies 
baptism. 

2. (P. 224.) As in the case of ἑτεροδιδάσκαλος (above, p. 126f.), so in the 
case of ψευδοπροφήτης and ψευδοδιδάσκαλος (ii. 1), it is not permissible to 
separate the adjective from the verb (διδάσκειν, προφητεύειν), construing ψεῦδος, 
ψεύδη, as objects of the verbal idea, Analogies, such as ψευδάδελῴφος (Gal, 
ii. 4; 2 Cor. xi, 26), ψευδαπόστολος (2 Cor. xi. 13), ψευδόχριστος (Mark 
xiii. 22), absolutely determine the meaning. Even a ψευδομάρτυς is not so 
called because he makes false statements, but because he pretends to have 
seen or heard something which he has not seen or heard (Matt. xxvi. 60 ; 
cf. Acts vi. 11). The LXX does not read ψευδοπροφήτης in Isa. ix. 14 (“ The 
prophet who teaches lies”), but does use it in Jer. vi. 13, xxvii. 9, xxviil. 1, 
xxix. 1, 8, Zech. xiii. 2, where the original text has simply xj, the context 
making it clear that this title is wrongly borne. αἱρέσεις is here translated 
“separatist tendencies ἢ (Sonderrichtungen), with Hofmann, vii. 2. 46, in order 
by the use of this ambiguous term to leave it undecided whether the word 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 233 


is here used in the sense of sects, parties, as in Acts v. 17, xv. 5, xxiv. 5, 14, 
1 Cor. xi. 19, Gal. v. 20, or in the sense of a general view contrary to Chris- 
tianity, as possibly in Ign. Trall. vi. 1; Eph. vi. 2. In opposition to Spitta 
(120f.), it is to be remarked that αἵρεσις never means a single view or 
tenet along with which as many other tenets as one chooses: may be held (in 
the literature of the ancient Church even the entire system of a Marcion or of 
an Arius was regularly regarded as only a single heresy), and that in its 
Christian usage αἵρεσις is never a neutral idea which comes to have a bad 
sense only by the addition of some such word as arwAeas,—for the follow- 
ing reasons : (1) Ignatius is not the first to use this word in a bad sense as 
applying to conditions among Christians ; it is so used in 1 Cor. xi. 19 ; Gal. 
v. 20; Tit. iii. 10. (2) According to the view of the apostolic age and of the 
ancient Church,—and this is the basis of the ecclesiastical usage of the word,— 
the Christian was not at liberty arbitrarily to choose from among existing 
views and tendencies one that pleased him, but was bound to obey the gospel 
as the truth. With regard to the much-disputed construction of ii. 1, it 
may at the outset be considered certain that we cannot, with Spitta (123 ff.), 
take the words καὶ---ἀρνούμενοι, ἐπάγοντες----ἀπώλειαν as referring to the O.T. 
false prophets. After the important statement about the pseudo-Christian 
teachers, it stands to reason that, in order to refer back to the O.T. prophets, 
ἐκείνοι would be necessary. Further, there is nothing to explain the use of 
the present participles, ἀρνούμενοι, ἐπάγοντες, instead of the aorists, which the 
sense would require, nor to account for the break in the construction of the 
sentence, which in this case it would be necessary to assume. Consistency 
would require that also αὐτῶν (ver. 2) be taken to refer to the O.T. false 
prophets, and the πολλοί, who are at least similar to the spurious teachers 
of ver. 1,—so far as by Spitta’s own confession, 128, they teach in a harmful 
manner within the Church, ver. 3,—would be docile followers of the O.T. false 
prophets,—for this is the relation expressed by ἐξακολουθήσουσιν, ver. 2 (cf. i. 
16, ii. 15),—and not that the O.T. false prophets were merely types of the 
immorality and the fate of these teachers. As a matter of fact, however, there 
is very little to be learned from the O.T. about the teaching and conduct of 
the false prophets, and nothing at all with regard to their final destiny. At 
the latter point the lack is not supplied by the threat of destruction in Deut. 
xiii. 2-6—a passage which Spitta thinks (126) Peter here had in mind ; indeed, 
throughout the description of phenomena within the Church, which is given 
us in 2 Pet. ii.-iii., there is no reference to the case under discussion in Deut. 
xiii. 2-6, namely, betrayal into idolatry by a false prophet. Balaam, whose 
followers the false Christians and teachers here referred to are declared to be 
(ii. 15), was not a false prophet from among the people (ii. 1), but a heathen. 
Neither in the LXX nor by Peter is he called a false prophet, but only a 
prophet who sinned and led others into sin. Of his end (Num. xxxi. 8) Peter 
makes no mention. If Peter had had a substantive at his command, such as 
ἀρνηταί or drapvnrai, and had used this or προδόται instead of ἀρνούμενοι, 
no one would find him obseure when he says: “ Among you also there shall 
be false teachers, who shall bring in destructive heresies, and deniers of the 
Lord that bought them, who bring upon themselves swift destruction ” (cf. 
the co-ordination of participles, substantives, and adjectives in Rom. i. 29-31). 
Just as ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι has dependent upon it the relative clause, so ἀρνούμενοι 


234 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


governs the qualifying participial phrase that follows it. But there are not 
two different classes of persons described, only a double characterisation of 
one and the same class; although, of course, it is possible that in some in- 
dividuals in this class teaching is more prominent, while the connection of 
others with the: movement is mainly through their feelings and manner of 
life. This was true of the “Scribes and Pharisees” (Matt. v. 20). Nor is 
there any reason to complain about the lack of logical order in the passage. 
We have the statement about the disciples whom these teachers will gain 
followed by the relative clause of ver. 2b, which is logically independent, and 
then the discourse returns in an entirely natural way to the principal sub- 
ject, namely, the ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, the thought of whom is kept in mind by 
the use of αὐτῶν in ver. 2. In ver. 2, Peter speaks quite generally of a large 
following which these teachers will secure (πολλοί without ὑμῶν or ἐξ ὑμῶν); 
in ver. 3 he states how these same persons will endeavour to gain an entrance 
among the readers. | Nor does it seem to the writer to be to the point to talk 
as Spitta does (122 f.) about the “logical folly” of putting what was intended 
from the start to be the principal statement into the comparative sentence, 
os kat ἐν ὑμῖν κτλ. (ver. 1b); while the existence of false prophets in Israel, 
which is intended to be only an analogy, is expressed in the principal clause 
(ver. 1a). It is clear on any interpretation that not only in the words és— 
ἀπωλείας, but also in ii. 2-22, the subject under discussion is not the false 
prophets of the O.T., but the analogous phenomena within Christianity. It is 
known that the Greek language can add in the form of a relative clause a 
logically independent and even strongly emphatic statement, which we 
express more clearly by the use of “and” and a demonstrative sentence (ef. 
Rom. ii. 29, iii. 8; Gal. ii. 10; Acts xiii. 43, and all three of the relative 
clauses in 2 Pet. ii. 1-3; Kiihner-Gerth, 11. 433 f.; A. Buttmann, 243 [Eng. 
trans. 282f.]). So not infrequently ὡς or ὡς καί is equivalent to ‘and 
so” (cf. Kühner-Gerth, ii. 431, A. 4). The phrase “and so does Paul also 
in all his letters,” in 2 Pet. iii. 16, is an independent statement con- 
cerning which more is said below. After the statements in i. 19-20, 
especially the last sentence of which might seem to imply that all pro- 
phecy in the O.T. era was inspired by the Holy Spirit, it was quite natural 
to state definitely that there were also false prophets in Israel. This 
would be the case even if there were no intention of making further 
mention of them, but simply of preparing the way for the further 
statement that in the realm of Christian revelation, besides the apostles 
whose message was true, there are and will continue to be false teachers 
against whom the Churches must be on their guard. In the case of the 
“ prophetic word,” a safeguard against error is found in the fact that it is only 
the messages of the true prophets of olden time which are found in Scripture 
(γραφῆς, i. 20; οἵ, Rom. i. 2), not those of the false prophets against whom the 
true prophets had to contend. In the realm of Christian teaching this was 
not yet true at the time when 2 Pet. was written. A Christian literature, 
produced by the true witnesses of Christ, was only in process of formation 
(i. 12-15, iii. 15, 16). This made it all the more necessary to remind the 
readers, that as there were false prophets in Israel, so there are or will be also 
false teachers in the Christian Church. If all that follows the first mention 
of the ψευδουδιδάσκαλοι refers to these persons, 6 ἀγοράσας αὐτοὺς δεσπότης 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 235 


naturally refers to Christ (ef. Jude 4, and the use of the word δεσποσύνοι ta 
designate the relatives of Jesus, a manner of speech common in Palestine, 
Eus. H. HE. i. 7. 14). For ἀγοράζειν, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23—the latter 
passage in its context. They are legally “Slaves of Christ” (ef. 2 Pet. i.1). 
3. (Pp.225,229.) Bythe “ Way of Balaam,” as contrasted with the “Straight 
way ” (ii. 15), the “Way of truth” (ii. 2), and the “Way of righteousness” 
(ii. 21), must be meant all that is recorded concerning his deeds in Num. 
xxii. 5-xxiv. 25, including the evil counsel he gave in Num. xxxi. 16 (cf. xxv. 
1 f., 18), which in Rey. ii. 14 is called the “ Teaching of Balaam” ; cf. Didymus 
in Jud. 11 (Migne, 39, 1816). But it is to be observed that while the people 
did come to the point where they worshipped the gods of the Moabites (Num. 
xxv. 2f., 5), it is always the unchastity connected with the feast that stands in 
the foreground (xxv. 1, 6-18, xxxi. 15f., especially in Jos. Ant. iv. 6. 6-13). 
Consequently in Rev. ii. 14, 20, also the reference is not to idolatry, but to 
participation in idolatrous feasts and unchastity. In 2 Pet. the analogy 
seems to be even more limited. The reference is neither to the attendance 
upon idolatrous feasts nor to idolatrous worship. On the contrary, it is the 
meals eaten by Christians in connection with their worship in which the 
followers of Balaam take part at least with unchaste thought and looks (so 
according to ii. 13 f., especially if the correct reading in this passage be 
ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις αὐτῶν, συνευωχούμενοι ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες KTA.). 
If ᾿ἀγάπαις is to be accepted as the correct reading of Jude 12 on account 
of the close relationship of the two Epistles, it may be regarded almost 
certainly as the correet reading in 2 Pet. ii. 13; for ἀπάταις, which is 
more strongly attested here than in Jude 12, does not have the appear- 
ance of being, and certainly is not, an isolated paronomasia for love-feasts, 
but is a change made by a copyist who thought that he was correcting 
an error; and this is so whether the word stood in the original which 
Jude had before him, or was an alteration made by the author of 2 Pet. 
of the aydraıs which he found in Jude ; see above, p. 211, ἢ. 1. Tischen- 
dorf’s apparatus is misleading, in that it says nothing about the ὑμῖν after 
συνευωχούμενοι. It is not found in the earliest translations of the Syrians 
(53), Egyptians (Sahidie Version, Woide-Ford, p. 213), and Latins (Speculum 
pseudo-Augustini, 640. 9 ; the pseudo-Cyprian de Singularitate clericorwm, 28 ; 
unfortunately this part of the Palimps. Flor. is wanting), and is to be omitted 
here as in Jude 12 on the ground that it is an addition made to ovvevo- 
xovpevor, being apparently required by the συν. In Jude 12 it is unnecessary 
after ev ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν; because in thought everyone supplies ὑμῖν. The 
consequence is that the reading is much less strongly attested than in 2 Pet. 
ii. 13. But here also it can be omitted as unnecessary, since συνευωχεῖσθαι 
does not always necessarily mean “To feast with others,” but can also signify, 
especially with a plural subject, “ To feast with one another”; cf. συσσιτεῖν, 
συσσιτία, τὰ συσσίτια, OF συμπίνειν παρά τινι, to take part in a symposium at 
the home of another (Xen. Cyrop. v. 2.28). This is the meaning here, and 
ὑμῖν does not harmonise with ταῖς ἀγάπαις αὐτῶν, although the two are con- 
nected in B. This addition once accepted into the text must have helped to 
give currency to the reading ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν, if, indeed, it did not pro- 
duce it. On the other hand, where ayaraıs was retained, αὐτῶν, which is 
undoubtedly genuine, was sometimes omitted, because it did not harmonise 


236 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with ὑμῖν, as, e.g. in Cod. Amiat. of the Vulgate. Peter says concerning these 
false teachers, these “spots and blemishes” of Christianity, these “ Children 
of the curse”: “they revel at their love-feasts, hold their banquets or 
common carousals with eyes full of adulterous desire, and entice the unwary 
with hearts practised in covetousness and hardened by it.” Nothing 
is said which implies that unchastity itself was practised at these love- 
feasts. This enticement was not, as the accompanying characterisation shows, 
a direct temptation to impure actions, but a temptation to accept libertine 
principles (ef. ii. 3, 19). It would also be strange to speak only of lustful 
looks, and in a connection like this not so much as hint at what was worst in 
the conduct of these persons. But this leaves in full force the charge of 
sinful living, even of unnatural vices (above, p. 224f.). The love-feasts 
are not described as meals eaten in company by an entire Church, but as 
meals eaten by the libertines. From this passage alone it might be inferred 
that these meals and their name were an invention of these persons, and that 
Peter rejects both the thing and the name, as does Clemens Alexandrinus 
(Ped. ii. 88 4-7 ; Strom. iii. §§ 10, 11, vii. § 98). But this view is made 
impossible by Jude 12, and by ecclesiastical usage elsewhere from Ignatius on 
(cf. PRE,® 1,234 ff.). But we also learn from Ignatius that, as early as the 
beginning of the second century, the meals (love-feasts) which ended with 
the Eucharist were not always eaten by the whole Church together under the 
direction of the officers of the Church, but that certain persons who did not 
accept the common faith of the Church availed themselves of this freedom 
and held private love-feasts (ad Smyrneos, vii.-ix. ; ad Philadelphenos, iv. ; cf. 
the writer’s Iynatius, 342 f., 347 f., 363 f.). 

4. (P. 230.) When iii. 3 is joined with iii. 1, 2, the possibility is not 
excluded that Peter had said something similar to iii, 3-7 in his. earlier 
letter. But even in that case, especially if the form of the earlier com- 
munication is to some extent here retained, Peter does not himself prophesy 
anything distinctly new. Spitta (228-233) goes too far when he claims that 
because what is said in 111, 3 ff. has no sufficient basis in the preceding portion 
of 2 Pet., the earlier Epistle of Peter must have been “ mainly eschatological 
in its contents,” containing a reference to the scoffers of the last age. The 
statement concerning the essential contents and purpose of the two letters 
applies to what follows as well as to what precedes (above, p. 210, n. 1); while 
the break in the construction, by the use of the nominative γινώσκοντες, which 
renders the clause more independent, makes it all the more impossible to 
infer from the connection of iii. 3 with the μνησθῆναι of ui, 2, by the use of 
the word γινώσκοντες, that iii. 3-4 or iii. 3-7 is a recapitulation either of the 
preceding parts of 2 Pet. or of Peter’s lost letter. μνησθῆναι introduces not 
an elaborate reminder of statements which have already been made, but an 
independent truth which needs to be impressed upon the readers’ minds, only 
not a truth which needs to be preached to them as something entirely new. 
Of. the parallel passages, above, p. 230. 

5. (P. 231.) We should understand the actual language of the og iiien 5 in 
iii. 4 better if they were quoted more often. Spitta (233) is right in rejecting 
the suggestion of Bengel, Hofmann, and others, that αὐτοῦ expresses irreverence 
on the part of the persons speaking. In this regard the expression is not 
different from the ἐκεῖνος of the apostles (above, p. 215 f.) and the αὐτός of 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 237 


the Pythagoreans (Scholium on Aristophanes, The Clouds, 195, ed. Dindorf, 
i.'196). These persons do speak contemptuously of the devil and his 
servants (ii. 10-12 ; above, p. 225 f.), besides indulging in other extravagant 
language (ii. 18); but it is altogether unlikely that these clever teachers 
of Christianity would have spoken disrespectfully of Christ, Himself, or of 
God. That, however, the reference is to Christ and not to God, becomes 
all the more certain if it be held that the persons here speaking are Gentile 
Christians. The question, “Where is the promise of its coming?” arose 
simply in connection with the parousia, concerning which Jesus had spoken 
in a manner implying that His contemporaries would experience it (Matt 
xxiv. 34; Mark xiii. 30; Luke xxi. 32; Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke 
ix. 27). This determines also the meaning of οἱ πατέρες. Even if this 
word alone or with ἡμῶν can mean all the forebears of the persons speak- 
ing,—as, e.g. in the case of Jesus, the Israelites of the ancient dispensation 
(Heb. i. 1= Matt. xxiii. 30),—the idea that these could or were expected to 
experience the parousia of Jesus is entirely incongruous. Only the immediate 
ancestors of the scoffers, and the men of that generation,—naturally only 
those of them who were at the same time members of the Church to which 
Christ promised His parousia,—could have expected, and actually did expect, 
to live until the parousia. The difference between the view of Spitta, who 
thinks that this word should be limited to the actual fathers of the scoffers 
(237), and that of the others, who think that it refers to all the first generation 
of Christians, is negligible. The absence of a ἡμῶν, and the unlikelihood that 
the false teachers consisted exclusively of the children of Christian parents, 
which even in the second century would have been a rare coincidence, favour 
the latter view. The older generation, which expected to live to share in 
the parousia, has passed away, and still it does not come ; all remains as it 
was in former generations. In view of this fact, the younger generation 
throws the entire promise overboard. It would imply a strange misunder- 
standing of the natural use of language in all ages to claim that before such 
an expression as this could be used, the first Christian generation must have 
entirely disappeared. What Christian in the second century, writing a letter 
in Peter’s name, would not have known that the Apostle John, for example, 
outlived Peter, and have realised that Peter himself, in whose name he here 
speaks, was one of the πατέρες, all of whom are supposed to have died when 
2 Pet. was written! As one after another of these ἀρχαῖοι μαθηταί (Acts 
xxi. 16) passed away without having had fulfilled the hope of living to 
see the parousia (Acts vii. 60, xii. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 6, xi. 30; 1 Thess. iv. 13), 
it was extremely natural to declare the entire expectation a dream. The 
expression used is an unnatural hyperbole only if the letter purports to 
have been written between the years 30 and 50. If, on the: other hand, 
it is to be referred to the years between 60 and 63, then an entire generation 
(from thirty to thirty-three years) had elapsed since Jesus had prophesied 
His parousia. This date is confirmed by the present passage. The diffi- 
culty arising from the fact that a double terminus a quo is given (ἀφ᾽ As... 
ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως, cf. the repeated ἕως, Matt. v. 18), cannot be got rid of by 
assuming with Spitta (235) that the construction of the first ἀπό is pregnant 
(prior to which [sc. parousia], 1.6. “before the coming of which, the fathers 
fell asleep”). This is evident for the following reasons: (1) there are no 


238 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


really analogous examples in the N.T. (ef. also the writer’s Hirt des Hermas. 
490) ; (2) aß’ ἧς (1 Mace. i. 11 ; Acts xxiv. 11; Hermas, Sim. viii. 1, 4, vi 6: 
ef. Acts xx. 18) is a frequent ellipsis for ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας (Col. i. 6, 9), or for 
ἀφ᾽ οὗ (Ex. v. 23; Josh. xiv. 10; Luke xiii. 25, xxiv. 21). Apart from the 
above consideration is also the fact (3) that γάρ following ἀφ᾽ ἧς would be 
impossible if it introduced a real relative clause, and if the phrase were not 
rather equivalent to am’ ἐκείνης (ἡμέρας) 7. The language used is very much 
compressed, but its meaning can hardly be mistaken: “Since the fathers 
fell asleep, (the expected world revolution has not taken place any more than 
during their lifetime, but) all remains (just as it was) from the beginning of 
the creation.” 


§ 43. EPISTLE OF JUDE. 


The author of this Epistle introduces himself to the 
readers as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, but brother 
of James.” The order and connection of the two designa- 
tions which he adds to the name show that the second of 
these additions was not a term in common use, and it 
might seem as if it were necessary in order to distinguish 
this Jude from numerous other persons bearing the same 
name (n. 1). But even if ıt were necessary to make such 
distinction, that is not the purpose of the addition here. 
For if this were the meaning, ἀδελφὸς ᾿Ιακώβου, which in 
this case could hardly have the article omitted before 
it (ef. Mark ii. 17, ν. 37; John vi. 8; Acts xil.2; 
Gal. i. 19), would necessarily stand directly after the 
name, and could not be placed in such evident contrast 
to the preceding designation of the writer as a Christian 
by a de This contrast is very peculiar, since kinship 
with a Christian of whatever name does not stand in 
contrast to the relationship of service to Jesus, nor does 
the idea of kinship help to define the same (but ef. 
Tit. i. 1; above, p. 47). Even the earliest interpreters 
saw correctly that the one here speaking might have 
called himself a brother of some greater. person, but 
preferred to designate himself his servant, using the title 
brother ; thus set free, as it were, to indicate his relation- 
ship to James (n. 2). Jude was one of the brothers of 
the Lord, who, like Peter and other apostles, laboured in 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 230 


the year 57 as preachers of the gospel in various places 
(1 Cor. ix. 5; Matt. xim. 55; Mark vi. 3; John vii. 3-8; 
Acts i. 14; vol. i. p: 105). If reference to a brother in- 
stead of a father, in order to distinguish one from a com- 
panion of the same name, is unusual, and presupposes 
oreat pre-eminence on the part of the brother in question, 
such pre-eminence obtains peculiarly in the present in- 
stance, where James is mentioned for an entirely different 
purpose. He can be no other than the distinguished 
James, who since the death of the son of Zebedee had 
been regularly called simply James (Acts ΧΙ]. 17, xv. 13, 
xxi. 18; Gal. τ. 9, 12; 1 Cor. xv. 7), and who himself 
uses this name only at the beginning of his letter, not 
calling himself a brother of the Lord, as others called 
him (Gal. i. 19), but a servant of God and of Christ. 
Just as the absence of the apostolic title at the beginning 
of James, a letter addressed to the entire Church of 
the time, proves that the James who wrote it was not 
an apostle, so the similar omission at the beginning of 
Jude, which is also intended for a large circle of readers, 
proves that this Jude was not an apostle. This, if 
anywhere, was the appropriate place for such mention, 
and in the letters of Peter and Paul it regularly occurs 
here at the beginning. The conclusion thus drawn from 
Jude 1 is confirmed by Jude 17; for, although the mere 
mention of the apostles cannot of itself prove that the 
person speaking is not an apostle (above, p. 218, n. 7), 
nevertheless the solemn expression, “ The apostles of our 
Lord Jesus Christ,” which is without parallel, would sound 
very unnatural if spoken by an apostle. In a passage 
which seems to resemble this (Eph. ii. 5), Paul, whose 
position was a peculiar one, does not identify himself with 
the apostles (vol. i. p. 506f.). And there is nothing to sug- 
gest that Jude was one of the personal disciples of Jesus, 
a fact so strongly emphasised by the writer of 2 Peter, 
and at least not concealed by the writer of 1 Peter. 


240 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Of the history of Jude's life we know practically 
nothing. From Matt. xiii.. 55, where he is mentioned 
last. among the brothers of Jesus, and from Mark vi. 3, 
where his name occupies the place next to the last, it 
may possibly be inferred that he is the youngest brother 
of Jesus, or at least one of the younger brothers. In 
their relation to Jesus the development of all the brothers 
seems to have been the same (John vii. 3-8 ; Acts i, 14), 
There is no need to repeat here what has been. said 
concerning James in this respect (vol. i. p. 105), While 
James, the unmarried ascetic, did not leave Jerusalem 
and the temple, and so is certainly not included’ among 
those mentioned in 1 Cor. ix. 5, Jude was one of the 
brothers of Jesus here mentioned, who, like Peter and 
other apostles, made preaching tours accompanied by 
their wives. Naturally, in the case of Jude as in the 
case of the older apostles, these tours were confined to 
the “cities of Israel” (Matt. x. 23; Gal. ἢ. 9; above, 
p. 208). If he was born several years later than Jesus, 
say somewhere near the tenth year of our era, he may 
have survived the destruction of Jerusalem a number of 
years. Hegesippus informs us that toward the end of the 
reign of Domitian, therefore about the year 95, two 
grandsons of Jude, who made their living by farming, 
were brought before the emperor charged with being 
descendants of David, and Christians. He says, moreover, 
that these charges were made by certain heretics. Ac- 
cording to the same writer, they afterwards occupied a 
prominent place in the Church of Palestine until some 
time in the reign of Trajan (98-117), as did also the aged 
Simeon, a cousin of Jesus and of their grandfather Jude, 
who is mentioned as the second bishop of Jerusalem (Bus. 
IH. E. wi. 19 f., 32. 5 f. ; ef. Forsch. vi, 238 ff.) The fact 
that Jude calls himself a brother of James shows that he 
is addressing Christians, among whom the latter was highly 
esteemed, or, if he was no longer living, among whom 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 24: 


his memory was sacredly revered. Especially, if the latter 
were the case, the manner in which Jude mentions him- 
self is natural. The lips of the leader so highly honoured 
in the Jewish Christian Church are sealed; a part of his 
duty, at least, is inherited by his brother, while another 
part falls to his cousin Simeon. 

Notwithstanding the meagreness of the edit con- 
cerning the intends of Jesus, it is to be assumed that 
Jude had not laboured outside of the Jewish Christian 
world. There are no indications of it in his letter, such 
as are so abundant in 1 Peter. The designation of the 
readers would apply to the entire Church, or to any 
particular part of it; but there is not a single word to 
indicate that Jude was under necessity of first intro- 
ducing himself to his readers, or of proving his right to 
address them. Like James, he addresses them as a teacher 
whom they are accustomed to hear. The verse immediately 
following (3) also shows that the relation in which the 
author stood to the readers was not created by this brief 
letter. He was already seriously) considering, or had 
actually begun, writing to them concerning their common 
salvation, when conditions arose which necessitated the 
sending of this letter (n. 3). The purpose of his present 
letter he declares to be a summons to contend for the 
faith delivered to the saints once for all,—a) description 
which corresponds to the contents of the Epistle. The 
fact that the readers’ faith was imperilled at this time, 
what it was that imperilled it, and why Jude thought 
it necessary to write this brief letter at once, are indicated 
in ver. 4, and the exhortation that follows in vv. 5-23. 
The manner in which the faith for which they are. to 
contend is characterised, indicates that this faith is not 
one thing to-day and another to-morrow, but a practically 
unalterable summary of religious convictions and teachings 
which has been communicated once for all to the Charehs 
either by its Lord and Master, or by the preachers of the 


VOL. Il. 16 


242 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


gospel (cf. Heb. xii. 7-9, 1.1, 1. 3). This implies that, 
for the purposes of this letter, it is not necessary to 
expound and establish this faith anew. On the other 
hand, it would seem as if the writing, the preparation of 
which Jude had'in mind when he received the information 
or made the observations which necessitated the prepara- 
tion of this letter, was meant to be more didactic in 
character and of greater scope than the present one,—if 
we may judge from the statement of its subject, which, 
it must be admitted, is very general (περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν 
σωτηρίας). The mere fact that γράφειν ὑμῖν is used does 
not justify the assumption that this expression, like γράψαι 
ὑμῖν, refers to a letter. It does imply that the writing in 
question was intended for the readers, but beyond this it 
can refer to a work consisting of a number of parts quite 
as well as to a letter (cf. Luke 1. 3). The expression 
certainly does not permit us to assume that Jude was 
about to address to the readers a didactic communication 
for which there was no special occasion, when the cireum- 
stances arose which led him to give his communication 
a different and more specialised content than it would 
otherwise have had. Rather is this brief letter to be 
taken as a temporary substitute for the more extended 
writing which he was intending to dedicate to the readers. 
Whether Jude ever carried out his intention of writing 
such a work, temporarily interfered with, or completed 
the work already begun, we do not know, any more than 
we know whether Peter carried out the similar intention 
expressed in 2 Pet. i. 15 (above, p. 199f.). No writing has 
come down to us which eould pass as the writing of ‘Jude 
here referred to, or which might claim to be sucht a work. 
Seeing that Jude had had in mind for some time the 
composition of a doctrinal work for the benefit of the 
readers, and now felt constrained by the danger threaten- 
ing them to write this letter, it follows that he must have 
come in contact with them in his journeys as an evangelist 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 243 


(1 Cor. ix. 5), and since then had kept them in mind. 
Consequently he had the information which seemed te 
him to necessitate the writing of a letter. Naturally, the 
readers themselves were in possession of the same facts. 
Nothing that Jude says implies that he is announcing 
new facts. On the contrary, assuming that the readers 
know what and whom he means, he characterises and 
condemns certain persons who have crept in among them 
and live in their midst (vv. 4, 12, 19). He calls them 
godless persons who pervert the grace of God into 
immorality, and deny the Christians’ only Master and 
Lord, Jesus Christ (ver. 4). The first of these charges 
presupposes a teaching in which the fact that the 
Christians are under grace is used to justify an immoral 
life (n. 4). Since these persons claimed to be Christians, 
the latter charge must mean that they separated them- 
selves from Christ as Lord by their disobedience, denying 
Him, not in name, but in fact, by living a life inconsistent 
with the confession of Him (cf. Tit. 1. 16; 2 Pet. ἢ. 1; 
above, p. 224 f.). They are described with greater detail 
in vv. 10-13, 16, 18, 19. 

In the first place, it is everywhere assumed that they 
are outwardly members of the Church. They are like 
fruit trees in late autumn, when all the trees are bare; 
like good trees, they have had their spring, when possibly 
they bore blossoms, and a summer, when they could have 
borne fruit; but they have proved to be unfruitful, and 
the gardener has torn them up with their roots (ver. 12). 
If they have died twice, then once they must have been 
called from death to life (Eph. ii. 1, 5; Col. ii. 18; 
John v. 24), and have sunk back again into a state of 
death. They take part in the love-feasts of the readers 
as if they had a right to do so, and indeed this right 
cannot be contested outwardly on the ground that they 
are not members of the Church (ver. 12, ἢ. 5 at end). 
Nor does the fact that they create divisions, while 


244 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


lacking the Holy Spirit, and being still in bondage te 
their own natural life (ver. 19, n. 6), argue against the 
possibility of their, regarding themselves as members of 
the Church; it seems rather to indicate that. they con- 
sidered themselves pre-eminently men of. the Spirit, 
and made invidious distinctions between themselves and 
ordinary Christians, which of itself indicates their -sep- 
aratist tendencies. It is this second characteristic which 
is presupposed when among other things it is said 
that they are followers of Korah, who with two hundred 
and fifty prominent members of the congregation rebelled 
against the authorities and the leaders of Israel whom 
God had called, claiming that the entire congregation, 
including themselves, were holy as well as Aaron, and 
that God dwelt not simply with those who were in official 
position, but with all the members of the congregation 
(ver.. 11; cf. Num., xvi. 21, with, Num. xi. 16 f., 24-29; 
1 Cor. xiv. 25). The comparison would be meaningless 
unless the libertines of whom Jude is speaking had shown 
themselves insubordinate to the heads of the Church, on 
the ground that the whole Church was holy and ‚in 
possession of the Spirit. Following the common. practice 
of demagogues in every age, under the guise of an appeal 
to the rights of all, they asserted their right to speak, 
notwithstanding the regularly constituted order of the 
Church, drawing comparisons between themselves, as 
representatives of public spirit, and the spiritless officers 
of the Church with the members of the Chureh who 
blindly followed their authority. Moreover, the words 
yoyyvoral μεμψίμοιροι, which are genuine only in ver, 16, 
but at an early date were either added to ver. 11. or 
inserted in ver. 12, being thus brought into direct con- 
nection with the name of Korah, serve in fact to recall 
the fact that Korah and. his company, dissatisfied with 
their subordinate position, murmured against Aaron, and 
against Moses also (Num. xvi. 11), all the more bitterly 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 24; 


because they chafed under the deprivations necessitated 
by their departure from Egypt (Num. xvi. 13f., xiv. 2, 
27, 37; Ex. xvi. 2f., xvii. 3). For similar reasons the 
persons whom Jude describes are discontented murmurers 
who complain of their fate. Dissatisfied with the renuncia- 
tions which their Christian confession has compelled them 
to make, and with the position in the Churches which has 
fallen to their lot,—much lower than they feel they ought 
to have,—they complain against the heads of the Church 
(n. 5). Along with this murmuring, as in the case of 
Korah and his companions and wherever elsewhere in the 
Church similar conditions prevailed (cf. 1 Cor. x. 6, 10), 
there went a longing for the comforts of life enjoyed 
before redemption, and an actual falling back into the 
pre-Christian life. This is the third feature in the 
description of these persons. They walk according to 
their wicked lusts (vv. 16, 18). This is evident from the 
manner in which they conduct themselves at the love- 
feasts (ver. 12). Without any reverence for the sacred- 
ness of these meals, they treat them as banquets, and 
think only of securing for themselves the largest pos- 
sible share of food and drink. There is even less indi- 
cation than in 2 Pet. ii. 18 f. (above, p. 285) that they 
made these meals an occasion for the practice of unchastity. 
Indeed, that this was not the case is rendered certain by 
the fact that Jude speaks of the love-feasts of the readers 
(ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν, ver. 12); for he nowhere charges 
against them an intimacy with these wicked persons, or 
a participation in their sins. But the readers, who allow 
them to take part in their love-feasts, need to know that 
the persons who sit with them at the table of the Lord 
are polluted, and so take part in the love-feasts, not with 
pure hearts, but with unchaste feelings which are manifest 
in their. looks (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 14). Jude does charoe them 
with unnatural sins when he compares the punishment 
that awaits them with the punishment of the angels who 


246 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


committed sins of the flesh and the destruction of Sodom 
and Gomorrah, describing the sins of these angels and 
cities much more clearly than is done in 2 Pet. ii. 4-10 
(ver. 6f.), and says expressly that the false Christians 
who have crept in among the readers corrupt the flesh in 
the same manner (ver. 8). Ver. 23 also indicates the 
practice of unnatural vice. 

A fourth characteristic of these persons is their pre- 
sumptuous talk (ver. 16), not only against the authority 
and heads of the Church, but even against God (ver. 15). 
They also set aside what should be recognised by men as 
& power superior to themselves, and blaspheme exalted 
spirits (ver. 8),—a term which, it seems natural to suppose 
from the following verse, includes also evil spirits. Since 
this conduct of theirs is associated directly with their 
impurity, it is to be assumed that they endeavoured to 
justify their unchaste conduct by a theory about the 
harmless character of evil spirits, or even by contemptuous 
remarks about the good angels, out of regard to whom 
other Christians felt under obligation to conduct themselves 
with especial modesty (1 Cor. xi. 10). The fact that all 
real knowledge of the spirits which they blaspheme is 
denied (ver. 10; see above, p. 225 f.), and that their blas- 
phemies as well as their unchaste conduct are associated 
with visions and dreams (ver. 8), would indicate that they 
claimed to possess knowledge concerning the spirit world. 
From the single word ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι it is impossible to 
determine whether they claimed to have, through dream- 
visions, a deep insight into the spirit worlds, or whether 
Jude simply calls their confused ideas dreams. Even 
less certainly does this one word stamp them as false 
prophets; nor does the reference to Balaam (ver. 11) 
prove them to be such; for neither here nor in 2 Peter, 
nor in the O.T. is he called a false prophet (see above, p. 233). 
This reference serves rather to bring before us a fifth char- 
acteristic of these sinners. When it is said that for the 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 247 


sake of gain they gave themselves to the πλάνη of Balaam, 
the sin referred to cannot consist simply in expressions 
of their covetousness, but must be some activity in which 
for the sake of gain they engage with eagerness and all 
their strength. Since, now, in the O.T. Balaam is repre- 
sented not as a man who was led or fell into error, but as 
one who gave treacherous counsel and thereby led the 
members of the Chureh of God into unchastity (above, 
pp. 225, 235), πλάνη cannot be taken in a passive, but only 
in an active sense (n. 7). At the same time, it is not said 
that in giving themselves up to the practice of heathen 
unchastity, as in fact they had done, though not for the 
sake of reward, these libertines had fallen victims to the 
seduction of Balaam, or to any seduction that can be 
compared to Balaam’s counsel ; but Balaam himself is their 
prototype, both in his πλάνος and in his acceptance of 
reward. It follows, therefore, as indicated in ver. 4 
(above, p. 233 f.), that these persons are teachers, who 
endeavour to lead the members of the Church astray, not 
simply by their bad example, for which they would receive 
no reward, but by an exposition of their libertine theories 
designed to induce them to adopt the same views and in- 
dulge in the same practices, for which teaching they accept 
compensation (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 3,14; above, p. 225; Tit. 1.11; 
1 Tim. vi. 5; above, p. 101). The same situation is indi- 
cated in ver. 16. Their murmuring against the established 
order of the Church and its chosen leaders, and their pre- 
sumptuous words, in which not even the holy God and 
superhuman spirits are spared, and which are also made to 
serve the purposes of their immorality, are not confined to 
their own circle, but are flaunted before such as have not 
yet been betrayed. They prefer to talk to persons who 
are prominent and rich, because of the material benefit 
which will accrue to them if they are successful in con- 
vineing such members of the Church. That they had 
already succeeded in gaining some following among the 


248 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


readers through their teaching, is shown by the eonelusion 
of the letter. While it is true that here also, ver. 20 ff., 
the readers whom Jude expects to reach by his letter are 
distinguished from the false teachers just as sharply as at 
the beginning, still there are members of the Church who, 
in varying degrees, have yielded to temptation, and are 
commended to the pastoral care of the readers. There 
are some who doubt, who have not decisively rejected the 
pseudo-Christian teaching, but consider its pros and cons. 
These the readers are to convince of the folly of their 
hesitation, and of the untruth of the teaching so dangerous 
to them. There are also some who have been scathed 
by the fire of destruction, but can still be rescued. 
Finally, there are those who must be treated with mingled 
fear and sympathy; their unclean sins are to be hated 
and shunned carefully, but they themselves are to be 
shown that undeserved mercy which everyone himself 
hopes to receive at the hands of the Lord Christ in the 
day of judgement (vv. 21-23, n. 8). 

A sixth feature in the description of these seducers is 
the representation of their appearance in the present as 
the fulfilment of a prophecy long since uttered and 
written down. Immediately after the mention of their 
appearance among the readers as the pressing occasion 
for writing this letter, Jude goes on to say that these 
persons had long before been the subject of a writing in 
which this judgment was pointed out (ver. 4, n. 9) In 
view of the fact that in what follows mention is made of 
different cases of judgment in the O.T. typical of what 
awaits these persons (vv. 5-7), and that the words of 
Enoch about God’s final judgment upon all godless persons 
are quoted (ver. 14 f.), it is natural to consider the judg- 
ment to be deseribed in the following passage, as one long 
prophesied, especially since πάλαι suggests παλαιὰ διαθήκη 
and προγεγραμμένοι recalls such passages as Rom. xv. 4; 
Acts i. 16; 2 Pet. iii. 2. But this interpretation of τοῦτο 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 246 


would be possible only if it were immediately followed by a 
statement as to the nature of the judgement that God was 
about to visit upon these persons. But this is not the case ; 
indeed, one searches the letter in vain for any direct state- 
ment of this kind. The cited cases of divine judgment, 
aetual and prophesied, are more suited to indicate the 
sinfulness of these’ unworthy Christians, whom God will 
certainly not leave unpunished, than to portray the judg- 
ment which eventually will overtake them. It is equally 
impossible to take τοῦτο as an introduction to Jude’s 
deseription of these persons in ver. 4b (n. 9). Tf, as is 
generally the case, τοῦτο refers to what precedes, Jude 
conceives the appearance of these persons in the Churches 
to which he is writing as a judgment, and more than that, 
a ‘judgment long since prophesied in some writing. 
Naturally it is not a judgment fulfilled upon them or by 
them, but a judgment upon the Churches in which they 
have appeared. Jude’s thought is the same as John’s 
when he represents the coming of Christ as bringing judg- 
ment into the world, although Christ Himself judges no 
one and is judged by no one (John ix. 39, iii. 19; but ef. 
i. 17, xii. 47), and Paul’s when he looks upon divisions 
into sects which he foresees, asa judgment appointed by 
God in the Church, in order to distinguish faithful 
Christians from the impure elements in its community 
(1 Cor. xi. 19). [Ὁ is unfortunate that such persons are 
constantly making their way mto new Churches, just as it 
is unfortunate that Christians are under necessity of being 
persecuted for their faith ; but, looked at from the divine 
point of view, both are parts of the judgment which 
begins at the house of God (1 Pet. iv. 17) before it is 
fulfilled in the world; it is one of the signs of the last 
times (1 John 11. 18). The readers are enabled the more 
easily to assume the right attitude toward this saddening 
fact, because Jude, taking for granted that he is recalling 
only what the readers already know, is able to say that 


250 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the godless persons who have come among them are those 
of whom it was long since prophesied in written form, 
not simply that they would come in general, but that 
they would creep in among Jude’s readers. One seeks in 
vain for such a prophecy in the Book of Enoch or in the 
O.T., because at the time when they were written no 
Christian Churches were as yet in existence. On the 
other hand, in 2 Pet. 11. 1-1ii. 4, we have a prophecy 
which exactly suits, namely, the announcement that false 
teachers, whose theory and practice exactly corresponds 
to those of the godless bearers of the Christian name in 
Jude, will appear among a certain group of Jewish 
Christian Churches. The narrative in which this is 
found shows verbal resemblances to Jude 4 at the very 
beginning, Assuming, then, that 2 Pet. 11. 1-11. 4 is 
not copied from an older document which Jude also had 
before him, it is clear that Jude is referring to 2 Peter, 
and that this Epistle is addressed to the same Jewish 
Christian Churches as 2 Peter. This conclusion is con- 
firmed by Jude 171. The readers are told to keep in 
remembrance the words of the apostles of Christ formerly 
spoken, namely, that “In the last time there shall be 
mockers walking according to their own ungodly lusts.” 
Perhaps the direct form of speech in which the apostolic 
prophecy is here reproduced does not absolutely exclude 
the possibility of repeated and varied prophecies being 
summed up in this statement (n. 10). But if this were 
the case, the expression would be unnatural. Moreover, 
it is just as impossible here to leave out of account the 
ὑμῖν as in 2 Pet. i. 16 and ii. 15. The reference is to 
words which the apostles addressed to the readers of 
Jude, and so also to the readers of 2 Peter. Accordingly, 
in ver. 4 it is assumed that the readers are familiar with 
a written prophecy of the entrance among the readers of 
the libertines which has now taken place. That such a 
prophecy, having reference to their conditions, was ad- 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 251 


dressed to this group of readers is almost as self-evident 
as the fact that only a Christian could predict the appear- 
ance of false teachers among a definite group of Christian 
Churches. Furthermore, according to the connection of 
vv. 16-20, the mockers of ver. 18 are the same persons to 
whom, according to ver. 4, this written prophecy referred. 
Consequently the prophecy of ver. 4, only the general 
contents of which are here indicated, and the prophecy of 
ver. 18, which is verbally quoted, must have been con- 
tained in one and the same writing addressed to these 
Jewish Christian Churches. But in 2 Peter, the same 
Epistle which we recognise as the writing presupposed in 
ver. 4 (2 Pet. ü. 1-3), we find almost exactly the words 
quoted by Jude (ver. 18) from the same writing (2 Pet. 
iii. 3). Unless recourse is had to very artificial assump- 
tions ($ 44), here is positive proof that in ver. 18 and 
ver. 4 Jude refers to 2 Peter, in both instances as a 
writing addressed to the readers of his own letter, and in 
ver. 18 as the writing of an apostle. Against this con- 
clusion it cannot be argued that Jude attributes these 
prophetic words not to a single apostle, but to the 
apostles collectively. At most, a literal interpretation 
could here draw only the improbable conclusion that all 
the apostles had written a collective letter to the readers 
from which this quotation was made. In the very nature 
of the case, if he intended to use direct discourse, Jude 
could quote what the apostles had said to the readers on 
the point in question only as the saying of a. single 
apostle, naturally, of course, assuming that other apostles 
had said or written similar things to the readers about the 
same matter. It is this very presupposition which he 
expresses when he mentions the apostles, and not Peter 
alone, as the source of this prophecy. Although this 
expression, in and of itself, is entirely intelligible, it is all 
the more natural if Jude had 2 Peter before him; since 
in 2 Pet. ii, 3 Peter does not represent’ the prophecy 


252 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


quoted by Jude as something new, expressed by him now 
for the first time, but, in marked distinetion from his own 
prediction in ii. 1, he simply reminds the readers of this 
prophecy as if it were something already known and 
expected (above, p. 230). One apostle, who had once 
written a letter to the same readers on related subjects, 
expressing himself in the same way as Peter, is mentioned 
in 2 Pet. iii. 15. Even if Jude knew no more than we 
are able to infer from 2 Pet. ii. 3, 15, with this before 
him he could write as he does; for he does not speak as 
Peter does in 2 Pet. iii. 2 of the apostles of the readers, of 
whom Paul was not one (above, p. 202), but of the apostles 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom Paul also was eounted 
one by the older apostles and the brothers of Jesus (Gal. 
ii. 9). Jude makes use also of the words of 2 Pet. iii 2 
in introducing the quotation (μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρημένων 
ῥημάτων), but does not copy them; rather he alters the 
words and adapts them to his purpose. Neither in ver. 
17 f. nor ver. 4 does he, like Peter, recall the prophecies 
of the O.T. and Christ’s commandment to the apostles, 
but only an apostolic prophecy. 

On the exegetical side this simple understanding of 
the situation cannot be obscured by the remark, often 
made, that πάλαι (ver. 4) refers back to the remote past. 
Taken in contrast to the recent appearance of the sinful 
Christians, it can express an interval of weeks and months 
just as well as of years and centuries (n. 11). How long 
a time elapsed between the prophecy in 2 Pet. ii, 1-3 
and the fulfilment of the same which was the direct 
occasion for the composition of Jude, cannot be inferred 
from the word πάλαι, “long ago,” nor in general is it 
possible to determine it ; nevertheless, ver. 5 seems to in- 
dicate a time subsequent to the great judgment of the year 
70. Jude begins his statement in ver. 5 by saying that 
he is recalling what the readers know ; and this is emphas- 
ised by appeal to the comprehensive knowledge which the 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 253 


readers already possess (cf. 1 John i. 20f., 27, and n. 12), 
all of which implies that he is not only citing facts known 
to the readers, but that he can also count upon their under- 
standing of brief or obscure hints. How necessary this 
preliminary remark was, is indicated by the history of the 
interpretation of the closely connected sentences in ver. 5 f., 
which Jude must have had particularly in view when he 
made the remark, since the connection of the third state- 
ment (ver. 7) is much more loose than that of the others. 
The first thing he recalled is this, namely, “that God, the 
Lord (this is the meaning of κύριος without the article), or 
(according to the reading which is probably original, see 
n. 12) that Jesus, after having saved a people out of 
Egypt, the second time destroyed them that believed 
not.” That a fact from the O.T. is here meant is doubt- 
ful; for then the order in which Jude cites his facts is 
very remarkable, since in such a case he would pass 
from the later books, of the Pentateuch or O.T. back 
to Gen, vi. and xix. (cf. the opposite order in Sir. xvi. 
6-10)... Against this understanding of the reference is 
also the omission of the article before λαός (cf. Acts xv. 14; 
Tit. ii. 14; 1 Pet. 1. 9f.; but o λαός, Matt. ii. 4, iv. 23; 
John xi. 50, 52, xvii 14; Acts x. 2; 2 Pet. ü. 1; and 
ὁ λαὸς αὐτοῦ, Matt. 1. 21; Luke i. 68; Rom. xi. 1). But 
the most important reason for rejecting this interpretation 
is the impossibility of finding within the O.T. the familiar 
second instance in which God destroyed those who were 
redeemed from Egypt but remained unbelieving, in com- 
parison to a first instance, equally well known, in which 
He did the same thing; for that the cases were parallel 
is the natural presupposition, since otherwise it would be 
necessary to indicate the contrast in the divine action in 
the two cases (n. 12). The original readers readily under- 
stood that Jude was contrasting the judgment of the 
generation of Israel that came out of Heypt, who, with a 
few happy exceptions, perished in the wilderness for their 


254 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


unbelief without having seen the land of promise (Num. 
xiv. 11-38; Deut. 1. 26, 32,1. 14-16; Ps. evil 24: 
1 Cor. x. 5; Heb. iii. 10, 19), with another generation, 
which likewise, after having been redeemed as God’s 
people, was condemned and destroyed in punishment for 
its unbelief. Throughout the N.T., from the discourses 
of the Baptist to the visions of Revelation, we find 
expressed, indicated, or presupposed, the idea that Christ 
has accomplished a redemption comparable to the libera- 
tion of Israel from Egypt (n. 12). The object of this 
redemption is not the Jewish people, but nevertheless a 
people of God to whom the titles of Israel are applied 
(vol. 1. p. 82f.). In neither case, after the redemption of 
Israel out of Egypt and after the redemption by Christ, 
were the redeemed people of God destroyed, but the 
majority of those to whom redemption was offered— 
those who were called first of all to the acceptance of 
the redemption and the possession of the blessings which 
it assured, 2.6. the countrymen and contemporaries of 
Jesus, who refused to have faith in Him—were. con- 
demned for their unbelief. Jude could say that Jesus 
had visited this judgment upon the unbelieving mass of 
the Jewish people, because they had been judged by the 
testimony of Jesus which they rejected (John xu. 48, 
xv. 22, ix. 39; Matt. xii. 39-45, xiii. 14 f.; Luke xx. 18), 
and because the threatening prophecy of Jesus about the 
evil and adulterous generation had been fulfilled by the 
destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (John 11. 19= 
Mark xiv. 58, xv. 29; Acts νἱ. 14; also Matt. xxi: 19, 
41-43, xxii. 7, xxiii, 35-xxiv. 2; Luke xix. 41-44, 
xxi. 5, vi. 20-24, xxiii. 28-31). Jude, therefore, must 
have written after this event. Among Jewish Christian 
Churches especially, in whose minds the memory of this 
catastrophe was fresh, no misunderstanding was possible, 
and for them in particular was the judgment upon the 
unbelieving majority of their own people the most powerful 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 255 


incentive to hold fast their faith, and to maintain it 
even against the temptation to which they had recently 
been subjected,—the temptation to accept a so-called 
Christianity, which really denied the only Lord of the 
Christians, and perverted into. heathen immorality the 
state of grace in which His redeemed servants stood. 

If Peter, who died in the year 64, toward the end of 
his life predicted to the same Christian Churches to which 
Jude is addressed, that teachers of an immoral type of 
Christianity, and persons with whom he had become 
acquainted outside their circle, who scoffed at the promise 
of the parousia, would appear among them; and if Jude 
believed, subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem, that, this 
prediction was fulfilled in the creeping in of dangerous 
men, whose theory and practice were alike vicious, in 
whom were to be discerned the essential features of the 
prophetic description of 2 Peter,—he could say that this . 
had been written concerning them long ago (ver. 4), and | 
that their coming had been foretold to the readers by the 
lips of apostles (ver. 17 f.). Assuming the year 75 as the 
approximate date for the composition of Jude,—since a 
date much later is made impossible by the little we know 
of the author's life history (above, p. 239 f.),—a period of 
from ten to fifteen years had elapsed since Peter had 
written 2 Peter to the same Churches. 


1. (P. 238.) In the time of Jesus and the apostles are to be distinguished, 
(1) The apostle Judas, son of Simon, a man from Carioth (John vi. 71, xiii. 
2, ete.); (2) the apostle Judas-Jacobi (son of a certain James, see Forsch. 
vi. 344f.), Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; John xiv. 22, probably to be identified 
with Lebbeus or Thaddeus, Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18; (3) Judas [Jude], the 
son of Mary, brother of James, Joseph, Simon, several sisters, and Jesus 
(Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; Jude 1, ef. Matt. xii. 46; Mark iii. 31; John ii. 
12, vil. 3-8; Acts 1. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5; Hegesippus in Eus. H. E.iii. 19, xx. 
1-8, xxxii. 5); (4) Judas Barsabas, a man of prophetic gifts, and the respected 
representative sent by the mother Church to the Church in Antioch, Acts xv. 
22-34, cf. vol. i. p. 31 (to be distinguished from Joseph Barsabas surnamed 
Justus, Acts i. 23; Papias in Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 9). Still another name 
($ 44, n. 1) is that of Judas, the last Jewish Christian bishop of Jerusalem in 
the time of Hadrian (Eus. H. E. iv. 5. 3; Chron., anno Abrah. 2139 ; Epiph. 


256 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Her. \xvi. 20), whom Schlatter (Der Chronograph aus! dem 10. Jahr, Antonins 
1894, S. 25-37) declares to have been the author of a chronology which he 
thinks Eusebius (H. #. vi. 7) refers incorrectly to the time of Severus (ef. 
Forsch, vi. 283, 291 ff.). I 

2. (P, 238.) Clem. Hypot. Lat. trans. (Forsch. iii. 83), “Judas, qui catholicam 
scripsit epistolam, frater filiorum Joseph exstans valde religiosus et cum sciret 
propinquitatem domini, non tamen dieit se ipsum fratrem eius esse, sed quid 
dixit? ‘Judas servus Jesu Christi, ut pote domini, frater autem Jacobi’ ; hoc 
enim verum,est : frater erat ex Joseph.” Clement holds to the view that the 
brothers of the Lord were sons of Joseph by an earlier wife. The pride of 
the relatives of Jesus, the δεσ πόσυνοι, in their family, of which Africanus 
reminds us (Eus. H. H. i. 7. 14), was a later development (ef. vol. i, p- 109). 
Of more modern writers, cf. Bengel on Jude 1, but especially Hofmann, vii, 2. 
145f. The remarks of Spitta (300f.), which are opposed to the view here 
advocated, are based, if the present writer understands them correctly, upon 
the untenable view that the title “ Brother of James” is designed to establish 
the authority of the writer to send this letter of exhortation, having praetically 
the same meaning as ἀπόστολος de Ἰ. Xp. (Tit.i.1; cf. Rom.i.1). Even if we 
be disposed to look upon the honour paid to the relatives of Jesus as one of 
the characteristics of the Jewish Christian type of thought,—of a kind not 
altogether spiritual, and contrary to the thought of Christ (Matt. xii. 49),—we 
are not to suppose that the Churches of Palestine had so far lost their reason 
as to pay special honour to Jude because he was a brother of James, or to 
Simeon because he was James’ cousin, or, vice versa, to James because he was 
Jude’s brother. On the contrary, after they believed they were known in- 
dividually as “The brother of the Lord” (Gal. i. 19), and collectively as 
“Brethren of the Lord” (1 Cor. ix. 5; Acts i, 14); but they themselves 
make no use of this title in their Epistles. Here, as in Jas. i. 1, this negative 
conclusion is ‘the only one that could be properly drawn from the writer’s 
self-designation as a servant of Jesus Christ, even if it were not necessary in 
view of the chiastically constructed contrast between δοῦλος---ἀδελφὸς δέ and 
Ἰ. Xp. and Ἰάκωβος. 

3. (P. 241.) There is scarcely any doubt about the meaning of ver. 3. 
With regard to ἔσχον, ef. vol. i. p. 456, 2.3. From περὶ τῆς x. ἡ. σωτηρίας 
we derive the impression that this is the central point or main subject of the 
proposed writing, since otherwise it would have to be further defined (ef. 
1 Thess. v. 1; 1 John i. 1; 2 Pet. i, 12, iii. 16; Rom. i. 3). The strong ex- 
pression, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν, means more than the eager 
turning, over in one’s mind of an intention whieh, in the case of a writing, 
would imply meditation preparatory to composition. Peter had such’ an 
intention in mind when he wrote 2 Pet. i. 15, but by the use of the future 
σπουδάσω he indicates that this intention has yet to be zealously carried out; 
Jude was already engaged in the work. Cf, also Gal. ii. 10; 2 Pet. i. δ. 
By the ἅπαξ, ver. 3 (Heb. vi. 4), which is not essentially different in meaning 
from ἐφάπαξ (cf. 1 Pet. iii. 18 with Rom. vi. 10, or Heb. ix. 12 with ix. 26), 
it is clearly implied that a second παραδιδόναι is superfluous or inadmissible. 
ven in ver, 5, where ἅπαξ approaches the sense of in geueral” (überhaupt) 
(Hermas, Vis, 111, 3.4; Mand. iv. 4.1; Didymus, Lat, omnino=ära£, de Trin, 
i. 19, ef. ἁπαξαπλῶς), it is correlated with ὑπομνήσαι, in distinction from 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 357 


διδάσκειν. τοῖς ἁγίοις without further (definition can only mean the whöle 
Church, or the Church of the Holy Land (vol. i. p. 455 f., n. 2). But since 
in the matter of faith the latter were not distinguished from the Gentile 
Christian Churches (ef. eg. Gal. i. 22-24; 1 Thess. ii. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 11; 
1 Pet. v. 9, 12; 2 Pet. iii. 15f.), and since the Epistle shows no hostile 
feeling toward the Christianity of other Churches, it must mean the whole 
Church. The objections raised by Spitta (309) are to the present writer 
unintelligible, and Spitta’s opinion (416), that through a misreading of 2 Pet. ° 
ii. 21 (τοῖς ἁγίοις instead of αὐτοῖς ἁγίας), Jude, contrary to all known usage, 
understood “the saints” to mean the apostles, seems hardly to require re- 
futation. All Christians are here appropriately called saints (cf. 1 Pet. 1. 
15f.) ; and this thought is somewhat emphasised by the relation of the word 
to the context, because in what follows the writer deals with persons who 
are or who have been reckoned among the “ saints,” and who, having received 
the same faith as the readers, have perverted it in a direction antagonistic 
both to the holiness of the Church and to its faith (ver. 20). 

4. (Ὁ. 243.) Since mapewredvoav is used in ver. 4 as παρεισῆλθον in Gal. 
ii. 4 without any indieation of the’region where the false teachers had crept 
in, it is necessary in both instances to supply this from the context. In 
Galatians it is the Church in Antioch (ZKom. Gal. 86 f.) ; here it is the circle 
of the readers among whom they are now found, ver. 12, and also in the 
latter passage their entrance into the Church through a purely sham con- 
version and hypocritical baptism is not called a παρεισδῦναι. Their teaching 
is that rejected in Rom. vi. 1. 15; Gal. v. 13; 1 Pet. ii. 16; and referred to 
in Rom. vi. 12; 1 Cor. vi. 12 ff., but described at greatest length in 2 Pet. ii. 
(above, p. 224 f.). 

5. (Pp. 243, 245.) Even Didymus on Jude 11 (Latin version) interprets the 
typical significance of Korah as above, p. 244 f. Cf. 1 Cor. x. 1-11. In address- 
ing the Church of Corinth, which was stirring up an insurrection against its 
founder, in 1 Cor. x. 10 Paul uses the words μὴ yoyyi¢ere, which are un- 
doubtedly suggested by Num. xvii. 6-14, and so are intended to reınind them 
of those complaints against the authorities which were instigated by Korah, 
and after his destruction were echoed throughout the entire congregation. 
Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 16, also cf. Heb. xiii. 17 with Heb. iii. 7-iv.11. The meaning 
of the comparison with Cain is more obscure. Being the first of three types, 
it may possibly express the more general thought that the false teachers are 
given over to unrighteousness ; since, as contrasted with the righteous Abel, 
Cain is an unrighteous man (Matt. xxiii. 35). With this possibly is connected 
the thought of 1 John iii. 12, 15, that they, on account of their “evil works,” 
are jealous of the righteous and their enemies, and are murderers of their own 
brothers. It is also possible that underlying the passage there is a traditional 
Jewish description of these “evil works” (cf. Siegfried, Philo, S. 150f.). 
Spitta (352), following the example of Sechneckenburger (Beiträge z. Hinl. 221), 
attaches great importance to the embellishment of Gen. iv. in the Jerusalem 
Targum i., which represents Cain as disputing with Abel, and saying, “ There 
is no judgment, and no judge, and no other world ; the righteous will receive 
no good reward, and vengeance will not be taken upon the ungodly.” This 
would suit perfectly the deseription in 2 Pet., but does not suit so well 
that in Jude, where no mention is made of the denial of the eschatologieal 

VOL. 1]. 17 


258 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


hope which is especially noticeable in ver. 18, With regard to the text 
of ver. 12, see above, p. 235, on 2 Pet. ii. 13. Because in this instance dyäraıs 
ὑμῶν instead of dyaraıs αὐτῶν precedes, συν- in συνευωχούμενοι has a different 
force. The added ὑμῖν, which is poorly attested, is nevertheless correct in 
thought. There is much in favour of taking ἀφόβως with what follows, 
as in S* S®, and is done by Hofmann; for there is nothing inherently 
blameworthy about taking part in their feasts without fear. Nor can it 
hardly be the mere “feasting together” that is condemned, but rather the 
manner of their participation in the love-feasts, namely, the fact that they 
conduct themselves as σπιλάδες, which is clearly not here used in the sense 
of “rocks,” “cliffs,” but is intelligible only if taken as related etymologically 
and in sense to σπίλοι, 2 Pet. ii. 13 (“spots”), and, therefore, as equivalent 
to ἐσπιλωμέναι, Jude 23; μεμιασμένοι, as in Hesychius’ gloss (cf. Jude 8; 
Tit. i, 15; Rev. iii. 4, xiv. 4). Didymus (Lat.) reads qui in dilectionibus 
vestris maculatis (but read rather with Lücke maculati) coöpulantur. Of. 
Hofmann on vy. 12 and 23, This does not in any sense imply that they 
practised immorality at their love-feasts, but that they partook of them 
polluted by their unchastity, and wherever they went took with them the 
thoughts and passions corresponding to the character of their life. 

6. (P. 244.) ᾿Αποδιορίζοντες, which is used in ver. 19 without the object, 
does not require the supplying of a single definite object any more than this 
is required when we speak of something that separates in distinction from 
something that unites. If διορίζειν is an emphatic ὁρίζειν, dmodiopitew is an 
emphatic ἀφορίζειν, and means a separation completely accomplished, The 
Pharisees, Gr. of ἀφωρισμένοι (see vol. i, p. 68), separated themselves from 
the wm ha arets and made sharp distinctions among the people of God, with- 
out withdrawing entirely from the people. These false teachers made even 
sharper distinctions, and created divisions along the lines of these distinctions, 
They ave aiperwxoi, Tit. iii, 10, In contrast to their practice stands the strong 
sense of unity in the Church, ver. 20f. The Holy Spirit unites (ver. 20); 
the ψυχικοί, who are without the Spirit, divide (ver. 19), in the first place by 
their presumptuous judgments, and then by conduct tending to destroy the 
fellowship of the Church, That they claimed in exceptional measure to 
possess the Spirit, asserting that they were πνευματικοί, as distinguished 
from ψυχικοί, is at least probable, The misuse of Pauline phrases among 
these persons (2 Pet. iii. 16) reminds one of 1 Cor, ii, 10-iii. 3. 

7. (P. 247.) Πλάνη is clearly used in an active sense (“leading astray,” 
“seduction”) in 1 Thess. ii. 3 (cf. 2 Cor. vi. 8); 2 Thess. ii. 11 (cf. ver. 9, 
τέρατα ψεύδους); also in Matt. xxvii. 64. The deceiver of the people 
(6 πλάνος, xxvil. 63) led them astray so long as he lived (John vii. 12; Luke 
xxill, 2). His alleged resurrection will not increase the error of the people, 
but will make stronger and more injurious his power to lead them astray, 
Furthermore, ef. 1 John iv. 6 with 2 John 7; 1 Tim. iv. 1. In Eph. iv. 14 
also the word can be taken only in an active sense, on account of the word 
with which it is connected, μεθοδία τῆς πλάνης, and the context, 

8. (P. 248.) It is presupposed that in ver, 22f. Tischendorf’s eritical 
apparatus is very imperfect, but that he nevertheless gives the correct reading 
(cf, Spitta, 377 f.). The reading is the same as that given by Clement (Lat,) 
in connection with ver. 23 (Forsch, iii. 85); while, on the other hand, ver, 22, 


EPISTLES OF PFTER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 259 


like so many other verses, is overlooked, this passage is carelessly quoted by 
Clement from memory in Strom. vi. 65. It is impossible for the present 
writer to escape the impression that Didache ii. 7 is dependent upon Jude 
228. : οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ ods μὲν ἐλέγξεις, περὶ δὲ ὧν προσεύξῃ, 
obs δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου. The third clause is the least accurate 
reproduction ; but the preceding, “thou shalt hate no man,” is in keeping 
with Jude’s thought, who, while he requires hatred of the sins of the wicked 
(cf. Rev. ii. 6), requires also mercy toward the persons themselves, 

9. (Pp. 248, 249.) In opposition to Spitta’s contention (311 f.) that τοῦτο τὸ 
κρίμα = “this accusation,” is used to introduce the words ἀσεβεῖς. . . 
ἀρνούμενοι; it is sufficient to suggest (1) that this syntactical relation can be 
expressed only by a complete sentence either in direct discourse (1 Cor. vii. 
29; Gal. iii. 2, 17), or with ὅτι (Rom. ii. 3, xi. 25; 1 Cor. xy. 50; 2 Thess. 
iii. 10), or by an infinitive sentence (Rom. xiv. 18; 1 Cor. vil. 26; 2 Cor. 
ji. 1; Eph. iv. 17); (2) that κρίμα is hardly anywhere used in the sense of 
accusation. Nor is Hofmann’s interpretation satisfactory, according to which 
τοῦτο refers to the judgment visited upon the intruders in the present ; for, 
although the sinner may be thought of as one who by his very act condemns 
himself (John iii. 18 f.; Gal. ii. 11), this is not stated either in what precedes 
or follows; so it is not a manifest fact to which rodro might refer, But 
Hofmann states what is correct and really self-evident when he says that 
τοῦτο refers to what precedes, namely, to παρεισέδυσαν. Furthermore, Spitta 
reads more into the passage than it contains when he (314 f., 383 f.) concludes, 
from the article with rpoyeypappévor, that acquaintance is here presupposed 
with a writing in which a still older prophecy, presumably from the O.T., is 
applied to the persons who now have crept in among the readers of Jude. Just 
as it is presupposed in John xi. 2 that the readers had heard or read of a woman 
who had anointed Jesus’ feet, and that the information is there imparted that 
the woman, whose name they had not heretofore known, was Mary of Bethany ; 
so Jude assumes that the readers know that it has been previously written 
or prophesied in an older writing that certain persons, who are libertines in 
theory and practice, will make their appearance among them. What he says 
now is this, namely, that the persons who shortly before have appeared 
among the readers are those whose appearance among them was prophesied 
in the older writing. But Jude’s reference is not to a commentary upon a 
prophecy, but to a writing whose prophecy is being fulfilled in the present, 
i.e. to 2 Pet. ii. 1-3, where we do not find an older prophecy applied to 
present phenomena, but where it is predicted that false teachers will come 
among the readers, Although not an independent sentence, the appositive 
clause expresses exactly the same thought as a sentence in the form οὗτοί εἰσιν 
οἱ mpoyeypappévoe κτὰ., or something similar; cf. Matt. iii, 3, xi. 10; John 
i. 46 (1 John ii. 22). By the use of this form of expression in vv. 12 and 19 
is preserved the identity of the persons of unchristian character who have 
appeared among the readers with certain persons already described, except 
that the relation of subject and object is the reverse of that in ver, 4, as 
required by the different connections of the two passages. The mockers, 
whose appearance in the last age is prophesied hy the apostles (ver. 18), are 
none other than the persons who, as the readers can daily observe, create 
divisions (ver. 19). In the same way, after a typical and typological char- 


260 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


acterisation of them (ver. 10f.), Jude identifies the persons who in the pre 
sence of the readers take part in their love-feasts (ver. 12). Of an entirely 
different charaeter are the sentences in vv. 8, 10, 16, where the end sought is 
not the identification of figurative with actual persons, but where mention 
is made of different characteristies of the persons appearing among the 
readers, who have already been described with sufficient definiteness in 
ver. 4 (thus the use of οὗτοι). 

10. (P. 250.) The language used in ver. 18 is not entirely ccmapatable 
with 1 Tim. iv. 1; for, although in this latter passage the ῥητῶς shows that 
the reproduction ‘of thought is intended to be as accurate as possible (see 
above, p. 111), örı, the formula of indirect discourse, which does not oceur 
before the words quoted in Jude 18, indicates that the quotation is not a 
formal citation. 

11. (P. 252.) With πάλαι, Jude 4, cf. Mark xv. 44 (according to the pre- 
ponderance of evidence), also Soph. Philoct. 1030 =some hours before ; 2 Cor. 
xii. 19=since the time when Paul began to use the tone of self-defence, con- 
sequently somewhere about xi. 5, or possibly from the beginning of the 
letter (i. 12)—from the point of view of the readers and hearers of the letter 
about an hour before; 2 Pet. i. 9; Matt. xi. 21=within the lifetime of the 
men in question; Jos. Bell. iii. 8. 8, in contrast to ἄρτι, the time prior to 
the captivity which has just taken place, or, if we read οὐ maAaı=“not long 
ago.” 

= 12. (Pp. 253, 254). The peculiar εἰδότας ἅπαξ πάντα has given rise to 
numerous attempts to transpose ἅπαξ, and in some instances to its omission 
altogether ; also to change πάντα into πάντας (S?, but not in all MSS.), and into 
τοῦτο, which is more common. Here the apparatus of Tischendorf, which is not 
always without errors, and not very clear, is sufficient. It is more difficult 
to decide whether the correct reading is κύριος or Ἰησοῦς. ὋὉ θεός (without a 
preceding κύριος), which is badly attested by a careless quotation in Clement, 
Pred, iii. 44 (where λαόν also is arbitrarily put out of its place), S? and other 
unimportant witnesses, is out of the question, because it suits any interpre- 
tation, and is found as an addition to κύριος in Clement, Hypot. (Forsch. 
iii. 83). It is even less possible to assume with Spitta that the original 
reading was deös without the article, which is entirely unattested. Certainly 
the article which is placed before κύριος in the Antiochian recension (KL 38) 
is not original, because it has against it all the authorities which support both 
κύριος and Ἰησοῦς (for which ὁ Ἰησοῦς could have been written equally well), 
also the dominus deus (i.e. κύριος ὁ θεός) of Clement (Hypot. Lat. trans.), and 
because very frequently the article is inserted before the anarthrous κύριος 
(Matt. i. 22, ii. 15; Jas. iv. 10, v. 10). The only choice left is that between 
κύριος (N, perhaps ΟἹ and a Greek document attributed to Eph. Syr.) and 
Ἰησοῦς. The latter reading is attested by AB, 66** (= Paul. 67**), Sahidie, 
Coptic, Ethiopic, Vulgate versions; also by Origen (both in the text and 
scholion of the Cod, Laura 184, B 64, upon Mount Athos; see von der Goltz, 
Bine textkrit. Arbeit des zehnten baw. sechsten Jahrh. 1899, S. 51; ef. ThLb, 1899, 
No. 16), and by Jerome, Vall. ii. 270, vii. 413. This was also Didymuy 
reading, not only in his Latin commentary, ad loc., but also in de Trin. iii. 19, 
although the text, as we have it, reads κύριος Ἰησοῦς. That the correct reading, 
however, is Ἰησοῦς is proved by the fact that Jerome, vii. 412, is in verbal 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 261 


agreement with Did. de Trin. Ἰούδας καθολικῶς γράφει (“Judas de omnibus 
generaliter . .. inquit”), so that Jerome in this passage of his commentary 
on Gal. must have copied from Didymus’ commentary on the same book, 
which, p. 370, he mentions as one of his sources. There are also certain 
considerations of fact which support the much more strongly attested Ἰησοῦς 
as against κύριος. The mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption 
out of Egypt is altogether strange and quite without parallel. The situation 
is not materially helped by assuming, as Jerome does, that Joshua is meant ; 
see contra Jov. i. 21 (Vall. ii. 270). This did not occur as a solution to the 
oldest interpreters, who substituted God for ’incods (Clement ; see above). 
Didymus (Migne, 39. 1813) and Jerome, in the passage where he copies 
Didymus (Vall. vii. 412), and apparently also Origen in the'seventh homily 
on Deut. (in the above quoted Athos MS.), use this passage to prove that it 
was Jesus Himself with whom the congregation in the O.T. had to do, a 
thought of very early date; cf, Just. Dial. exx., Ἰησοῦν τὸν καὶ τοὺς πατέρας 
ὑμῶν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐξαγαγόντα. The name of Jesus did not prevent Didymus 
from making the sentence refer to the redemption of Israel from Egypt, 
without recourse to the impossible interpretation of the word to mean Joshua. 
Cf. also Cramer, Cat. vill. 155. 18, 157. 21, 158. 5-13, 161. 2. But whereas 
Clement understood correctly that Jude meant the judgment which came 
upon the Jewish people because of their failure to believe on Jesus (Forsch. 
iii. 83, 96), Didymus confines the meaning to the dying of Israelites in the 
wilderness ; ef. 1 Cor. x. 5; Heb. iii. 16-19. It hardly needs to be proved 
that the adverbial δεύτερον, τρίτον «rA, both with the article (Mark xiv. 41; 
John xxi. 17; 2 Cor. xiii. 2) and without it (John iii. 4, xxi. 14, 16; Luke 
xxiii. 22; Rev. xix. 3; 2 Cor. xiii. 1), just as ἐκ δευτέρου (Matt. xxvi, 42; 
Mark xiv. 72; John ix, 24; Acts x. 15, xi. 9), shows that the action which 
it modifies is a repetition of an earlier action, no matter whether it is pre- 
viously intimated or not that this action has already once taken place. 
Accordingly it is also explained how in late Greek rpirov actually means 
τρίς, “thrice” (see the writer’s Acta Joannis, pp. 256, 258 sub voc.). What 
happens a second or third time has happened twice or thrice. Recently 
F. Maier, Bib. Z., 1904, 5. 392, has confidently claimed that τὸ δεύτερον here as 
also often elsewhere is by no means a numeral adverb, but=deinde, postea, or 
even ex contrario, This meaning, however, should in any case be proved by 
the actual usage of language and not by appeal to the Thesaurus of Stephanus, 
or to other exegetes ; for example, to Hofmann, who (vii. 2. 159-161) has left 
not the slightest doubt concerning his contrary opinion in this matter. The 
only question is with what τὸ δεύτερον is connected. Through the position 
of the words it is impossible that τὸ 6. is to be taken with πιστεύσαντας, 
as if the reading were τοὺς τὸ 6. un πιστεύσαντας. But also not with λαὸν 

. σώσας, for every intelligent author would have made this connection 
necessary for the reader by placing τὸ 6. before λαὸν or before σώσας. It 
belongs, therefore, to the principal verb ἀπώλεσεν... By this it is only in- 
directly said that also in the first instance on the part of many members 
of the nation which was to be saved, there existed unbelief to which that 
referred to in Jude is opposed as a similar second lack of faith ; and just as 
indirect is the statement that in the first instance as in the second (concern- 
ing which it is directly asserted) a deliverance of a nation out of Egypt had 


262 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


preceded the judgment on its unbelieving members. Only if τὸ δ. preceded 
σώσας OT μὴ mier.—t.e. did not belong with ἀπώλεσεν--- could the meaning 
be, that in fact the presuppositions of the main statement, namely, the de- 
liverance of a nation or the unbelief of many of its members, were the same 
in both instances, but only in the second and not in the first could the divine 
action be an ἀπολέσαι. Even then the contrast would probably have been 
expressed ; cf. Heb. ix. 28, ἅπαξ---ἐκ δευτέρου (Ξετὸ δεύτερον ἐρχόμενος) ; 
2 Cor. xiii. 2, eis τὸ πάλιν (1.6. ἐχθὼν τὸ τρίτον), οὐ φείσομαι (sc. ὡς τὸ πρό- 
τερον). The only question is whether Jesus is to be thought of as the author 
of the first—only indirectly expressed—ar@Aerev, which occurred in the 
wilderness, and so also indirectly of the first σώσας. In view of John xii. 
41, 1 Cor. x. 4, 9 (τὸν Χριστόν in DGKL, Marcion ; Iren. iv. 27. 3; Clement, 
Ecl. proph. xlix, and the ancient versions), this cannot be declared to be im- 
possible. But from an exegetical point of view it is not possible. Since the 
action, with all its expressed presuppositions, is described only as a second 
one of its kind, the subjects in the two cases might be different ; so that τὸ 
δεύτερον is an abbreviated expression for the thought, “And this was the 
second time that this happened.” The comparison between the N.T. redemp- 
tion and that of Israel from Egypt is presupposed in John i. 29, 36, and more 
elearly in 1 Pet. 1, 15-21 (ii. 9; 2 Pet. ii. 1); 1 Cor. x. 1-11 (ef. v. 7f.; Tit. 
ii. 14); Rev. i. 5f.,v. Of, xv. 3. Jude just after the judgment upon Israel 
speaks in the same manner as Paul prior to 70 (1 Thess. ii. 16; Rom. xi. 9f.), 
merely alluding to the coming event. Above all, a comparison should be 
made with the typological expressions of Heb. in connection with the re- 
demption of the people of God, and the judgment which is to follow upon 
the unbelieving of the redeemed generation ; see below, ὃ 46, n. 6; ὃ 47, n. 9, 
with the amplifications belonging to them in the text. 


§ 44. THE GENUINENESS OF JUDE AND THE TWO 
EPISTLES OF PETER (x. 1). 


The question with regard to the genuineness of two of 
these Epistles is very sharply defined. It is even more 
impossible in the case of 2 Peter than of James or 1 Peter, 
by the assumption of later additions or by modifying the 
greeting, to get out of the letter an old writing, the 
author of which is not responsible for the claims that meet 
us in the document. The manner in which the beginning 
of the letter is connected with the greeting by the 
construction of the sentence, the repeated and definite 
references to experiences of Peter and his fellow-apostles, 
which are in keeping with the name in the greeting and 
declared to be experiences of the author (2 Pet, 1, 3, 14, 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 263 


16-18 ; above, pp. 194, 201-210, 215-221), make it clear 
beyond all question that the entire letter is meant to be 
represented as written by Peter. If the letter is spurious, 
it is not pseudepigraphie in the narrower sense of the 
word, but from beginning to end a forgery. 

In the same way, the author of Jude has not left us to 
guess which one of the many Jews and Jewish Christians 
of this name it was whom he represented himself to be; 
he introduces himself to his readers as the well-known 
brother of the still more distinguished James (above, 
p. 238f.). If this introduction should prove to be false, 
then certainly we have no right to suppose that some 
other Jude is the author; for the use of his own name 
on the part of a writer, in order to dispose of his wares 
under the mask of some older and more distinguished 
person of the same name, presupposes artificiality and 
boldness unparalleled in'pseudepigraphie literature. Until 
examples to the contrary have been found, we may assume 
as certain that a pseudo-Ezra, or pseudo-John, or pseudo- 
Hermas, or pseudo-Jude was not actually known as Ezra, 
or John, or Hermas, or Jude. As regards its place in the 
Canon of the Church, Jude is better attested than 2 Peter, 
and even than James. Although the Syrian Church, 
when it adopted some of the Catholic Epistles into its 
Canon, rejected Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John, these four 
letters being translated apparently for the first time by 
Philoxenus (died 508), Jude was accepted about the year 
200 without any question in Alexandria, Rome, and North 
Africa. It is not necessary to investigate here the ques- 
tion to what extent the suspicions as to the genuineness of 
Jude and its place in the N.T. Canon, which developed 
later, led to its subsequent rejection in the Greek and 
Latin Churches. (On the other hand, there is no evidence 
that before the time of Origen, 2 Peter was accepted any- 
where in the Church as a writing of the same rank as 
1 Peter. And throughout the whole of the fourth century 


264 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


we meet at most widely separated points in the Churek 
very decided suspicion now of its genuineness, now of its 
place in the N.T. Canon. So long as it was presupposed 
that 2 Peter was addressed to the same Churches in Asia 
Minor as 1 Peter, the mere fact that the latter Epistle was 
early and very generally accepted was a strong point 
against the genuineness of 2 Peter; for what prevented 
those who first received this letter, which must have 
followed 1 Peter after a short interval, from circulating it 
just as early and just as widely as they did 1 Peter ? (n. 2). 
If, however, it be proved that 2 Peter was not sent to the 
same Churches as 1 Peter, but to the Jewish Christian 
Churches in Palestine or neighbouring regions, it follows 
as a natural result that, from the beginning and for a long 
period, the history of the circulation and canonisation of 
these two letters followed entirely different lines. Just as 
the Nazarenes of the fourth century, notwithstanding their 
favourable opinion regarding Paul, and agreement with 
what is said in 2 Pet. iii. 15, thought that his letters to 
the Gentile Christian Churches did not concern themselves 
(GA, ii. 669 δ); so, for a long time, the Gentile Church 
took little account of 2 Peter, which was addressed to 
Jewish Christians. They treated James in practically the 
same way. But, in the case of both these letters, a limited 
circulation and early acquaintance of individuals with them 
are to be distinguished from acceptance of the same by the 
Catholic Church as books to be read in religious services 
(n. 3). There are points of resemblance between 2 Peter 
and a whole series of writings dating from 90 to 130, namely, 
the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Clement to the 
Corinthians, the so-called Second Epistle of Clement to the 
Corinthians, and the Didache, and it is very natural to 
suppose that several pseudo-Petrine writings are related to 
2 Peter (see below, pp. 270f., 273). In all these cases it 
cannot be so conclusively proved that 2 Peter is the source 
that no further objection is possible. Nor is this proof 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 265 


necessary, if it be admitted that Jude quoted 2 Peter 
at the beginning and end of his letter as an apostolic 
writing composed several years before (above, p. 250 f.). 
One cannot but feel weary over the evasions by which 
the interpreters obscure the fact that not only in Jude 
17 f., but also in Jude 4, an.older Christian writing—the 
same which in Jude 17 f. is called apostolic—is quoted, in 
which Jude found predicted what he saw being fulfilled 
at the time when he wrote his letter. Since we now have 
a writing, purporting to be Peter's, which contains exactly 
what Jude quotes from the apostolic document cited by 
him, and since, besides these two express references of 
Jude, there are so many parallels between Jude and 
2 Peter as regards facts, thought, and language as to 
necessitate hier assumption of a literary relation between 
them, by the ordinary canons of criticism we should con- 
clude that Jude knew and prized 2 Peter as an apostolic 
writing, and made it the basis of parts of his letter. The 
very artificiality of the present prevailing view, which 
reverses the relation, and represents the author of 2 Peter 
as copying from Jude, often unintelligently, requires that 
its exegetical proof should be all the stronger (n. 4). 
Certainly the style of Jude, which, in comparison with the 
obscure and clumsy style of 2 Peter, is clearer and generally 
better, cannot be used to prove the priority of Jude; for 
what was there to hinder Jude from surpassing many of 
the original apostles in the use of the Greek language and 
in natural fluency of speech, as his brother James did ? 
Furthermore, it is only natural that in descriptions of 
actual and present phenomena, like those of Jude, the 
representation of the seducers should be more sharply 
outlined than in 2 Peter, which is so largely prophetic in 
character. /If 2 Peter is genuine, it clearly cannot be 
dependent  üpon Jude; for, in the first place, Jude did 
not write until after the year 70, 2.6. after Peter’s death ; 
and, in the second place, in representing as a prediction 


266 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the appearance among the readers of false teachers, when 
from Jude he knew that they had already made their 
appearance among the readers of this Epistle, the writer 
of 2 Peter would necessarily have indicated clearly the 
ditference between the historical presentation in his source 
and his own prophetic representation. He would. also 
have distinguished between the region where, according to 
Jude, the seducers were already at work, and the region 
where, according to 2 Peter, they were to appear in the 
future. 

But even assuming that 2 Peter is a forgery of the 
second century, and that Jude is a genuine writing of the 
late apostolic age, the view that the former is dependent 
upon the latter can be maintained only by a series of 
artificial hypotheses. If Jude 4, 17 ἢ has been correctly 
explained above (p. 250 f.), it is necessary to assume that 
the apostolic document which Jude quotes as his authority 
in both these passages was early lost, and that 2 Peter 
is a later caricature substituted for it. This lost 
apostolic writing must have resembled 2 Peter very closely. 
Like 2 Peter, it must have contained the prediction that 
persons who were libertines in theory and practice would 
appear as seducers among Jude’s readers (Jude 4; 2 Pet. 
ii. 1-3). In it must have been found also a prediction 
regarding the scoffers of the! last time, which is found in 
almost identical words in 2 Pet. iii. 3 and Jude 18, in 
the former without any definite indication as to its source, 
in the latter quoted as an apostolic word. The common 
assumption that the author of 2 Peter took these passages 
and all others parallel to Jude directly from this Epistle, is 
another hypothesis without any basis ; for what prevented 
the author of 2 Peter from copying them all from the lost 
apostolic document quoted by Jude? In this case 2 Peter 
is not an independent writing, but, in part at least, the 
recasting of an ancient writing known to Jude as the 
work of an apostle. There is no doubt that such a writing, 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 267 


if it existed, bore the name of Peter, and had the form ot 
a letter, since there is no reason why the later editor 
should have modified his original in these two respects. 
There is usually no difficulty in assuming such recasting 
of older genuine writings. Why in this case should we 
assume that the ancient and genuine document attested 
by Jude disappeared altogether, and that later 2 Peter 
was written on the basis of hints and quotations in Jude? 
But even assuming that this older writing was actually 
lost or destroyed, which is improbable, the origin of 
2 Peter still remains inexplicable (n. 5)./ To reconstruct 
at a later time, from hints in Jude and from imagination, 
a lost apostolic prophecy concerning future errors, which, 
according to Jude, was actually fulfilled in the apostolic 
age, would have been a task as purposeless as it was | 
difficult. It is much more conceivable that the old 
prophetic writing cited by Jude, and regarded by him as 
apostolic, was worked over in the light of more recent 
events to suit the spirit of the age, in order to make it 
more effective, and that in this way 2 Peter received all 
the peculiarities which have from the earliest times caused 
its genuineness to be questioned. 

But the other assumption, namely, that both Jude and 
2 Peter are spurious products of the post-apostolie age, 
involves the most unlikely consequences. They could not 
have originated independently of each other; but neither 
could they have been written by the same author, nor by 
two different forgers working together. Anyone desiring 
to oppose a tendency which sprang up in the post-apostolie 
time, on the authority of an apostle, might very well have 
done so in the form of an apostolic letter, in which, as 
in 2 Peter, the appearance of certain false teachers and 
scoffers is predicted. But it is difficult to understand how 
one who had written such a letter, or someone working in 
conspiracy with him, could have forged Jude also, in which 
the prediction of Peter regarding the future would be 


268 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


represented as having been almost immediately fulfilled 
Circumstances seemed rather to require a prediction, ie 
order that an apostle might be represented as prophetically 
condemning later phenomena in the life of the Church. 
It would be necessary to assume that the author of Jude 
regarded 2:Peter as genuine, and that the later forger was 
deceived by the older one. But even in this case it has 
yet to be explained why the person who thought that the 
prediction of 2 Peter was fulfilled in certain phenomena 
of his time used. a pseudonym in order to express this 
single fact, and further obscured the reference of his view 
to his own times by putting it into the mouth of Jude, 
the brother of James, who had long since died. 

Passing now from these considerations of a hypothetical 
nature to the examination of the genuineness of the letter, 
the very manner in which the writer designates himself in 
Jude 1 predisposes us in favour of the genuineness of this 
Epistle. , According to historical tradition, Jude, the brother 
of James, is a very obscure personality (above, p. 240f.) ; 
according to later tradition also, he was not an apostle, 
and.in the circle of the early Christian authers down to the 
year 200, his name does not once appear (see Eus. .. E. 
vi. 7)... What could have induced anyone desiring to defend 
the common Christian faith and Christian morality to repre- 
sent himself as Jude? Why was it necessary for him to 
assume any character atall? Nothing that he says requires 
any particular authority. He refers to certain unpleasant 
conditions in the present life of his readers ; describes 
them, and condemns them severely, but only in such a 
way as every earnest Christian was under necessity of 
doing. He declares that in these events of the present 
an apostolic prediction written years before is finding its 
fulfilment ; but this, again, could be recognised and 
expressed by any ordinary Christian under the same con- 
ditions., Nor does he claim any special authority. He 
does) not call himself an apostle, and intimates only in 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 269 


a very modest way that he is the Jude known to the 
readers as one of the brothers of Jesus (above, pp. 238f.;256). 
A further proof of genuineness is the manner in which he 
refers to one or to a number of apostolic writings. What 
forger, who could have had no other purpose in suchoa 
reference than to strengthen the authority of his own 
writing, would have been content with such hints as we 
find in Jude 4, 17f.? Would he not have mentioned 
the apostle, or apostles, by name? If it be assumed that 
the letter is spurious, then the reference to another writing 
of the author, which was in the process of composition at 
the time this letter was written (ver. 3; above, pp. 241, 256), 
is wholly inexplicable. In case the letter is genuine, we 
have only to assume, either that the purpose of Jude there 
expressed, like so many other literary intentions, was never 
carried out, or that the writing contemplated at that time 
and later published, like so many other early Christian 
writings, has not come down to us (Luke i. 1; 1 Cor. v. 9, 
vii. 1). On the other hand, if the letter is spurious, it is 
necessary to assume that such a work of Jude regarding 
the Christian salvation existed at this time, and was 
generally known when this letter was written in Jude’s 
name. But there is no trace of such a didactic writing of 
Jude's (n. 6). If such a writing in Jude’s name did exist, 
it is wholly inexplicable why the author should speak of a 
writing which Jude intended to produce instead of the 
writing actually at hand. The fact that the author makes 
use of two pseudepigraphic writings bearing O.T. names, 
namely, the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch 
(n. 7), lessened for a time the ecclesiastical reputation of 
the Epistle ; but this is no reason why we should question 
its genuineness. Except for the references in Jude, we do 
not know how these two books and other writings of like 
character were regarded by the older apostles and the 
brothers of Jesus. Nevertheless, what we find in Jude 
would seem to indicate that several of these writings, 


270 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which do not stand the test of historical criticism, were 
regarded in this worthy circle as reliable witnesses of 
genuine tradition and true prophecy. It is, however, of 
eritical importance that Jude apparently did not use the 
newly discovered Greek translation, but the Hebrew or 
Aramaic original of the Book of Enoch (n. 7). Jude is, 
like his brother James, a Hebrew who is also able to handle 
the Greek language with comparative ease. After what 
has been said above, vol. i. pp. 45, 113, the fact that Jude 
and Peter, if he is the author of 2 Peter, used the Greek 
language in addressing Jewish Christians, does not require 
further explanation. The other things that have caused 
objections to Jude, namely, its description of the libertines, 
and the resemblance it bears in thought and language to 
the letters of Paul, apply equally to 2 Peter. Therefore 
they can be best discussed with reference to the two 
letters together, taking into account, of course, their 
mutual relations and their differences. 

If, on the one hand, it seems strange that a later 
author should write a letter in Jude’s name, it is, on the 
other, entirely comprehensible that the name of the chief 
of the apostles should be misused in the writing of a 
spurious letter. Perhaps as early as the beginning of the 
second century a κήρυγμα Πέτρου was ascribed to him, and 
toward the middle of the same century an evayyéuov κατὰ 
Πέτρον, in both of which writings Peter himself assumes 
the röle of author. The same is true of the ἀποκάλυψις 
Πέτρου, which is likewise old. Furthermore, in this same 
century, in the πράξεις Πέτρου, which are written from ἃ 
Gnostic point of view, Peter is made the hero of a whole 
series of apostolic legends. Apparently in the third cen- 
tury he is made the principal figure in the Clementine 
Romance (Homilies), which is written in an Ebionitic 
spirit; while at the beginning of the Greek recension of 
this Romance we find a letter from him to James (n. 8). 
In view of all this, the mere occurrence of Peter’s name in 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 271 


an ancient writing is no proof of authorship. Further- 
more, the view taken above regarding the authorship of 
1 Peter (p. 149 f.) deprives us of one of the chief means of 
determining the genuineness of 2 Peter. And yet it is 
with the comparison of these two letters that our criticism 
must begin. Notwithstanding the mention of Silvanus in 
1 Pet. v. 12, 1 Peter was very early recognised and eir- 
culated as a genuine writing of the apostle. Anyone 
desiring to ascribe a second Church letter to Peter at a 
later date could not disregard the earlier and highly 
prized first Epistle. According to the traditional opinion, 
the author of 2 Peter actually made an explicit reference 
to 1 Peter. But we have seen that 2 Pet. ili. 1 does not 
refer to 1 Peter, and that 2 Peter does not, like 1 Peter, 
claim to be directed to the Gentile Christian Churches of 
Asia Minor, but to the Jewish Christian Churches of Pales- 
tine (pp. 194f., 201-209). This, so faras the present writer 
is able to see, is the conclusion of a perfectly sound 
exegesis, and the conclusion is confirmed by the fact that 
there are only a very few agreements in thought and 
language between 1 and 2 Peter (n. 9). On the other 
hand, there is something strikingly original about the 
author’s self-designation, Συμεὼν Πέτρος, which, so far as 
we know, is unheard of elsewhere in Petrine and pseudo- 
Petrine literature. The peculiar and often obscure style 
of 2 Peter is in itself a strong argument against the sus- 
picion that the letter was forged at a later time. The 
fact that 2 Peter is entirely independent of 1 Peter, the 
genuineness of which was widely accepted at a much 
earlier date, is still stronger proof of the genuineness of 
the former. Then the fact is to be considered that in 
2 Pet. ui. 1 a letter of Peter is referred to which has not 
come down to us. Now it must be admitted that the 
reference in this place to a letter which never existed 
would be meaningless, and a fiction entirely opposed to the 
forger’s purpose, namely, to win the confidence of his 


272 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


readers. Accordingly, those who deny the genuineness of 
2 Peter must assume that the same pseudo-Peter, or one 
before him, wrote another pseudo-Petrine letter... But then 
it is necessary to explain why only the second of this pair 
of forged letters is preserved, although the author calls 
attention in 111. 1 to the fact that he has addressed an 
earlier letter to the same readers. In like manner, the 
announcement of Peter’s intention to leave to the readers 
a comprehensive and didactic writing (1.15 ; above, p. 200 f.) 
presents greater difhieulties than the opponents of the 
genuineness of 2 Peter seem to recognise. The only pur- 
pose which a forger could have had in such a reference 
would be to make his letter, which was as yet unknown, 
seem more genuine by connecting it with a recognised 
writing of Peter. But how incredible it is that he should 
assert merely his intention of composing such a writing, 
and not the fact that he had actually done so! And if 
he meant a writing in Peter’s name highly prized at the 
time, such, e.g. as the ancient κήρυγμα Πέτρου, how aimless 
it was on his part to omit all definite references to it ! 
But here again the assumption of genuineness removes all 
the difficulties, as in the case of the writing which Jude 
had planned but which has not come down to us (above, 
p. 269). The mere fact that Peter's letter, mentioned in 
2 Pet. iii. 1, has not been preserved, needs no more ex- 
planation than the fact that the letter of Paul’s spoken of 
in 1 Cor. v. 9 was not made a part of the collection of his 
Epistles. The preservation of 2 Peter alone may be due 
to the fact that it was only in this letter and not in the 
earlier one mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 1 that phenomena of 
Church life were discussed which appeared first. in the Gen- 
tile Christian Churches, and made their way thence into 
the Jewish Christian Churches (above, pp. 223 ff., 24211), 
as Peter predicts would be the case, and Jude testifies 
actually to have happened. For this reason 2 Peter and 
Jude had a certain value also for the Gentile Church, and 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 273 


found some circulation there (above, p. 263 f.), while a hor- 
tatory letter written by the Apostle of the Circumcision to 
Churches belonging in the original sphere of his labours, 
which lacked such reference to the dangers threatening 
the whole Church, remained confined within this original 
circle. The fact that, so far as we know, the intention of 
Peter expressed in 2 Pet. i. 15 was never carried out, 
requires no special explanation. Yet it is hard not to 
think that the κήρυγμα Πέτρου was an invention suggested 
by 2 Pet. 1. 15, and intended to supply the gap in the 
apostolic literature which this reference indicated. In the 
same way the emphasis upon the parousia as an integral 
element of the Petrine preaching (2 Pet. i. 16), and the 
prophetic character of 2 Pet. 11.--111. probably supplied the 
impulse for the fabrication of the ἀποκάλυψις Πέτρου. 

So long as it was assumed that 1 Peter was written 
by the apostle’s own hand, and that 2 Peter was directed 
to the same readers as 1 Peter, the great difference 
between the two letters in thought and language was 
necessarily strong evidence against the genuineness of 
2 Peter. ‘These two presuppositions proving to be wrong, 
however, this argument against 2 Peter falls to the 
sround. That a letter to the Gentile Christian Churches 
of Asia Minor, written by Silvanus at Peter’s request and 
in his name, would be different from a letter written by 
his own hand to Jewish Christian Churches who owed 
their Christian faith to him and his companions, is self- 
evident. In particular, it is clear that in the latter case 
he would necessarily betray an entirely different con- 
sciousness of his apostolic calling and official relation to 
the readers. While in the first letter he allows himself to 
be represented, and to a certain extent introduced, by a 
missionary prominent in the Churches of Asia Minor, in 
the second he speaks as the Apostle of the Circumcision to 
the flock over which Christ had made him shepherd 
(John xxi. 15-17; ef. x. 16). In speaking to these he 


VOL. II. 18 


274 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


could say of himself what Paul said to the Corinthians in 
1 Cor. ix. 2—and there was occasion for him to write in 
this way if, as we saw above (pp. 222f., 245), he had 
become acquainted with a party which had sprung up in 
the Gentile Christian Churches ; which spoke contemptu- 
ously of the simple Christians of the first generation 
and condemned the apostles.; which was already threaten- 
ing to bring this dangerous teaching also into the Jewish 
Churches. It is to be observed, however, that Peter does 
not defend and magnify his apostleship in anything like 
the severe and exalted tone of Paul (Gal. 1. lai 14; 
1: Cor. 11. LO-iv. 2h,ax.01+6, xv. 10,5 2Cor. xırd=Ll;ızi. 
l—xil, 12, xii. 1-8, 10; cf. 2 Pet. i 1, 3, 16-18). From 
beginning to end the letter shows a brotherly spirit, and 
is in keeping with Christ’s exhortation to Peter in Luke 
xxii. 32. Anyone who regards the synoptic narrative of 
the transfiguration and the words of Jesus in John xiii. 36 ἢ, 
xxl 18-22, as unhistorical, must, of course, take exception 
to the reference in 2 Pet. 1..14, 16-18. But it must be 
remembered that when such prejudices, which in the last 
analysis are: dogmatic, are allowed to influence literary 
criticism, the latter ceases to be worthy of its name. On 
the contrary, the manifest independence of this self-testi- 
mony of Peter, when compared with the Gospel accounts 
(above, pp. 203, 211-218), is strong proof that it is not of 
late origin, certainly not so late as 150 or 170. | Besides, 
erities who are afraid of miracles need not be so seriously 
embarrassed in accepting 2 Peter as genuine ; because the 
feature of the synoptie account of the Transfiguration which 
appears most mythical, namely, the appearance of Moses 
and Elias, is omitted in 2 Peter. 

Of more importance are the difficulties caused by the 
statement about Paul and his letters in iii. 15f. The 
chief thing to be noticed here is the fact that Peter speaks 
of a single letter which Paul is represented as having once 
sent to the Jewish Christian readers of 2 Peter, and the 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 275 


fact. that the letter is not only wanting, but also that 
there is no other trace of its previous existence in the 
early Church (above, p. 198f.). Again, the assumption 
that 2 Peter is spurious, brings us face to face with the 
question, why again and again these persons writing in 
the name of Peter and Jude refer to writings, some of 
them already im existence and others in process of pre- 
paration, which no one else knows anything about? In 
reality, this appeal to a letter of Paul’s, no longer to be 
found, is also proof of the age and genuineness of 2 Peter 
(ef, above, pp. 266 f., 271). In recalling to the, readers’ 
minds a single letter of Paul’s with which. they are 
acquainted, Peter mentions also a large number of other 
Pauline letters which, as the whole context shows (above, 
pp: 198 £., 227 £.), were addressed not to them, but to 
other Christians. There is nothing to indicate that the 
readers were acquainted with these letters also, | Indeed, 
all that Peter says of them would seem to imply the 
contrary. He assures the readers, in the first place, 
that Paul in all his letters, whenever he speaks about the 
subject under discussion (λαλῶν, not λαλήσας), expresses 
himself in a similar way. Then Peter speaks of misinter- 
pretations of certain passages in these letters (n. 10), not 
by his own readers, but by the false teachers and their 
followers, previously described in his. letter, with whom 
he became acquainted in Gentile Christian circles (above, 
p- 227 f.). So far this statement contains nothing which 
precludes the possibility of Petrine authorship. There is 
nothing improbable in the supposition that from 60 to 
64 A.D, many of Paul’s letters had spread beyond the 
single Churches to which they were severally directed and 
were circulated in the Gentile Christian Church.  Signifi- 
cant proof that Peter had read such letters is found in the 
fact that not very long after the composition of 2 Peter, 
when he wrote to the Churches in Asia Minor by the hand 
of Silvanus, he made use of Romans and Ephesians (above, 


276 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Ρ. 177). Moreover, Peter had urgent occasion to express 
himself in this way regarding Paul and his letters. For, 
if the libertines who had made their appearance among 
the Churches founded by Paul justified their teaching and 
practice by an appeal to certain expressions of Paul’s in his 
letters, they would have a very confusing effect upon the 
Jewish Christian Churches, if, as Peter expected, they 
made their way into these Churches in the near future. 
It was possible that the false teachers might be recom- 
mended to some Jewish Christians by their treacherous 
semblance of agreement with the great Apostle to the 
Gentiles, and this made their attempt at seduction all the 
more dangerous. In the case of the majority of Jewish 
Christians, however, such a connection would only serve 
to increase the feeling of mistrust toward the Apostle to 
the Gentiles which was not yet entirely overcome (Acts 
xxi. 20 ff.). 

According to 1 Pet. i. 12, v. 12, and all reliable testi- 
mony regarding Peter, he endeavoured just as earnestly as 
did Paul (Gal. i. 22-24, ii. 7-10; 1 Cor. xv. 11; 1 Thess. 
u. 14; 2 Cor. ix. 8-15; Rom. xv. 26-32) to promote 
harmony between the two branches of the Church and 
their respective leaders. Consequently he does not here 
call Paul simply his personal friend, but the beloved 
brother of himself and of his Jewish Christian readers (ef. 
Acts xxi. 20). For the same reason he reminds the 
readers of the letter which they had received from Paul, 
probably not long before (above, p. 209), and from which 
they can see that Paul and Peter are in agreement re- 
garding the great essentials of Christian faith and hope 
and Christian morality. With this end in view he assures 
them that the same fundamental principles are held by 
Paul in all his other letters, and that, consequently, the 
appeal of the false teachers to his authority is just as false 
as is the mistrust of Paul by many Jewish Christians, 

The only thing that causes difticulty is the fact that 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 277 


the false teachers are also said to pervert “the other 
seriptures” (2 Pet. iii. 16). Since elsewhere in the N.T. 
αἱ γραφαί is used only to designate the sacred writings of 
that time, ue. the O.T. Seriptures, it might seem as if 
Peter included Paul’s letters among these sacred writings. 
This would seem to bring us down to the time of Irenzeus 
(n. 11). That this is a misunderstanding, however, is 
clearly proved by the fact that Peter here assumes a letter 
of Paul’s as known, which is not anywhere mentioned 
in the literature of the Church among the canonical or 
apocryphal letters of Paul. Consequently the writer of 
2 Peter did not have before him a collection of Paul's 
letters which were in general circulation in the second 
century. Furthermore, we are reminded here of the well- 
known Greek usage of ἄλλοι and ἕτεροι, which permits the 
following substantival designation to be limited to the 
group of words which these terms introduce (n. 12). A 
corresponding use of λοιποί might be possible, although 
examples of such use are wanting. But the very fact 
that the remaining writings in question are compared with 
the letters of Paul, or rather with certain passages in his 
letters hard to understand, in a way purely incidental and 
without any modifying adjectives such as ἅγιος (Rom. i. 2), 
ἱερός (2 Tim. iii. 15), θεοπνευστός (2 Tim. ili. 16), προφητικός 
(Rom. xvi. 26), παλαιός (2 Cor. iii. 14), ἀρχαῖος (Luke ix. 8, 
19), proves that αἱ γραφαί is not here used in its technical 
sense, namely, “a collection of sacred writings.” Among 
the Jews the technical use of 0%527= Bible did not pre- 
vent the application of the word 5p to all sorts of 
books and documents, as similarly among Greek-speaking 
Christians, the analogous technical use of ai γραφαί and 
τὰ γράμματα did not preclude the broader use of γραφή, 
γραφαί, and γράμματα (n. 12). The way in which the 
false teachers took obscure passages in Paul’s letters 
out of their context and misinterpreted them, was only 
illustrative of their use of books in general. Of course, 


378 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the reference is limited to books of a religious character. 
naturally such as would claim recognition among Chris- 
tian readers, either on account of the person who wrote 
them or of the use made of them in the service of 
the Church. Inasmuch as the libertines are nowhere 
represented as opposed in principle to the O.T., the sacred 
writings of the O.T. are not in any sense excluded, nor the 
apocryphal writings, such as Jude and Peter themselves 
read and used. We also do not know how large a body 
of Christian literature was already in existence by 60 or 64. 
As evidenced by 2 Peter and Jude in their time, some 
works had already been written, and others were projected, 
which have not come down to us, and in Luke 1. 1 there 
is a definite reference to such literature ; so that we are 
entirely free to assume that in the years 50-70 other 
teachers, such as Barnabas, Apollos, Silvanus, and Timothy, 
oceasionally prepared a didactic letter, or some other 
writing, out of which the false teachers took single passages 
and misinterpreted them, as in the case of Paul's letters. 
So, then, 2 Pet. iii. 15 f. contains nothing which takes 
us beyond the period of Peter’s life, while the mention of 
a letter of Paul’s, unknown to the Church in the post- 
apostolic age, is proof that 2 Peter was written in apostolic 
times. We know that single passages in Paul’s letters, and 
particularly passages dealing with the moral life and its 
relation to heathen immorality, were misunderstood even 
by the original receivers, and also interpreted unfairly 
(1 Cor. v. 9-13; 2 Cor. i. 13%; vol. 1. pp. 2697/9822). 
Furthermore, we saw that probably the libertines, whose 
entrance into the Jewish Christian Church was predicted 
by Peter and described by Jude after it had taken place, 
appropriated forms of speech such as Paul had used in 1 Cor. 
ii, 10-11. 2 (Jude 19; above p. 258,n. 6). Jude seems to 
have found it worth while to read Paul’s letters as Peter 
did. Alone with 2 Peter, which is formally quoted, he 
mentions the utterariees of other apostles which must 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 279 


likewise have been addressed to his readers, since they 
are exhorted to remember the same (Jude 17; above, p. 
252). The reference, therefore, cannot be to letters οἵ 
Paul’s addressed to Gentile Christian Churches or to indi- 
viduals in these Churches, as has been assumed on the 
basis of passages like 2 Tim. 11. 17 £., i. 1ff, iv. 3f It 
is very natural, however, to suppose that he means that 
letter of Paul’s which, according to 2 Pet. ii. 15, was 
directed to the same readers and was related in content to 
2 Peter. If Jude read 2 Peter carefully, and ascertained 
from it Peter's high opinion of the wisdom of Paul in his 
letters, and that the false teachers misused numerous 
passages in other Pauline letters, it is not astonishing 
that he should endeavour to procure Paul’s letters, and 
that he should read them carefully. This was. all the 
more natural, in view of the fact that he felt it his duty to 
summon his readers to oppose the libertines who used as 
watchwords Pauline phrases which they misinterpreted. 
So he himself could appropriate the Pauline. distinction 
between ψυχικοί and πνευματικοί which was misused by the 
false teachers (Jude 19). There are also other resemblances 
to Paul’s letters which can hardly be regarded as accidental 
(n. 19). Neither Jude nor 2 Peter shows evidence of the 
use of literary works from the time after the destruction 
of Jerusalem (n. 14). 

Finally, the question arises as to the character of the 
false teachers described in both letters. There is no 
essential difference between the descriptions of 2 Peter 
and Jude (above, pp. 224 f., 243 ff.). Though the word 
ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι does not occur in Jude, the thing which the 
word designates is found (above, p. 247 f.). While Jude 
nowhere indicates that these intruders despised prophecy, 
—an omission which is especially striking, because what 
Jude leaves out in ver. 18 is found in the corresponding 
passage in:2 Pet. i. 3 f. which he cited,—the fact is not 
to be overlooked that in 2 Peter also this side of the false 


280 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tendency depicted by Peter falls at once entirely inte 
the background, and that Peter goes on to speak of the 
rise of various tendencies which will result from the 
intrusion of the false teachers which he foresees (ii. 1; 
above, p. 232, π. 2). It is in harmony not only with 
this prediction, but also with universal experience, that 
the representatives of the movement with which Peter 
had become acquainted in the Gentile Christian Churches 
did not reveal their whole “system” at once upon their 
entrance into the Jewish Christian Churches in Jude’s 
time. They left untouched for the time being especi- 
ally the teachings about the Christian hope which were so 
deeply rooted in Jewish Christianity, and, in general, strove 
to introduce their theory and practice, less by direct attack 
upon the common faith than by clever misinterpretation 
of the doctrine of grace (Jude 4), by depreciating judg- 
ments of the apostles and the simple Church officials 
(above, pp. 228, 243), by currying favour with the richer 
and more educated members of the Church (Jude 16), and 
by making the most of the opportunities afforded by the 
love-feasts for social, and yet at the same time religious 
fellowship (Jude 12). 

It is not necessary to come down so late as the second 
century in order to find an illustration from other histori- 
cal sources of the kind of false teachers described in Jude 
and 2 Peter. The essential features of this movement are 
to be found as early as the year 57 im the Corinthian 
Church (vol. i. pp. 273 ff., 298 1). There a movement 
had temporarily gained a foothold which (1) advocated 
extremely dangerous principles with regard to sexual life, 
based upon the idea of the freedom of the Christian under 
the gospel (1 Cor. vi. 12-20), principles which were 
actually applied in the life of the Church. The Lord who 
had bought the Christians, that they might be His servants, 
was practically denied (1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23; ef. 2 Pet. 
ii. 1; Jude 4). From the hints in Romans, which was 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 281 


written in Corinth in the year 58 (Rom. vi. 1 ff., 12, 14 ff.), 
we also learn that an effort was made to find a theoretical 
support for the continuance of heathen immorality in the 
doctrine of the Christian state of grace, as well as in the 
doctrine of freedom under the gospel. (2) The same 
movement in Corinth justified participation in the heathen 
cultus acts, on the ground that all Christians, as a matter 
of course, knew that the heathen conceptions about the 
gods were false, and that the demons, who in the view of 
Paul and all other Jewish Christians presided over the 
idol worship, and were dangerous to Christians, were as 
powerless and unreal as the gods of mythology (1 Cor. 
vii.-x.; cf. 2 Pet. ü. 10 ἢ; Jude 8-10). (3) Exalted by 
this feeling of superior knowledge, the representatives of 
this movement assumed an attitude of insubordination and 
irreverence toward the apostle Paul which he compares 
to the rebellion of Korah (above, p. 257 f., n. 5). The 
watchword ἐγὼ de Χριστοῦ represented an attitude of scorn 
toward all human authority in the Church (vol. 1. p. 294). 
(4) Those of the Corinthians who denied the most essential 
point in the Christian teaching regarding the future life, 
namely, the resurrection of the body (1 Cor. xv.), were 
probably representatives of the same tendency. The ex- 
pectation of the future kingdom of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 
23-28), which is inseparable from belief in the resurrection, 
was also practically denied in Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 8; vol. i. 
p- 273 f.). (5) The libertines in Corinth are not described as 
professional teachers ; but just as they endeavoured to find 
a theoretical foundation for their practical views, so, being 
“strong.” spirits, they declared it to be their duty to bring 
the “ weak” to their point of view, and to impart to them 
the knowledge which brings freedom, and to build them 
up by their example (1 Cor. viii. 10; vol. 1. p. 296, n. 1). 
(6) One of the abuses of the common meals of the Church 
(these meals are not yet called ἀγάπαι), which ended in the 
celebration of the eucharist, was the fact that by many they 


282 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


were degraded into occasions for revelling (1 Cor. xi 21 Ε, 
34; cf. 2 Pet. 1. 13; Jude 12). Here also the separa- 
tive tendencies which threatened to destroy the unity of 
the Corinthian Church and its connection with the whole 
Church, came to view (1 Cor. σι. 18 f.; ef. Jude 19 ; vol. iv 
p. 284 f.). In short, all the elements of the prophetic pie- 
ture of the false teachers in 2 Peter, and of the historical 
description of Jude, are to be found in 1 Cormthians, 
except that in the latter case they have not yet reached 
the same stage of development. In Corinth the libertines 
misinterpreted the written instructions of Paul (1 Cor. v. 
9 ff.) ; they apparently applied passages which Paul had 
actually spoken in a way contrary to his meaning (1 Cor. 
vi. 12, x. 23, viii 1, 4, x. 19); and they even boasted, 
when indulging in practices which Paul reproves, that 
they were following his instructions (1 Cor. xi. 2). All of 
these things are illustrations of 2 Pet. ui. 16. The only 
new feature is that Peter predicts that persons representing 
this tendency will appear among the Jewish Christian 
Churches as false teachers, and that Jude some ten years 
later testifies that this had actually happened. That these 
intruders are not charged, or at least not clearly charged, 
with participation in idolatrous sacrificial feasts, and with 
seducing others to such participation (above, p. 243 ff.), is 
not strange; for in Jewish Christian Churches such de- 
mands would have met with insurmountable opposition. 
Furthermore, the environment of these Churches would per- 
haps hardly have furnished opportunity for such practices, 

In view of the mention of Balaam’s name (2 Pet. ii. 
15; Jude 11), it is at least possible that Peter and Jude 
knew that many persons representing this tendeney did 
ποῦ keep themselves aloof from idolatrous worship in their 
own home, 7.e. in Gentile lands, to the degree that Peter 
and Jude and Paul himself felt to be necessary. From Rev, 
ii. 2,6, 14 f., 20-25 we learn that between the years 90 and 
95 representatives of a doctrine in which unchastity and 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 285 


participation in idolatrous feasts were justified among other 
reasons by appeal to a deeper insight into the nature of 
evil spirits (Rev. ii. 24), sought entrance into the Churches 
of Ephesus, Pergamos, and Thyatira, and were partially 
successful. The occurrence of the name of Balaam in Rev. 
ii. 14 (ef. 2 Pet. ii. 15; Jude 11) of itself almost compels 
us to assume a connection between this teaching and what 
is deseribed in 2 Peter and Jude. The historical reports 
regarding the party and teaching of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 
ii. 6, 15) favour the assumption that in the last third of 
the first century they sent missionaries among the Jewish 
Christians in Palestine, as well as among the Gentile 
Christians in Ephesus (n. 15). While there were numer- 
ous parties and sects representing libertinistic theories and 
practices in the second and third centuries, there is none 
that so closely resembles the seducers described in 2 Peter 
and Jude as the libertinistic movement with which we 
become acquainted in 1 Corinthians, and as the Nicolaitans 
of whom we learn from hints in Revelation. 


1. (P. 262.) The suspicions as to the genuineness and canonicity of 2 Pet. 
as of Jude current in the ancient Church were shared by the theologians. of 
the sixteenth century. Erasmus, who thought that the reference in 1 Pet. 
v. 12 was to a letter earlier than our 1 Pet., written by Silvanus, was of the 
opinion that the statement that 2 Pet. was a second (instead of a third) 
letter could be explained only on the assumption that 2 Pet. was spurious, 
or, like the earliest, the lost letter, was written by Silvanus at Peter’s direetion 
(Paraphr. in epist. can. Basil, 1521, fol. AP, cf. A* D?). Luther in the year 
1524 (Erl. Ausg. Bd. 52, 5.271) quotes 2 Pet. iii. 15 as one of the passages, on 
the basis of which its composition by Peter might be questioned, in so far as 
it indicates “that this Epistle was written long after: those of Paul.” 2 Pet. 
iii. 9 was objectionable to him on doctrinal grounds; “Doch ists gläublich, 
sie [die Epistel] nichts deste minder des Apostels sei” (still, it is credible that 
it may be an epistle of the apostle). Calvin in his Argwmentum on 2 Pet. and 
on iii. 15 wavers between acceptance and rejection, but is inclined to believe 
that the letter was written by'a disciple of Peter at his direction. Grotius 
(on 2 Pet. i. 1, 14, 17, iii. 1, ed. Windheim, 11. 1038, 1042 [., 1053, 1060), 
who is of the opimion that 2 Pet. could not have been written until after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, divides the letter into two letters, chaps. i.-ii. 
and chap. iii., making iii. 1 refer to chaps. i. and ii. as a first letter. They 
were both written not by the apostle Simon Peter, but by Simeon, the 
second bishop of Jerusalem in the time of Trajan (Ens. H. 1. iii. 32). In 


284 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


order to establish his theory, Grotios omitted the words Πέτρος... . καὶ 
ἀπόστολος, 1 Pet. i. 1, and ὁ ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφός, 111. 15, on the ground 
that they are interpolations. He also conjectured that the heavenly voice in 
i. 17 was an interpolation, so that the holy mountain may be understood as 
referring to Zion, and the entire passage made to relate to John xii. 28. 
Accordingly, Grotius, p. 1117, explained the words ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου, Jude 1, 
as an interpolation, and declared this Epistle to be the work of the last Jewish 
Christian bishop of Jerusalem in the time of Hadrian (ὃ 43, n. 1). Herder 
(Briefe zweener Bruder Jesu, 1775, Opera, ed. by Suphan, vi. 471) regarded 
both letters as genuine, but could not understand how the opinion could be 
so long held that Jude is dependent upon 2 Pet., the opposite relation being so 
perfectly apparent (S. 529). On the other hand, Semler (Paraphrasis ep. Petri 
II. et Jude, 1784, in the preface of fol. d! and p. 167 f.) declared both letters 
to be pseudonymous forgeries of the second half of the second century ; 
Jude he held to be an epitome of 2 Pet. While J. D. Michaelis (Einl., 4te 
Auf. 1788, S. 1475 ff.) defends the genuineness of 2 Pet., and is inclined to 
assume that Jude is fabricated on the basis of 2 Pet. (S. 1516), Eichhorn 
(Einl. 1812, iii. S. 624-656) decides against the genuineness of 2 Pet., mainly 
on the ground of the dependence of 2 Pet. upon Jude, which he thinks was 
written perhaps before the year 70. And this is one of the main reasons for 
the wide currency of a similar view to-day. Among the moderns who 
advocate this view, special mention should be made of Mayerhoff (Hist. krit. 
Einl. in die petrinischen Schriften, 1835, S. 149-217) ; among those who defend 
the genuineness of 2 Pet., Weiss (see especially ThStKr, 1866, S. 255-308) ; 
Hofmann, NT, vii. 3 (1875) ; Spitta, Der 2 Br. des Pt. und des Ju. (1885). 
Nor have efforts been wanting since Grotius to find a genuine Epistle of Peter 
in 2 Pet. by removing additions to the letter that are not held to be original. 
Berthold (Hinl. 1819, S. 3157 ff.) declared chap. ii. to be an interpolation based 
upon Jude, holding chaps. i. and iii. to be an original letter of Peter’s. C. Ul- 
mann (Krit. Unters. des 2 Pt. 1821) accepted only chap. i. as the work of Peter. 
Gess, Dus apost. Zeugniss von Christi Person, 1879, ii. 2, 8. 412 ff, is in favour 
of striking out i. 20” (ὅτι raaa)—iii. 3° (γινώσκοντες) as an interpolation, 

2. (P. 264.) In explaining the entirely different reception of 1 Pet. and 
2 Pet. in the ancient Church, appeal cannot be made to the lost letters of 
Paul to the Corinthians (vol. i. pp. 261, 270, n. 9), to the Philippians (vol. 
i. p. 535 f.) and to the readers of 2 Pet. (above, p. 198 f.), nor to Peter’s own 
letter, referred to in 2 Pet. iii. 1 (above, p. 199 f.); for the reason that, so far 
as we know, these letters were very soon and for ever lost. On the other 
hand, 2 Pet. was preserved and eventually came to be everywhere accepted 
as a letter of Peter’s. The real question is why the general circulation and 
acceptance of 2 Pet. was so much later than that of 1 Pet. 

3. (P. 264.) For traces of 2 Pet. and Jude in the literature of the early 
Church, and their relation to the canon, see GK, i, 310-321, 759, 959-961, ii. 
819, 853; Grundriss, 20, 21f., 25 (A. 15), 42f., 58, 54f., 56, 60, 68f., 71. 
For the relation between 2 Pet. and Hermas cf. the writer’s work, Hirt des 
Hermas, 430-438 ; Hofmann, NT, vii. 3. 174 f.; Spitta, Der 2 Brief des Pet. 
533f. While in this work Spitta recognised only a certain general relation- 
ship between the two writings in thought and language, later he came to 
feel that the large number of close resemblances between them indicated a 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 28: 


literary relationship (Z. @esch. u. Lit. des Urchrist. ii. 399-409). According 
to Spitta, however, Hermas is not dependent upon 2 Pet., but in the year 
64 the apostle Peter read in Rome the apocalypse which was written in 
Rome in the year 50 by a Jew named Hermas, and which in the year 150 
was worked over by the Christian Hermas, the brother of bishop Pius of 
Rome (Can. Muratori, lines 73-80 ; Spitta, 434), into the Shepherd, afterwards 
so widely read in the Church. Such a theory cannot be refuted in a passing 
remark. But a protest is entered against the assumption of the accidental 
coincidence by which the original writer and the editor have the same names, 
thereby making the tradition and the theory agree (cf. above, p. 263). 

4, (P. 265.) Luther (in the year 1522, in the preface to James and Jude, 
Erl. Ausg. 63, S. 158) says: “No one can deny that the Epistle of St. Jude 
is an extract or a copy of St. Peter’s second Epistle, inasmuch as almost all 
the words of the two are the same.” The view here expressed in an exagger- 
ated form was held by Grotius, Bengel, Semler, Michaelis, and others without 
any more definite effort to establish it. Herder opposed it as the prevailing 
view of his time (above, p. 284). Eichhorn (Hinl. iii. 637, 642 ff.) reversed 
this relation, and after his time the majority of critics made it one of the 
chief grounds of objection to the genuineness of 2 Pet. This view finally 
became so general that it was accepted even by those who defended the 
genuineness of 2 Pet., as Hug, Einl.? ii. 556; Wiesinger, Der 2 Pt. 1862, 
S. 22ff8; Weiss, ThStKr, 1866, S. 256 ff, 300f.; finally, Fr. Maier, ΤΌ, 
1905, S. 547-580 ; abid. in BbZ, 1904, S. 377 on Jude 4f., see above, p. 262, 
n. 12. Into the discussion of this relation the question whether it was in 
accordance with Peter’s dignity to follow closely the letter of Jude, who was 
not an apostle, should never have been allowed to enter, nor the conjecture 
that some pseudo-Peter objected to the apocryphal citations in Jude, and 
accordingly removed some of them and obliterated others. This presupposes 
a precise dogmatic distinction between what was canonical and what was 
apocryphal, which was not to be found throughout the entire second century, 
especially with reference to O.T. matters. Moreover, we cannot approve the 
efforts made on both sides to establish the dependence of one writer upon 
another, because of misunderstanding or clumsiness of expression. Jude is 
not copied from 2 Pet. ; neither is 2 Pet. a working over of Jude. The fact 
that Jude appealed to an apostolic prediction known to his readers, the 
beginning of the fulfilment of which he witnesses, made it natural for him 
to follow this prophecy in deseribing present realities. He did so, however, 
only so far as the fulfilment of the same can be actually discerned. 

5. (P. 267.) It is impossible to conceive of 2 Pet. as being fabricated on 
the basis of Jude 4, 17f., in the same way that the so-called Third Epistle to 
the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans were fabricated on the basis 
of 1 Cor. v. 9, vii. 1, and Col. iv. 16 (vol. 1. p. 270, n. 9, p. 488, n. 2): As a 
matter of fact, the analogy between the two cases is very slisht. (1) There 
is no direct reference in Jude to a writing of Peter’s, (2) The reference in 
Jude 4, 17 ἢ. would lead naturally to the fabrication of an apocalypse (above, 
pp. 270, 273) rather than toa letter in an apostle’s name. (3) 2 Pet. is too 
earnest and rich in thought to be due, like the letter to the Laodiceans 
entirely and 3 Cor. in part, to the mere desire to produce artificially at some 
later date the missing foundation in literature of a quotation found in some 


286 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 
apostolie writing. (4) How little attention was paid to these hints of Jude 
about other writings of the apostolic age is evidenced by the fact that the 
ancient interpreters either pass Jude 3, 4, 17 f. by altogether (Clem. Hypot.;; 
Didymus), or at most make Jude 17 refer to 2 Pet. and the Epistles of Paul 
(Cranier, Cat. viii. 168). So far as we know, a second, more detailed work of 
Jude was never written on the basis of Jude 3 (see above, p. 242). 

6. (P. 269.) There is no high degree of probability in Spitta’s conjecture 
(404) that the writing which, according to ver. 3, Jude was about to prepare, 
was the same for the composition of which Peter made himself responsible in 
2 Pet. i..15, without saying whether he would write it himself or commission 
someone else to do so. If Peter wrote in 63 or 64 and Jude in 75, then 
either Peter failed to keep his promise, or Jude was lax in carrying out his 
commission. The only thing indicated by the two passages is that the time 
had come when men in apostolic circles had begun to think about providing 
for the future by literary work ; ef. 1 John i. 4. 

7. (Pp. 269, 270.) Below are placed in parallel columns (1) the text of Jude 
14f. (Tisch. 8th ed.), with the omission of the first αὐτῶν after ἀσεβεῖς, whick 
is due to an error in printing (see Tischendorf’s apparatus for these verses, 
and Gregory, Proleyomena, 1285); (2) the Greek text of Enoch i. 9, edited 
first in 1892 by Bouriant (Mém. de la mission archéol. au Caire, ix. 1), follaw- 
ing the edition of Flemming and Radermacher, p. 20 (cf. Lods, L’éwangile.et 
Papocalypse de Pierre, p. 112; Charles, The Book of Enoch, 1893, p: 329): 
(3) an English translation of the Ethiopic Enoch, after the German of 
Flemming and Radermacher, which has been compared with Dillmann’s 
German translation (5. 1); (4) the fragment of the Latin Enoch (Pseudo- 
Cypr. ad Novat. 16, Cypr. ed. Hartel, Append. p. 67 ; ef. GK, ii. 797-801; 
Forsch. v. 158, 438 ; James, Apocr. anecd. 1. 146 ff.). ls 


Jupe 141. 
ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν 
αὐτοῦ, ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων 
καὶ ἐλέγξαι πάντας τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς περὶ 
πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν 
ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν 
σκληρῶν λόγων, ὧν ἐλάλησαν κατ᾽ 

αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. 


Erntoric Text. 

And lo! He has come [(Dill.) comes] 
with ten thousands of [(Dill.) with 
ten thousand] holy ones, to execute 
judgment upon them, and He will 
destroy the ungodly, and will reprove 
all flesh [(Al. and Dill.) will argue 
with all flesh) for all that which 
the sinners and (the) ungodly have 
wrought and committed [(Dill.) un- 
godly committed] against Hii, 


GREEK ENocH, 

ὅτι ἔρχεται σὺν ταῖς μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ 
καὶ τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ ποιῆσαι κρίσιν 
κατὰ πάντων, ἀπολέσει πάντας 
τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς καὶ ἐλέγξει πᾶσαν σάρκα 
περὶ πάντων ἔργων τῆς ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν 
ὧν ἠσέβησαν καὶ σκληρῶν ὧν ἐλάλησαν 
λόγων καὶ περὶ πάντων ὧν κατελάλη- 
σαν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀσεβεῖς. 


‘ 
Kat 


Latin EnocH. 


Ecce venit cum multis milibus nun- 
ciorum suorum, facere «üudicium de 
omnibus et perdere omnes impios et 
arguere omnem carnem de omnibus 
factis impiorwm, que fecerunt impie, 
et de omnibus verbis impiis que de 
deo locuti sunt peccatores. 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 257 


A number of different circumstances render difficult a definite judg- 
ment concerning this text. The original, which is commonly supposed 
to have been Hebrew or Aramaic, is lost (Schürer, iii. 203 ; [Eng. trans. 
τι. iii. pp. 69, 10]. The text of Jude is not by any means fixed, and 
it is quite possible that the text tradition of Jude was influenced by the 
Greek text of the Book of Enoch, which was current in the second and 
third centuries. Furthermore, we do not know when the Greek translation 
of Enoch, from which the Ethiopic and Latin were derived, was made. If 
it was made by a Christian after Jude was written, it is most likely that 
in this passage the translator was influenced by the quotation in Jude, 
just as copyists of the LXX were frequently influenced by N.T. quotations. 
If, on the other hand, the Greek translation was made by a Jew before 
Jude was written, Jude is hardly likely to have made use of the Greek 
version. The peculiar ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν, instead of ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται, which alone suits 
the passage, is a clumsy translation of the ambignous x3"n77 (cf. Isa. xxi. 9, 
Inti. 11; Jer. 1.41; Zech. ii. 14; Mal. iii. 19, and, per contra, Ezek. vii. 12) ; 
ev μυριάσιν is a Hebraism (Num. xx. 20; 1 Mace. i. 17; Luke xiv. 31), 
which could never have been written by anyone who had the Greek σὺν 
μυριάσιν before him. The agreement between Jude and the Greek Enoch 
in the choice of words is, however, closer than is usually found) between 
two independent translators (ποιῆσαι κρίσιν κατὰ πάντων, ἐλέγχειν, ἀσεβεῖς, 
ἀσεβεῖν, ἀσέβεια, σκληροὶ λόγοι), Which compels us to assume. that the Greek 
translator of Enoch was a Christian familiar with Hebrew, and therefore 
certainly a Jewish Christian, who, like so many Christians in later times, 
became interested in the book through Jude 14, and was under the in- 
fluence of the quite free citation of Jude when he translated the passage 
cited by Jude, which stood at the very beginning of his original. It is 
generally admitted by the Church Fathers that Jude quotes the Book of 
Enoch: Clement, Hypot, (Forsch. iii. 85, 97), “his verbis (sc. Judas) pro- 
phetam (not prophetiam) comprobat”; Tert. Cult. fem. i. 3, “Enoch apud 
Iudam apostolum testimonium possidet” (GK, i.120f.); Jerome, Vir. Il. iv. ; 
Comm. in Tit. Vall. vii. 708) ; August. Crit. xv. 23. 4, xviii. 38) ; Euthalius 
(Zacagni, 480, 485). This has been vigorously denied by Hofmann, vii. 2. 
187, 205-211 (cf. his Schrafthewers, 1. 420-424), and Philippi (Das Buch Henoch, 
1868, S. 138-152), who advance the theory that Jude’s only source was the 
oral traditions of the rabbis, and that the Book of Enoch that has come down 
to us was written by a Jewish Christian on the basis of Jude 14. Without 
claiming that the pre-Christian origin of the whole of the Book of Enoch is 
absolutely proved, it is possible entirely to reject this theory on the following 
grounds: (1) The fact that Jude uses direct discourse in quoting Hnoch 
indicates that he has it before him in written form. Although in the 
addresses in which the rabbis were accustomed to interpret and enlarge upon 
the O.T. narratives in the synagogue certain mythical elements, including 
the sayings and replies of the persons in the narratives, may have assumed 
a relatively stereotyped form, it is inconceivable that one who was not a 
disciple of the rabbis, but a brother of Jesusand a member of the first Christian 
Church, should for this reason have quoted a somewhat long saying of the 
patriarch Enoch in exactly the same way that men who held the same faith, 
and were contemporaries of his, were accustomed to quote the prophecies of 


288 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Isaiah, as these were found in the O.T. Other references in the N.T. tc 
mythical additions to the O.T. history are confined to facts and names (Matt. 
i. 5; Acts vil. 22f., xiii, 20f.; Gal. iv. 29; 2 Tim. iii. 8; Heb. xi. 37). No 
one would compare the citation of the words of Jesus at a time when the gospel 
was as yet unwritten, but when numerous persons who had heard them were 
still living in the Church (§ 48), with the apparently verbal quotation of a 
prophecy supposed to have been spoken in patriarchal times. To deny that 
Jude 14f. is taken from Hnoch i. 9 is to deprive oneself also of the right to 
affirm that Jude 17f. is a quotation from 2 Pet. iii. 3 (above, p. 250f.). (2) If 
the Book of Enoch, or even the passage which is parallel to what is found in 
Jude, had been written on the basis of Jude 14f., it would be evidenced by an 
exact verbal quotation of Jude; whereas, as a matter of fact, Jude, following 
the example of the apostles and of the ancients generally, could reproduce 
his citation quite freely, notwithstanding the fact that he quoted it in direct 
discourse. And this freedom would be all the greater if he had before him 
the Hebrew Enoch, which he himself was under necessity of translating into 
Greek. If it be true that at least this part of the Book of Enoch was written 
in Hebrew and is of Jewish origin, then it is impossible to believe that its 
author borrowed from a Greek Christian writing. (3) Besides the almost 
verbal quotation, there are numerous other resemblances between Jude and 
Enoch. This is not confined to single quoted expressions such as σκληροὶ 
λόγοι (Enoch v. 4, xxvii. 2), ἕβδομος ἀπὸ ᾿Αδάμ (noch 1x. 8, xciii. 3), which 
recur in other parts of the book. It is to be particularly observed that the 
fall and punishment of the angels who before the Flood had intercourse 
with women (Jude 6 ; ef. ver. 7) is described in such a way that what is said 
could not have been derived from Gen. vi. 1-4 or 2 Pet. 11. 4. Jude’s source 
is rather, for the fall, Enoch vi., vii., ix. 7-9, xii. 4-6, xv. 3-xvi. 4; for the 
punishment, Enoch x. 11-14, xiv. 5-6, xviii. 14-xix. 2; ef. especially xii. 4 
(also xv. 3), ἀπολιπόντες τὸν οὐρανὸν τὸν ὑψηλόν, and x. 12, δῆσον αὐτοὺς 
ἑβδομήκοντα γενεὰς εἰς τὰς νάπας τῆς γῆς μέχρι ἡμέρας κρίσεως αὐτῶν κτλ. 
Cf. Spitta, 324 ff., 360-367. It is not so easy to establish the correctness of 
the opinion of the Church Fathers that Jude 9 is related to the ἀνάληψις 
Moioéws, since the fragment of the Latin translation of this Jewish apoery- 
phal writing (Fritzsche, Libr. apoe. 700-730) is broken off before the burial 
of Moses is reached, and so contains nothing corresponding to the passage in 
Jude. But what reason is there for disbelieving the Fathers, who had the 
Greek text of this book, when they say that Jude quoted from it; ef. Clem. 
Hypot. (Forsch. iii. 84, 96 f.), “hic confirniat assumptionem Moysi”; Orig. de 
Prine. iii. 2.1; Didymus, Lat. trans. (Migne, 39. 1815) ; Euthalius (Zacagni, 
480, 485). In particular, we are justified in assuming that there was some- 
thing in this book corresponding to the passage in Jude, by a quotation in 
Gellasius Cyzicus (Mansi, ii. 857; ef. Apollinaris in Nicephor. Cat. in octa- 
teuchum, i. 1313; Cramer, Cat. viii. 161, 163; Matthei, Epist. cathol. pp. 
170, 238, 244). There is nothing in the parallel passage 2 Pet. ii. 10f. 
referring to the same event, and so no reference to the Asswmptio Mosis. Τὶ 
is uncertain whether Peter had in view Zech. iii. 2 (Hofmann, vii. 2. 65), the 
passage upon which the author of the Assumptio Mosis is supposed to have 
based the passage in his work used by Jude, or whether Peter thought of 
Enoch x. 4-8, 11-14, xii. d-xiii. 2 (Spitta, 170ff.), It is altogether likely 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 289 


that in 2 Pet. ii. 4-11 use is made, not only of unwritten Jewish tradition, 
but of apocryphal books, such as Hnoch cited by Jude. 

8. (Ὁ. 270.) With reference to the pseudo-Petrine writings, ef. GK, i. 
199 f., 308-311, 758, 802, 11. 742-751, 810-855 ; Grundriss, 25. The Epistle 
of Peter to James (Clementina, ed. Lagarde, p. 3) cannot be regarded as a type 
of the pseudo-Petrine letters to Churches for the following reasons: (1) Τῦ is 
not a letter addressed to a Church. (2) It was written by a man who took 
a view of Peter antagonistic to that of biblical and) ecclesiastical tradition, 
whereas the view of the author of 2 Pet. is in direct accord with the same. 
(3) This: Epistle of Peter to James was certainly not written before the third 
century. The subordination of Peter to James, which is part of the funda- 
mental idea of this work, renders Peter’s apostolic consciousness less prominent 
(p. 4. 16, κύριέ pov). This is more strongly expressed in the Hpistle of Clement 
to James (Lagarde, 6. 12 ἢ). [ 

9. (P. 271.) As to the resemblances between 1 Pet. and 2 Pet. in language 
and content, ef. Schott, 2 Petrusbrief, S. 167-188 ; Hofmann, vii. 128-139. 
In view of the fundamentally different character of the greetings of the two 
Epistles of Peter, both as regards the designation of the writer and of the 
readers, which precludes the possibility of intentional imitation, the corre- 
spondence in the greeting itself (ydpus—AnOvr Gein) is of no great significance ; 
since it is limited by the phrase which follows in 2 Pet. i. 2, and by the 
connection made by this phrase with the text that follows (above, p. 220). 
Moreover, εἰρήνη ὑμῖν (or ἡ εἰρήνη ὑμῶν) πληθυνθείη is a common Jewish 
formula (vol. i. p, 32, n. 18). It is found in a somewhat altered form in 
Jude 2,and in Clem. 1 Cor., and Polye. ad Phil.,—in the last two cases clearly 
influenced by 1 Pet. i.2;—and in the communication of the Smyrneans in. the 
year 155 (Martyr. Polye.), in this case closely following Jude 2. More worthy 
of notice is the fact that) both in 1 Pet. iii. 20 and 2 Pet. ii. 5 the number 
of those saved in the Flood is given as eight, though in Gen. vi. 18, vii. 7, 13, 
viii. 16, no number is mentioned. Moreover, that interpretation of 1 Pet. 
ii. 19 is in all probability correct, according to which a preaching of Christ 
at the time of the Flood is referred to, ae. a preaching through Noah, so that 
Noah is here represented as a preacher of righteousness, as in 2 Pet. ii. 5. In 
such a eonnection the fact that the deferment of the judgment is explained 
by the μακροθυμία of God in 1 Pet. 111. 20 and 2 Pet. iii. 9, ef. iii. 5 f,, deserves 
notice, although the thought is itself a’ very natural one (Rom. ii. 4). There 
are, moreover, a few words and phrases which in the whole N.T. are found 
only in 1 Pet. and 2 Pet. or practically nowhere else; apern, 1 Pet. ii. 9, 
2 Pet. i. 3, is used as an attribute of God or Christ when represented as 
calling men (above, p. 220); also twice found in 2 Pet. 1, 5 of human virtue, 
and elsewhere only in Phil. iv. 8; ἄσπιλος καὶ ἄμωμος (or ἀμώμητος), 2 Pet. 
iii. 14, in reverse order in 1 Pet, i..19; σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου, 1 Pet. iii, 21; 
ἀπόθεσις τοῦ σκηνώματος, 2 Pet. i. 14; ἐποπτεύειν, 1 Pet. 11, 12, 111. 2; ἐπόπται 
γενηθέντες, 2 Pet. i. 16. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 14, ἀκαταπαύστους ἁμαρτίας, and 1 Pet. 
ἵν. 1, πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας ; also ψυχαί to designate persons, 1 Pet. iii. 20 (ii. 25) 
and 2 Pet. ii. 14, found elsewhere only in Rom. xiii, 1. It is also to be 
observed that certain ideas, which recur with special frequency in one of the 
letters, are found also in the other: ἀναστροφή six times in 1 Pet., twice in 
2 Pet., elsewhere in the whole N.T. only) five times; ἀσέλγεια, 2 Pet. ii. 2, 

VOL. II. 19 


290 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


7, 18; 1 Pet. iv. 3; ἐστηριγμένος, 2 Pet. i. 12; -ἀστήρικτος, ii. 14, iii. 16; 
στηριγμός, iii. 17; but also in 1 Pet. v. 10, στηρίξει. Notwithstanding such 
details, which may serve to suggest that, when Silvanus wrote 1 Pet. by 
Peter’s directions and in his name, he was influenced by Peter’s thought and 
language, we get from the letters the impression of a totally different style, 
which even in antiquity tended to make questionable the composition of 
2 Pet. by the writer of 1 Pet. (Jerome, Vir. Ill. i.; ad Hedibiam, Ep. exx. 11). 

10. (P. 275.) It may be accepted as certain that the correct reading in 
iii. 16 is ἐν ais (NAB, many cursives, S? 58), not ἐν ois (CKLP and the 
majority of eursives). Itisequally elear that we are to read πάσαις ἐπιστολαῖς 
(ABC) without ταῖς inserted in X and the Antiochian recension. It makes 
an important difference in the sense. With the article the Epistles are repre- 
sented as a definite whole, and the statement made covers all parts of the 
collection without exception. With the article omitted the one letter of 
Paul’s known to the readers is contrasted with letters of all kinds which he 
has written. In other words, one may take any one of them he chooses and 
he will never find the libertine view, but everywhere the same moral 
earnestness. 

11. (P. 277.) Cf. eg. Iren. ii. 30. 7: “universe clamant scripture, et 
Paulus autem testimonium perhibet”; ii. 28. 7, “et dominus manifeste dixit 
et reliquee demonstrant scripture.” 

12. (P. 277.) For ἄλλοι in the above-mentioned sense (above, p. 277), 
ef. Kühner-Gerth i. 275. The Latins, French, and Italians also use this 
illogical form of speech (see Thiersch, Versuch. 423) ; ἕτεροι is used in the 
same way less frequently, Luke xxiii. 32; Thucyd. iv. 67.2; cf. also ἕτερος 
δὲ τῶν μαθητῶν, Matt. viii. 21, where the meaning is a second person who is 
already one of the disciples, in distinction from the first who was one of the 
scribes, and had just declared his readiness to become a disciple (viii. 19). 
An analogous use of λοιποί must first be pointed out and is extremely impro- 
bable, because this word does not, like ἄλλος, ἕτερος, carry with it the idea of 
distinctive difference. Unfortunately there is wanting the original of sentences 
as found in Orig. Lat. trans. (Delarue, iii. 877, 888 in Matt.) § 61, apostolos 
certerosque episcopos et doctores, § 72, Christi. . . ceterorumque discipulorum ejus. 
Cf. also the second quotation in n. 11, above. Even if λοιπά were genuine 
in Eph. iv. 17, it could not be cited as proof of this usage ; since the Gentile 
Christians are Gentiles, cf. Eph. iii. 1. That γραφή in its common sense 
does not occur in the N.T. is accidental. On the other hand, we find γράμματα, 
which in John vii. 15 undoubtedly means the ἱερὰ γράμματα (2 Tim. iii. 15) 
from which the Jewish γραμματεῖς derive their title, used of writings of the 
most diverse character (Luke xvi. 6, 7; Acts xxviii. 21), even of letters and 
characters (Gal. vi. 11). Cf. the frequent use of βιβλίον referring to other 
than sacred books along with ra λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων in the prologue of Sirach. 
For γραφή see 2 Chron, ii. 10; Neh. vii. 64; Dan. v. 7fl. ; 2 Mace. xiv. 27, 
48; and in Christian Literature, Iren. iii. 6. 4, 17. 4; v. prologue (regularly 
he scriptura of Treneus’ own work) ; Clem. Strom. vi. 32 (προϊούσης τῆς γραφῆς 
followed immediately by κατὰ τὴν γραφήν, meaning “according to the Holy 
Scriptures”), Strom. vi. 181; Eus. H.E. ii. 11. 1 (τὴν περὶ τούτου παραθώμεθα 
τοῦ Ἰωσήπου γραφήν, ef. ii, 10. 1,2). Furthermore, 7 γραφή and ai γραφαί 
are never used in the Epistles of Peter of the Οὐ Τ᾽, the anarthrous γραφῆς in 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 291 


2 Pet. i, 20 means “written” ; and ἐν γραφῇ, 1 Pet. ii. 6, which, according te 
NBA, is also without the article, signifies only “in a writing,” although. the 
reference is to a quotation from one of the prophets indirectly through Rom. 
ix. 33 (above, p. 188). 

13. (P. 279.) Particularly striking is the resemblance between Jude 24 f. 
and Rom. xvi. 25, 27, τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους καὶ στῆσαι (in 
Rom. στηρίξαι, but Rom. xiv. 4, δυνατεῖ γὰρ ὁ κύριος στῆσαι αὐτόν)... μόνῳ 
θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν (Rom. μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ) διὰ ’I. Xp. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν δόξα (Rom. 
διὰ “I. Xp. ᾧ ἡ δόξα) . .. εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας (Rom. εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν 
αἰώνων), ἀμήν. With regard to the genuineness and original location of Rom. 
xvi, 25-27, ef. vol. i. p. 879 ff. Cf. also Jude 20, ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς TH 
ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει, with Col. ii. 6 (Eph.ii.20; 1 Pet. ii. 5), ἐποικοδομούμενοι 
ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ βεβαιούμενοι τῇ πίστει ; also with Rom. xiv. 19, xv. 2, and all the 
passages where Paul uses the figure of building. See also Spitta, 389 ff., who 
discovers in of ἀποδιορίζοντες a reference to the lost letter of Paul’s (see above, 
pp. 252, 258, n. 6); but this view is hardly tenable. 

14. (P. 279.) For the Asswmptio Mosis and the Book of Enoch in Jude, see 
above, p. 286 ff. Edw. Abbot (Zxpos. 1882, vol. iii. 49-63) endeavours to 
show that Jude and 2 Pet. are dependent upon the Antiquities of Josephus 
(completed in 94 B.c.); but cf. per contra, Salmon, Hist. Intro. to N.T. (1885) 
pp. 638-653. While F. W. Farrar holds to the view (Expos. 1888, vol. viii. 
58-69) that 2 Pet. is not dependent upon Josephus, but that the reverse is the 
ease (cf, Expos. 1882, vol. iii. 401-423), Krenkel goes back to the other view, Jos. 
u. Lucas, 1894, S. 350. Single expressions such as τοῖς μύθοις ἐξακολουθήσαντες 
(Jos. Ant. procem. iv., cf. 2 Pet. i. 16), ols ποιήσετε καλῶς μὴ προσέχοντες (Ant. 
xi. 12. 6, ef. 2 Pet. i. 19), πᾶσαν εἰσηνέγκατο σπουδήν (Ant. xx. 9. 2, cf. 2 Pet. 
i. 5; Jude 3; also (€. I. Gr. 2715a-b; Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 278 [Eng. 
trans. p. 361 ff.]; Prologue to Sirach, προσενέγκασθαι σπουδήν) would have 
value as proof only if they were found in. similar contexts, which, however, 
is by no means the case. But that the writer of 2 Pet. studied the work 
of Josephus as a model of style and imitated it, is an assumption altogether 
absurd. When 2 Pet. ii. 5 calls Noah a δικαιοσύνης κήρυξ (ef. 1 Pet. iii. 19 ff, 
above, p. 289, τι. 9); and Jos. Ant. 1. 3. 1 declares that Noah, incensed by the 
sins of his contemporaries, preached repentance to them before the Flood ; 
and when we read in a Midrash on Gen. vi. 9 that Noah was a herald for 
God (Beresch. rabba, translated by Wünsche, 8. 129, cf. bab. Sanhedr. 108d), 
—the only thing proved is that, in the synagogues where Josephus and 
Peter went, it was customary to enlarge upon the O.T. history. Of a different 
character, however, are the statements of 2 Pet. ii. 15 (cf. i. 13f.) and Jude 
11 when they accuse Balaam of covetousness, and the statement of Philo 
(Vita Mosis, i. 48) and Josephus (Ant. iv. 6, 5) when the one says and the 
other suggests that Balaam allowed himself to be tempted by bribes ; because 
the basis for all that is said is found in Num, xxii. 7, cf. xxii. 17£. Nor does 
the statement require any explanation when it is expressly said in 2 Pet. ti. 
16 (ev ἀνθρώπου φωνὮ) and in Josephus (iv. 6. 3, φωνὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἀφεῖσα) 
that the ass spoke with a human voice, since that was what any child must 
say, if he meant to imply that the ass was understood by a man. It would 
be much more natural to assume that the writer of Rey. ii. 14 is dependent 
upon Jos, Ant. iv, 6.6 for the statement that Balaam gave evil counsel to 


292 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Balak, which is not stated in Num. xxxi. 16, except for the fact that the 
same is found in Philo, Vita Mosis, i. 54. The form Βοσόρ for “ya, which is 
certainly the correct reading in 2 Pet. ii. 15, is not yet explained. It is 
taken neither from the LXX, which everywhere has Βεὼρ or Barwp, nor from 
Josephus nor Philo, who do not use the name at all. To assume an accidental 
error in the original MS., or in one of the ancient copies of 2 Pet., is less 
natural than to suppose that Peter made a mistake either through imperfect 
pronunciation or defective hearing. The Hebrew s is frequently imter- 
changed with the Aramaic y (ΝΡῚΝ Ξε γῈν earth), and so it was possible for a 
fisherman from Bethsaida, who heard Num. xxii. 2 ff. read in Hebrew in the 
synagogue and interpreted in Aramaic, to make the opposite mistake (ef. ©. B. 
Michaelis in Gesen. Thesaur. 227; Hofmann, vii. 2.74). The use of a slight 
vowel—a composite shewa, having the same sound as the full vowel pre- 
ceding—before or with y is not infrequent (Gesen. 977), and has a parallel in 
Boavnpyes (vol. i. p. 16). Cf. above, p. 287, regarding the relation of Jude to 
the Hebrew Enoch. ind: 

15. (P. 283.) If the context of Rev. ii. 2 and ii. 6 shows that the false 
apostles who had come to Ephesus were wandering teachers, who spread the 
teaching of the Nicolaitans in the Churches of Asia Minor, this is one point 
of resemblance between them and the false teachers in 2 Pet. and Jude. If 
ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι, Jude 8, refers to visions (above, p. 246), it is natural to associate 
the same with the prophetess Jezebel, Rev. ii. 20, who favoured the Nicolaitan 
teaching. With regard to time, the statement of Hegesippus to the effect 
that heresy did not appear in the Palestinian Church until after the death 
of James (Eus. H. E. iv. 22. 5), notwithstanding the fact that his report is 
anything but clear, may be taken as indicating that 2 Pet., which predicts the 
near approach of this development, was written before this date, 7.0. before the 
year 66, and that Jude, which represents it as having taken place shortly before, 
was written some years later (ef. above, p. 246). If this be true, then light is 
thrown upon the report that the grandchildren of Jude were denounced by 
heretics (above, p.240). It was done out of revenge. The remark with which 
Clement (Strom. iii. 11) introduces an abbreviated quotation of Jude 8-16, 
namely, that Jude is here making predictions about the sect of Carpocratians 
and other similar parties, is to be placed in the same category with the similar 
statements of Irenmts and others with regard to the false teachers of the 
Pastoral Epistles (above, p. 128, τι. 14), or the claim of Epiphanius (Her, 
xxvi. 11) that the Holy Ghost through Jude referred to certain patties that 
existed in the fourth century. What led Clement to make the citation was 
the parallel between Jude 12 and the report of unseemly orgies in the love- 
feasts of the Carpocratians (Strom. iii, 10). This itself shows that’ the 
description in 2 Pet. and Jude does not suit this party ; for what is said in 
2 Pet. ii. 13f., Jude 12, about abuses practised in connection with the love- 
feasts (above, pp. 236, 243 f.) is not to be compared with the reports which, 
according to Strom. iii. 2, Clement had heard concerning the Carpocratians, 
and with what Irensus declares to be hardly credible (i. 25. 5), namely, that 
a community of wives was actually in practice among them in eonnection 
with the love-feasts. Of the distinctive teachings of Carpocrates and of his 
son Epiphanes (Iren. i. 25. 1-6, 28.2; Clement, Strom. iii. 5-11, ef. iii. 25- 
27; Hippol. Refut. vii. 32 ; Pseudo-Tert. ix. ; Philaster, xxxv. ; Epiph. Her. 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 293 


xxvii.), there are no traces in 2 Pet. and Jude; (1) creation of the world 
by subordinate spirits, of whom the chief was the devil ; (2) the contention 
that Jesus was the son of Joseph ; (3) instead of emphasising the doctrine 
of grace and the freedom that went with it, they taught that every man 
must save himself, as Jesus did, by doing the will of the devil as enjoined 
in Matt. v. 25, and by undergoing all human experiences; for only in this 
way does the soul escape from the prison of the body and so from the rule 
of spirits, and only in this way is it kept from entering another body. 
(4) In the measure that they were able in this way to get the better of the 
spirits in the world, they attained the power to perform miracles like Jesus, 
and perhaps in greater degree than many of the apostles. It was for this 
reason that they practised magic arts... (5) Only faith and love have value; 
all external actions are indifferent. The imaginary distinction between good 
and evil, and between the ideas of ownership and theft, are due entirely to 
the prejudices of men and arbitrary laws, among which the decalogue is 
particularly ridiculous, because of the statement in Ex. xx. 17... Grotius’ 
identification of the false teachers of 2 Pet. and Jude with the Carpocra- 
tians cannot be accepted (ed. Windheim, ii. 1045, 1047, 1049, 1053, 1058, 
1117, 1120). 


$ 45. THE TRADITION CONCERNING THE EPISTLE 
TO THE HEBREWS, 


The writing which, from the earliest times, has been 
transmitted as a letter “to the Hebrews” was, like 
2 Peter and Jude, intended for Jewish Christians. » There 
are reasons for supposing that it was written about the 
same time as Jude, or somewhat later. This makes the 
investigation of Hebrews all the more in place at this 
point ; because, as we have seen from 2 Pet. 1. 12-15, 
Jude 3 (above, pp. 200 f., 241 f., 286, n. 6), this was a time 
when the apostles and other teachers of their circle felt. it 
necessary, in order to promote the undisturbed growth of 
the original Christian faith, not only to preach and write 
occasional letters, but also to prepare writings doctrinal 
in character. Hebrews is such a didactic writing, although 
in its form and content it is a letter directed to a definite 
group of readers. | Π 

Inasmuch as the letter has no greeting from which we 
can ascertain the name of the’ real or alleged author, and 
the character of the original readers, it seems advisable to 


294 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


begin with a review of the tradition concerning both these 
points (n. 1). Even if the investigation of these questions 
should be without positive results, it would be worth while 
to free the historical investigation of the letter from the 
burden of false opinion. The fact that the tradition 
regarding the readers is not as clear, and regarding the 
author not so unanimous, as we could wish, is due merely to 
the absence of any greeting; for we must remember. that 
most of the ecclesiastical tradition regarding the writings 
of the N.T. is only the echo of the testimony of the 
documents regarding themselves; and this tradition is 
good or bad according as this self-testimony was correctly 
understood or not. | Nevertheless, the history of an Epistle 
like Ephesians shows us that even such traditions as had 
no support from the document itself became dominant in 
the Church at,.a, very early time (vol. i..p. 481ff.), As 
regards the age and unanimity of the tradition supporting 
it, the title πρὸς “Eßpaiovs stands on the same level with 
the title πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους. It is found not only in all the 
Greek MSS. and the versions, but there is not the slightest 
trace of evidence that Hebrews was ever known by 
another title in any part of the Church, or that any 
ancient eritie ever suggested another title on critical 
grounds, as Marcion did in the case of Ephesians. ‘The 
title ad Hebrwos was accepted by the Alexandrian theo- 
logians Pantzenus, Clement, and Origen, to whom the 
letter was transmitted as a writing of Paul, and as a part 
of the collection of Paul’s letters used in the Churches ; 
also by all the Eastern Churches of the subsequent period 
which held the same traditions as the Alexandrians, and 
even by the African Tertullian, to whom Hebrews was 
known only as a work of Barnabas, and whose native 
Church did not include Hebrews in its Canon. Moreover, 
when the historians Eusebius, Stephanus Gobarus, and 
Photius speak constantly of ἡ πρὸς “Eßpatovs ἐπιστολή in 
reports which are in other respects trustworthy, and 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 295 


according to which Iren®us and Hippolytus knew and 
quoted Hebrews, though denying its composition by Paul 
(n. 9), it is presupposed that Ireneeus and Hippolytus 
called the document by the same name. Otherwise the 
historians would either not have spoken at all of Irenzeus’ 
and Hippolytus’ mention of Hebrews, or they would cer- 
tainly have given the different title of the letter employed 
by them, if from citations and other references this were 
clear. Thus, although there was the greatest diversity 
of opinion regarding the author and canonicity of Hebrews ᾿ 
at the close of the second century, Churches and writers 
were unanimous in accepting the title of the book. 

From the facts incidentally mentioned above, it would 
seem that the traditions concerning Hebrews reached 
Irenzeus, Panteenus, and Tertullian from very different 
sources, so that their common root must lie very far back. 
This renders it most questionable whether the common 
element in these traditions, which vary so much among 
themselves and thus are independent of one another, can 
be explained as due to a scribal error, or whether it is 
permissible to assume that Hebrews is really referred to 
under any other than the traditional title, e.g. under such 
titles as ad Alexandrinos or ad Laodicenos (n. 2). On 
the other hand, it is self-evident that the ‘title πρὸς 
‘E8paiovs did not originate with the writer; nor, in this 
very brief form, which, however, is correct (n. 3), could it 
very well have originated with someone who merely copied 
the letter, or had numerous copies of it made for the 
purpose of circulation ; but it is probably due to the eir- 
cumstance that Hebrews was bound with other letters | 
variously directed, and so was»provided with a short title, 
in the same way as the other parts of the collection, in 
order that it might be more readily found and quoted. 

The exact date when the Epistle was given this title is 
even more impossible of determination than the time when 
the collection of the four Gospels or of the Pauline letters 


296 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


was made. Nevertheless, this one common element in all 
the traditions concerning Hebrews is of such antiquity 
that it is worth while to inquire as to the meaning of the 
title. Since it is clear to every reader that the letter is 
directed to Christians, only those instances throw light 
upon the meaning of the title in which the name ᾿Ε βραῖοι 
is applied to certain Christians in order to distinguish 
them from certain other Christians. This is done in two 
ways (n. 4). In Churches in which different languages 
were spoken, as, e.g. that in Jerusalem, the Jewish Chris- 
tians who retained the use of the mother-tongue, most of 
whom were born in Palestine and continued to reside there, 
were called Hebrews, in distinction from the Hellenistic 
Jewish Christians, who were born abroad and had adopted 
the Greek language (Acts vi. 1; vol. 1. pp. 39, 42f., 47f, 
60, 678). This was a distinction within the Jewish 
nation due to historical developments much older than the 
Christian era, which simply continued to exist in that 
part of the nation which became Christian as well as in 
the part that remained non-Christian. Besides this, how- 
ever, all Christians within the Church who were Jews by 
birth were frequently called Hebrews, without reference to 
difference of language, owing to the fact that there was an 
aversion to calling them Jews (n. 4). The first meaning 
is inapplicable here; for no one could infer from Hebrews, 
which is written in Greek, that it was directed to Hebrew- 
speaking Jewish Christians and not to Hellenistic Jewish 
Christians. The opinion of Clement of Alexandria, that 
Hebrews was written by Paul in Hebrew and translated 
into Greek by someone else (n. 5), is palpably: a false 
inference from the title πρὸς ‘ES8paiovs, and. cannot be 
regarded as an authentic interpretation of this title, which 
at that time was possibly a hundred years old. The only 
other interpretation possible is that the title was intended 
to designate the readers as Jews by birth; and it is a 
question whether it is meant to signify more than this— 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 297 


something that every reader ean infer from the letter itself. 
It is comparable to the title of 1 Peter, ad gentes, which 
originated in the West, and later became attached also to 
2 Peter (GK, ii. 274 ; Forsch. iii. 100). 

The title of Hebrews contains no geographical statement 
such as we find in the titles of Paul’s letters, in the old 
Latin title of 1 Peter, ad Ponticos, and in a sense also in 
the Latin title of James, ad dispersos.. In particular, the 
error that this title taken alone indicates Palestine, cannot 
be too often contradicted. If Ἑβραῖοι be taken to mean 
those who retained the Hebrew language, there. were 
almost as many such in Mesopotamia as in Palestine, and 
there were persons of this character even in the Greek 
Diaspora, as in Tarsus and Rome (vol. i. p. 47 ff.).. Lf it 
be taken as a designation of Christians of Jewish origin, 
then there were considerable numbers of such, both in the 
apostolic time and certainly also at the time when this 
title originated, who were members of Churches in places 
widely differing, as Rome and Antioch, Asia Minor and 
Egypt. It is easy to understand how almost universally, 
so far as we know, ancient scholars sought the readers of 
Hebrews in Palestine; but this fact throws no light upon 
the original meaning of πρὸς "Eßpaiovs. In their own time 
it was only there and in the adjoining regions that entire 
churches of Christian Jews still existed; and, so far as 
they knew, this had always been the case (πη. 6). 

That, however, Hebrews was not intended for all, the 
Jewish Christians scattered throughout the world, but for 
a group of readers in a definite locality, is clear to every 
intelligent reader at least. from, Heb. xiii, 7-25. This 
does not imply that the author of the title πρὸς "EApaiovs 
himself understood it in the same way as later interpreters 
did. [Ὁ is possible that, he knew from the tradition: that 
Hebrews was intended for the Jewish portion of a large 
local or provincial Church outside of Palestine. But. it 
is also possible that in ignorance of the local destination 


298 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of the letter he gave Hebrews a title resembling in form 
the titles of other letters, while actually expressing only 
the self-evident fact that the persons addressed in the 
letter were Jewish Christians. | 
The Alexandrian Church, so far as we are able to go 
back into its early history, always regarded Hebrews as 
one of Paul’s writings. On the basis of this tradition, 
which was undisputed in his eirele, Panteenus undertook 
to explain why Paul did not introduce himself in this 
letter as in his other letters by name and as the apostle 
of the readers (n. 5). Clement does not question this 
tradition, for he handles the same problem as Pantzenus, 
solving it in ἃ way which’ necessarily presupposes the 
Pauline authorship of the Epistle. He also asserts this 
directly, and apparently without any doubt as to its 
truth, in numerous quotations from Hebrews, as well as in 
the two passages where he speaks of the beginnings of 
questionings about the tradition (n. 5). The idea that the 
Greek Hebrews was a translation, was, of course, an infer- 
ence from the title as it was understood at that time ; but 
why was not the same inference drawn regarding James, or 
why were not the conjectures regarding the translator of 
the Gospel of Matthew just as definite as those regarding 
the translator of Hebrews, especially in view of the faet 
that it was known from tradition in the case of Matthew 
that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew? ΝΥ δὴ 
Clement twice positively affirms that Luke is the trans- 
lator of Hebrews, and in this way explains the alleged 
similarity of style between Hebrews and Acts, we are not 
to infer that his assertion is based upon a tradition to this 
effect, but only that the observation of the great difference 
in style between Hebrews and Paul’s letters had given 
rise to doubts in the Alexandrian School about the local 
tradition. It was thought that criticism and tradition 
could be reconciled by assuming that the Greek Hebrews 
was a translation from Hebrew. It was natural to make 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 29g 


Luke the translator, because a close connection between 
the Gospel of Luke and the oral preaching of Paul was 
usually assumed ; moreover, resemblances in style between 
Hebrews and Acts seemed to corroborate this view. 
Whether also views of other Churches gave impulse to 
these scholarly efforts we do not know. But Origen’s 
judgment concerning Hebrews is evidently influenced by 
the difference of opinion which existed in the various parts 
of the Church regarding the authorship and canonicity of 
Hebrews (n. 7). He had learned that in certain quarters 
an unfavourable opinion was expressed regarding a Church 
like that in Alexandria, which had accepted Hebrews into 
its Canon as a letter of Paul’s; for, as the result of his 
eriticism, he concludes: a Church should be allowed to 
retain its good name, even when it holds such opinions 
regarding Hebrews, 2.6. it should not be condemned on 
this account as unscrupulous or without critical judement ; 
“for the men of the olden time did not without good 
reasons transmit Hebrews as a letter of Paul’s.” Inasmuch 
as he is protecting his native Church against unfair 
criticisms, he defends also its tradition ; but he does so 
with a full appreciation of the current objections to the 
same. Everyone who is capable of judging differences in 
style must admit that the Greek of Hebrews is better 
than that of the generally accepted letters of Paul, and 
that it does not show the lack in literary skill to which 
Paul in 2 Cor. xi. 6 confesses. Origen, however, did not 
find the reconciliation between the result of his observa- 
tion and the tradition of the Alexandrian Church, as did 
Clement, in the hypothesis that Paul wrote Hebrews in 
Hebrew and that a disciple of his translated it. He does 
not even mention this hypothesis, so confidently proposed 
by Clement; but, after a full discussion of the various 
views, which unfortunately is only incompletely preserved 
for us, he finally adopts as the most probable conclusion, 
that the apostle, 1.6. Paul, furnished the ideas, but a 


300 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


disciple of his put them into the form of a letter according 
to his instructions... Therefore, Origen’s question is not 
who the translator was, but who wrote, the Epistle work- 
ing in the spirit and under the direction of his teacher 
Paul. Origen holds a definite answer to this question to 
be impossible—‘‘ God alone knows,” he says ;)yet he is not 
willing to pass by altogether the learned tradition that 
had come to him, in which now Clement of Rome and now 
Luke is made the author of the Epistle. [Ὁ would seem, 
then, as if Luke, whom Clement of Alexandria mentions.as 
the translator of Hebrews, was mentioned by others before 
the; time of Origen as its author. Besides him, however, 
Clement of Rome was mentioned in the same capacity. 
The numerous resemblances between Clement's letter to 
the Corinthians and Hebrews make the latter conjecture 
more natural than the supposition that. Luke was, the 
translator or author,of the letter, The only thing that 
can, be asserted with certainty is that Origen found both 
these names mentioned either in the oral or, written 
tradition. . Whether, the representatives of, these views 
called Clement οἵ, Rome or Luke the author of Hebrews 
in the limited sense in which Origen discussed the ques- 
tion concerning an author of the letter, associated with 
Paul in its production, or in, the fullest sense, of inde- 
pendent authorship, or like Clement of Alexandria called 
them authors in the sense of translators, we do not know 
(n. 5),, When Origen expressed his judgment, the Alex- 
andrian Church seems to have stood quite alone in the 
tradition of the Pauline source of Hebrews ; he defends a 
single Church holding this view (el τις. οὖν ἐκκλησία. κτλ.) 
against the judgment of the other Churches. | [Ὁ ‚cannot 
be shown that this opinion was held at that, time anywhere 
outside of Egypt, nor subsequently in any place not under 
the influence of Alexandrian scholars. In the | fourth cen; 
tury. we find it dominant throughout the Greek and Syrian 
Churches, as well as in the ‘Churches dependent, upon 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 301 


them; the belated opposition of several Arians could not 
change this general opinion. The modifications in the 
Alexandrian tradition which Clement and Origen made 
when they accepted it were dropped; the tradition 
itself which they found and which Origen defended was 
adopted. 

Regarding the opinion which prevailed among the 
Greek Churches in Syria, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and 
Greece in the time of Clement and Origen with reference 
to the origin of Hebrews, we have no direct information. 
In the West, Hebrews was not unknown from early times, 
but until after the middle of the fourth century it was 
excluded from the collection of Paul’s letters and from the 
N.T. in general (n. 8). This fact is of itself significant. 
A letter, which to all appearances was regarded as an 
important ancient didactic writing by Clement of Rome, 
Justin, who wrote in Rome, the younger Theodotus, a 
disciple of the Theodotus who came from Byzantium to 
Rome, Irenzeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian, but which 
nevertheless was persistently excluded from the N.T. in 
Italy, North Africa, and Gaul, could not have passed as a 
work of Paul’s in these regions, since the objections to its 
reception into the collection of books read in the religious 
services which might be raised on the ground that it was 
intended for “the Hebrews,” could not have had more 
weight in Rome than in Alexandria. These objections 
must have been outweighed by the influence of Paul’s 
name, if it had been connected with it. ' Moreover, 
the Gospel of Matthew, which was originally designed 
for Jews and Jewish Christians, was accepted into’ the 
Canon of the entire Gentile Christian Church. We also 
have the testimony of persons who had access to the 
writings of Ireneeus and Hippolytus which are no longer 
extant, that both these teachers denied the Pauline author- 
ship of Hebrews (n. 9). On the part of Trenzeus this 
denial was probably only indirect, Hebrews being quoted 


302 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


by him without mention of Paul’s name. Hippolytus, or 
the other hand, to all appearances protested formally 
against the appeal of the Theodotians to Hebrews as a 
work of Paul’s and as a part of Holy Scripture. If in this 
connection Hippolytus and Ivenzeus had mentioned some- 
one else as the author of Hebrews, the silence of three 
independent reports on this point (n. 9) would be incom- 
prehensible. It may be regarded as certain, therefore, 
that Hebrews as Lrenzeus and Hippolytus knew it was 
anonymous. 

There were, however, Churches in which Hebrews was 
transmitted as an epistle of Barnabas, [Ὁ is not a con- 
jecture or personal opinion that Tertullian expresses, as 
Jerome declares ( Vir. ZU. v.), but simply a reproduction of 
a current tradition, evidently just as found in the manu- 
seript before him, when he writes as follows (n. 10): 
“ Extat enim et Barnabe titulus ad Hebreos, a deo satis 
auetorati viri, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in 
abstinentiz tenore ... . (1 Cor, ix. 6); et utique receptior 
apud ecclesias epistola Barnabe illo apocrypho Pastore 
moechorum. ” 

From what has been stated above concerning the in- 
difference of the Western Church toward Hebrews, it is 
evident that Tertullian does not set forth in the passage 
cited the tradition and public opinion of the catholic 
Church of his African home, or of the Church of Rome. 
Tertullian himself proves this by the way in which he 
introduces the quotation. After giving proofs, taken from 
the apostolic writings, he eites, as something wholly super- 
fluous (ex redundantia), Heb, vi. 4-8, as evidence of some 
companion and disciple of the apostles. For the catholie 
clerzy of Rome and Africa, who controverted the Montanism 
of Tertullian, after the final separation of the Montanist 
Church, Hebrews was not a sacred writing to be used 
for proof texts, whereas they appealed to the Shepherd 
of Hermas for the principles of their lax discipline, 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 303 


although both Catholic and Montanist Churches had ex- 
cluded it from the Bible (de Pudie, x.). As far as the 
West is concerned, the Churches in which Hebrews re- 
ceived greater consideration than the Shepherd, and in 
which it was handed down as a writing of Barnabas, could 
have been only the Montanist Churches. Since, how- 
ever, Montanism was introduced into the West from the 
province of Asia, there is the greatest probability that the 
tradition concerning Barnabas as the author of Hebrews 
originated there, and that it was not confined to the 
Montanist Churches of that region. This same tradition 
appears again in the Latin sermons, published by Batiffol 
(1900), which wrongly bear the name of Origen, In 
them it is set forth not as the conjecture of an individual 
scholar, but as a fact accepted in the preacher’s circle 
(n. 11). The discussion concerning the origin of these 
sermons is not yet settled, and will not come to an end 
without a new investigation, which fairly considers every 
particular. If the preacher is not Novatian, as the present 
writer, following others and along with them, thought he 
might claim, he must have belonged to a Novatian Church, 
and nothing is more probable than that the tradition of 
‘Barnabas as author of Hebrews was handed down from 
the Montanists to the Novatians, as were the polemical 
use of Heb. vi. 4-8, and the high value placed upon the 
Epistle, things which we have long known. 

It appears, therefore, from the above discussion, that 
there existed, between the years 180 and 260, three . 
more or less widely. diffused opinions regarding the 
authorship of Hebrews which stood over against each 
other—(1) Paul (held by the Alexandrians, and perhaps 
the Theodotians in Rome); (2) Barnabas (held by the 
Montanist Tertullian, evidently already by the Phrygian 
Montanists and also by the catholic Churches of the pro 
vince of Asia, as well as by the Novatians); (3) some 


unknown person (Irenzus, Hi ppolytus, and probably. still 


304 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


other Catholics of the West). The common source of this 
threefold tradition can only be the third view (n. 12), for 
in each of the other two eases it is incomprehensible how 
a tradition originally associated with Hebrews, whether it 
were ascribed to Paul or to Barnabas, in the circles from 
which Irenzeus came, could have given way ‘to entire 
ignorance in regard to the matter. It is equally incom- 
prehensible how Βαρνάβα could arise from an original 
Παύλου, or vice versa. The history of early Christian 
literature offers elsewhere examples of how writings, 
originally anonymous in the tradition, were ascribed to 
definite authors on insufficient grounds (n. 13). The 
receivers of the letter certainly knew the name of the 
author; he himself indicates in Heb. xiii. 18-24 that he 
was known to them, and this knowledge would ‘surely 
be preserved for some time. But when Hebrews began to 
be circulated, it could no longer have existed in the place 
from which it was sent out into the Churches. Im view 
of the fact that, so far as we are aware, Hebrews was 
never known to any Church writer without the title πρὸς 
“Ἑβραίους (above, p. 295f.), it is probable that it was con- 
nected with the collection of Paul’s letters either from the 
beginning or through a later addition. It is therefore 
very easy to understand how in Alexandria the letter 
was attributed to Paul. The Πάυλου (ἐπιστολή) whieh it 
was necessary to supply with πρὸς Κορινθίους, πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους 
«tr. was also very naturally supplied with πρὸς ‘EBpaious, 
in the title of the appended anonymous writing (n. 13). 
The mention of Timothy (Heb. xiii. 23), the author's 
knowledge of the Scripture, the reading τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου 
συνεπαθήσατε (Heb. x. 34, n. 14), which, thongh certainly 
false, is perhaps very old, all tended to strengthen this 
view. If Hebrews was not appended to the Pauline letters 
until later, it is not surprising that the Churches which 
had received the original collection of Paul’s letters without 
Hebrews were afterwards unwilling to accept the anonym: 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 305 


ous letter and to recognise it as a letter of Paul’s. The 
individuals into whose hands it came regarded it either as 
an anonymous writing from ancient apostolic times, or 
resorted to conjecture. If Paul did not write it, then it 
must have been written by seme other distinguished 
teacher of the apostolic age. Barnabas was such a man. 
It is possible that this assumption was furthered by 
the fact that an ancient document with many allegori- 
cal interpretations of O.T. legal regulations, our so-called 
Epistle of Barnabas, was circulated in the Oriental 
Churches under Barnabas’ name. One who was seeking 
for the author of Hebrews might be influenced by this 
document to ascribe Hebrews also to this Barnabas. This 
same development of the Barnabas idea is also conceivable 
in case Hebrews was a part of the original collection of 
Paul’s letters. Even if ἄλλου πρὸς Ἑβραίους was not in 
the title, the report could have been circulated with the 
collection that the document was not written by Paul, but 
was added to the collection of his letters because of its 
instructive and edifying character. In Alexandria this 
tradition disappeared, while in other regions it was pre- 
served, and resulted either in the separation of this letter 
from those of Paul, or in the conjecture that it was written 
by Barnabas. In brief, there is no tradition regarding the 
author of Hebrews which compares with the traditions 
regarding the authors of the other N.T. writings in age, 
unanimity, and an originality, hard to invent, 


1. (P. 294.) For the canonical history of Heb. see GK, i. 283-302, 379, 
577 ff., 759, 963-966, ii. 85, 160 ff., 169-171, 238, 275, 358-362, also PRES, 
vii. 492-506. 

2. (P. 295.) Klostermann (Zur Theorie der bibl. W. erssagung und zur Char- 
acteristik des Hb, 1889, S. 55) conjectures that πρὸς "Eßpaiovs is an incorrect 
copy of πρὸς Bepvaiovs= Bepotaiovs, and holds that Apollos, who, according to 
Acts xviii. 27 f., laboured in Macedonia (Where is this statement found Ὁ) and 
Achaia, wrote this letter to the Church in Bercea, the original constituency 
of which, according to Acts xvii. 11, was certainly Jewish. A more natural 
supposition would be Berwa in Syria (Aleppo), which was the main centre 
of Jewish Christianity in the time of Jerome. Harnack, ZINTW, 1900, 
S. 21, had an idea of πρὸς τοὺς ἑταίρους as the original title. Semler (cited in 

VOL. Il. 20 


306 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Oder’s Freie Untersuchung über d. Off. Joh. 1769, S. 29), followed later by Hug 
in his Hint.’ ii. 482 ; Wieseler, Chronol, 483 ff., Untersuch. über den Hb, 1861, 
i. 26 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Hinl. 104, 354, was the first to advance the view that 
Heb, was really the epistle ad Alexandrinos, which, according to Can. Mur, 
line 64, was fabricated like an epistle ad Laodicenos, under Paul’s name 
in the spirit of the Marcionite heresy. There were also many critics who 
believed that in Philaster the statement was to be found (Her. Ixxxix.) that in 
his time (380 to 390) Hebrews was quite generally regarded as a letter to the 
Laodiceans. This led to the further hypothesis that the words following the 
Epistle to Philemon at. the end of the Cod. Bern. of the Pauline letters, 
ad Laudicenses incipit epistola, πρὸς Λαουδακήσας ἄρχεται ἐπιστολή, are the title 
of Heb. which ought here to follow in the MS. This was the opinion of 
Credner (Einl. 560), Anger (Über den Laodicenerbr. 29), and Wieseler (Unters. 
i. 3411). The Epistle to the Laodiceans referred to in Can. Mur. and in 
Cod. Beern. is the apocryphal letter of this title which is still in existence. 
With regard to the Epistle to the Alexandrians, we know nothing definite or 
certain ; cf. GK, i. 277-283, ii. 82-88, 238, 566-592. 

3. (P. 295.) For the meaning of titulus see vol. i. p. 488, n. 3. In the 
oldest MSS. (NABCK) the only words found in the title at the beginning 
or in the title at the end are πρὸς Ἑβραίους without ἐπιστολή, first L, and 
in the title also P, have this addition, and this is apparently all that Ter- 
tullian found, for he writes (de Pud. xx.) : extat et Barnabe titulus (not epistola) 
ad Hebreos. This title cannot be compared with those of writings which 
were circulated independently, such as Κλήμεντος (λόγος) mporpemrirös πρὸς 
Ἕλληνας or Τατιανοῦ λόγος πρὸς Ἕλληνας (Eus. H. E. vi. 13. 7). When titles 
of this kind are found in MSS. without λόγος, this is to be supplied from 
the title of a preceding writing by another author with a different address, 
e.g. in Eus. iv. 16. 7 from the preceding συγγράμματα. Different still is the 
case of Tarıavös ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ἕλληνας in Clem. Strom. i. ὃ 101. Moreover, 
comparison with all these titles is rendered impossible by the fact that they 
contain the name of the author, whereas the common source of the divergent 
titles Barnabe (titulus) ad Hebreos and Παύλου (ἐπιστολὴ) πρὸς “Ἑβραίους could 
not possibly have contained the name of an author. 

4. (P. 296.) Ever since the time that the Jews began to call themselves 
Jews (Jer. xxxii. 12), they designated their race and their ancestors Hebrews 
(1) in a retrospective view of the patriarchal and ancient Israelitish period, 
particularly where there was occasion to mention Israelites from the point of 
view of those who were not Israelites. This is found even in Jeremiah, where 
reference is made toa Mosaie ordinance (Jer. xxxiv. 9, 14, along with the more 
modern ‘3, Jer. xxxii. 12, xxxiv. 9). Cf. also Philo (Vita Mos. i. 2, 4, 26, 
27, 48, 50), where the term Hebrews is used along with Ἰουδαῖοι without any 
distinction of time (op. ett. i, 1, 2, 7, ii. 7), Josephus (Ant. i. 6, 2, 4, 5, 11. 5. 4, 
9. 1 ff. ; Bell. iv. 8. 3, v. 9. 4), and the poet Ezekiel (in Eus, Prep, ix. 28f.), 
in reproductions of the ancient history, or occasional references to the same, 
For the same reason it is also found regularly in the Sibyllines, the alleged 
predictions of an ancient prophetess. The usage in Judith x. 12, xii. 11, 
xiv, 18; 2 Mate. vii. 31, xi, 13, is also archaic. The Jews are very seldom 
mentioned by Greek and Roman writers. Once Plutarch uses along with the 
regular ᾿Ιουδαῖοι (Apophtheym. regum, p. 184; Is. et Osir. 31, p. 363; Quest, 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 307 


conv. iv. 4. 4, 5. 1, 2, pp. 669, 670), ra Ἑβραίων ἀπόρρητα, p. 671, in referenca 
to their ancient institutions; once Tac. Hist. v.2 has Hebracas terras (ef. Jos, 
Bell. v. 4. 3). The term is used more frequently by Pausanius of land and 
people without distinctions as to time, i. 5. 5, v. 5. 2, 7.4, vi. 24. 8, x. 12. 9. 
(2) The Jews regularly use Ἑβραῖοι (also ἑβραϊκός, EBpais, eBpaiori) when 
speaking of their language and literature ; ef. Philo, de Conf. Ling. xxvi. ; Migr. 
Abrah. iii, ; Vita Mos. ii. 6 (of the seventy translators) ; Somn. ii. 38 ; Congr. 
Erud. Gr, viii. ; Jos. Ant. i. 1. 1£., iii. 6. 7, x. 10.6. Of. the lexicons of Levy 
or Jastrow, for example, Jer. Baba Bathra, 17c, “ A Hebrew and a Greek wit- 
ness.” So the word came to be used in contrast to Hellenistic (see vol. i. pp. 
39, 48 f., 67, n. 14). (3) While the Jews with pride called themselves Jews 
(Rom. ii. 17; 0.1. Gr. 9916, 9926 ; J HSt, 1891, p. 269; ef. Berliner, Gesch. der 
Juden in Rom. i. 72 ff., nr. 12, 81, 109), the name assumed a different signifi- 
cance to Christians, and even to Jewish Christians, after the majority of this 
people had rejected the gospel, and Ἰουδαΐσμός (Gal. 1. 13, 14; Ign. Magn. viii. 
1, x. 35 Phil. vi. 1; Inscription from Portus given by Dérenbourg in Mel. 
Renier, 1887, p. 440) came to stand for a religion hostile to Christianity—a 
religion, acceptance of which made those who were not Jews Jews (Dio Cass. 
xxxvil. 17. 1). The time soon came when the term of Ἰουδαῖοι no longer 
sufficed to distinguish genuine from false Jews (Rom. ii. 28 f.; Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9), 
inasmuch as it was used for the nation which excluded the Christian Church 
from itself (1 Thess. ii. 14; 1 Cor. x.32; 2 Cor. xi. 24; Matt. xxviii. 15 ; John 
xiii. 33, xvill. 14, xx. 19; Acts xii. 3, xx. 3, xxi. 11, xxvi. 2). It is only very 
rarely and always with an evident purpose that Christian Israelites are called 
Jews by themselves and others ; ef. Gal. ii. 13-15; Acts x. 28, xxi. 39, xxii. 3 
(in Acts xxi, 20 the text is uncertain, still more so in Acts vi. 7). Cf. also the 
comparatively late catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, ed. Lipsius, 122. The more 
favourite expression is of ἐκ περιτομῆς (Gal. ii. 12; Col. iv. 11; Tit. i. 10; 
Acts x. 45, xi. 2; ef. Phil. iii. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 18), or the simple statement of 
Jewish origin, ἐξ Ἰουδαίων (Rom. ix. 24 ; Just. Dial. xlvii. 48 ; ef. GK, ii. 671, 
A. 2). In the post-apostolic age (2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5; Acts vi. 1 cannot 
be cited in favour of this usage; ef. vol. i. p. 48), they were called also 
Ἑβραῖοι. Although in numerous instances the linguistic meaning of the word 
exerted a strong influence,—as, for example, in the case of the Aramaic- 
speaking Nazarenes and their Hebrew gospel, as it was apparently called by 
Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. iv. 22. 7; cf. @K, ii. 643, 649 ff.),—in the vast majority 
of cases it indicates a contrast between Jews and non-Jews, without any 
reference to the contrast between Hebrews and Hellenists within the Jewish 
race itself, as in Acts vi. 1. When Clement (Ped. i. 34; Strom. i. 11), speak- 
ing of Paul and one of his own teachers, calls them Ἑβραῖοι ἀνέκαθεν or 
ἄνωθεν, or when Eusebius (H. E. i. 11. 9, ii. 4. 3, iv. 5. 2) uses the same 
expression with reference to Philo, Josephus, and the first bishops of Jeru- 
salem (cf. H. E. iv. 22.7, with regard to Hegesippus), the only thing indicated 
is their ancestral connection with the Jewish people and faith. Clement 
(Ped. i. 34) uses along with Ἑβραῖος, Ἰουδαῖος to designate their religion ; 
and Eusebius (H. E. iv. 5. 4) uses the same word interchangeably with ἐκ 
περιτομῆς. In speaking of the destination of Matt., Irenzeus uses once, iii. 
1. 1, ev τοῖς "Eßpaiors, and in a second instance (Fragm. 29, ed. Stieren, 
P- 842) πρὸς Ἰουδαίους. Eusebius also calls the gospel, “which gave special 


308 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


joy to those of the Hebrews who accepted Christ” (H. E. iii. 25. 5), τὸ καθ 
‘EBpaious εὐαγγέλιον, both in the passage here cited and elsewhere (iv. 22.7); 
occasionally also “The gospel which is among the Jews” (de Theophania syr. 
iv. 12). The most decisive proof is that furnished by the Ebionites, whose 
entire literature, so far as we know it (their gospel, the pseudo-Clementine 
writings, the translation of the O.T., and the commentary of Symmachus), 
was Greek, but who, notwithstanding, always called genuine Jews and Jewish 
Christians Hebrews (Clement, Epist. ad Jac. i,; Hom. i. 9, viii. 5, 6, 7, x. 26, 
xi. 35, xviii, 4; Recogn. i. 7, 32, v. 35), and who, according to Epiph. Her. 
xxx. 3, 13, occasionally spoke of their Greek gospel as a ἑβραϊκόν and καθ᾽ 
“Eßpaiovs εὐαγγέλιον. “ Hebrews” means here, as in Tert. Marc. iii, 12, Hebrei 
Christiani, Jewish Christians, 

5. (Pp. 296, 298, 300.) Eus. A. E. vi. 14. 2 ff. (cf. Cramer, Cat. vii. 286; 
cf. Severianus, p. 115; Jn. Damase., ed. Lequien, ii. 258; Forsch. iii. 71, 149) 
gives the following account taken from the Hypotyposes of Clement: καὶ τὴν 
πρὸς "Eßpaiovs δὲ ἐπιστολὴν. Παύλου μὲν εἶναί φησι, γεγράφθαι δὲ Ἑβραίοις 
ἑβραϊκῇ φωνῇ, Δουκᾶν δὲ φιλοτίμως (510) αὐτὴν μεθερμηνεύσαντα ἐκδοῦναι τοῖς 
Ἕλλησιν, ὅθεν τὸν αὐτὸν χρῶτα εὑρίσκεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ταύτης τε τῆς 
ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῶν πράξεων" μὴ προγεγράφθαι δὲ τὸ ““ Παῦλος ἀπόστολος ᾽" εἰκότως" 
“Ἑβραίοις γάρ, φησιν, ἐπιστέλλων, πρόληψιν εἰληφόσι κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑποπτεύ- 
ουσιν αὐτόν, συνετῶς πάνυ οὐκ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἀπέτρεψεν αὐτοὺς τὸ ὄνομα θείς." Eira 
imoBas. ἐπιλέγει: ““Ἤδη. δέ, ὡς 6 μακάριος ἔλεγε πρεσβύτερος, ἐπεὶ ὁ κύριος 
ἀπόστολος ὧν τοῦ παντοκράτορος (Heb. iii. 1) ἀπεστάλη πρὸς Ἑβραίους, διὰ 
μετριότητα ὁ Παῦλος, ὡσὰν εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἀπεστιλμένος, οὐκ ἐγγράφει ἑαυτὸν 
Ἑβραίων ἀπόστολον διά τε τὴν πρὸς τὸν κύριον τιμήν, διά τε τὸ ἐκ περιουσίας 
καὶ τοῖς Ἑβραίοις ἐπιστέλλειν, ἐθνῶν κήρυκα ὄντα καὶ ἀπόστολον." It may be 
regarded as certain that “The sainted presbyter” Pantznus is the principal 
teacher of Clement (ef. Forsch. iii. 157-161, 168-176), Clement expresses 
himself just as definitely in his comment on 1 Pet. v. 13. (Forsch, iii. 83) : 
“sieut Lucas quoque et actus apostolorum stilo exsecutus agnoscitur et Pauli ad 
Hebros interpretatus epistolam.” While Origen speaks of persons who called 
Luke not the translator, but the author of Heb., and of others who said the 
same of Clement of Rome (above, p. 299, and below, p. 309, n. 7), Eusebius 
(H. E. iii. 38. 2) changes this ἱστορία, as Origen calls it, into another, accord- 
ing to which some made Luke, others Clement of Rome, the translator of 
Heb. The latter assumption Eusebius considers particularly probable because 
of the resemblance in style and thought between Heb. and Clement’s Epistle 
to the Corinthians (§ 3), although he does not deny that this relationship was 
due to the fact that Clement was dependent upon Heb. (§ 1). Jerome in his 
usual fashion mixes everything up (Für. Ill. v.; Ep. exxix. 3, ad Dardanum), 
Tertullian says that, Barnabas is the author of Heb. (see n. 3), while others 
attribute it to Luke or Clement of Rome. But the authorship of Clement 
is represented as affecting only the literary form, or as perhaps confined to a 
translation from the Hebrew. Philaster (Her. Ixxxix.) states that the oppo- 
nents of the Pauline authorship were divided in their opinion as to whether 
Barnabas, Clement, or Luke was the author (below, ἢ. 11), Ephrem (Comm. 
in Pauli epist., ed. Mekith. p. 200) reproduces the two opinions that Clement 
of Rome was the author and that he was the translator, without accepting 
either, Severianus of Gabala (Cramer, Cat. vii. 115), on the authority of 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 309 


Eusebius, mentions Clement and Luke as possible translators. Theodorus, 
who rejected the idea of the intentional anonymous authorship of Heb., 
remarks incidentally that Timothy acted as Paul’s amanuensis (Cramer, vii. 
113f.). Aecording to Theodoret, in Heb. xiii. 23, Timothy was only the 
messenger who delivered the letter. 

6. (P. 297.) Pantznus (see preceding note) assumes it as self-evident 
that Heb. was directed to the same persons to whom Jesus preached, 1.6. 
the Jewish Christians of Palestine. This was also the view of Clement, who 
agrees with the opinion of his teacher, which he reports ; for it is only on 
this presupposition that Clement could assume as self-evident that Heb. 
was written in Hebrew, since he must have known that the Jews in Alex- 
andria, Rome, and other places were entirely Hellenistic. Ephrem asserts 
very positively, p. 201, that Heb. was written shortly before the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem to the Christians of that city, the disciples of the original 
apostles who were probably still living there. He represents it as being a 
counterpart of the letter of the Jerusalem Church to the Gentile Christians in 
Antioch (Acts xv. 23). The same view is expressed by the genuine Euthalius 
(Zacagni, 526), only less definitely, when he represents Heb. as being an 
epistle to the Jewish Christian Churches mentioned in 1 Thess. ii. 14; by 
Chrysostom (Montfaucon, xii. 2, ποῦ δὲ οὖσιν ἐπέστελλεν ; ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ ἐν 
Ἱεροσολύμοις καὶ Παλαιστίνῃ), and Theodoret (Noesselt, 543). The pseudo- 
Euthalius (Zacagni, 668) thinks that Heb. was addressed to the whole body of 
Jewish Christians. 

7. (P. 299.) According to Eusebius (H. E. vi. 25. 11-14), Origen in his 
homilies on Heb. says: “Ore ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς λέξεως τῆς πρὸς Ἑ βραίους ἐπι- 
γεγραμμένης ἐπιστολῆς οὐκ ἔχει τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδιωτικὸν τοῦ ἀποστόλου, ὁμολογή- 
σαντος ἑαυτὸν ἰδιώτην εἶναι τῷ λόγῳ, τουτέστι τῇ φράσει, ἀλλά ἐστιν ἡ ἐπιστολὴ 
συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως Ἑλληνικωτέρα, πᾶς 6 ἐπιστάμενος κρίνειν φράσέων (al. 
φράσεως) διαφορὰς ὁμολογήσαι ἄν: πάλιν τε αὖ ὅτι τὰ νοήματα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς θαυ- 
μάσιά ἐστι καὶ οὐ δεύτερα τῶν ἀποστολικῶν ὁμολογουμένων γραμμάτων, καὶ τοῦτο 
ἂν συμφήσαι εἶναι ἀληθὲς πᾶς ὁ προσέχων τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῇ ἀποστολικῇ (Husebius 
here interrupts the narrative with the remark, τούτοις μεθ᾽ ἕτερα ἐπιφέρει 
λέγων). ᾿Εγὼ δὲ ἀποφαινύμενος εἴποιμ᾽ ἂν, ὅτι τὰ μὲν νοήματα τοῦ ἀποστύλου 
ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ φράσις καὶ ἡ σύνθεσις ἀπομνημονεύσαντός τινος τὰ ἀποστολικὰ 
καὶ ὡσπερεὶ σχολιογραφήσαντός Twos τὸ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου. Ἐ τις 
οὖν ἐκκλησία ἔχει ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡς Παύλου, αὕτη εὐδοκιμείτω καὶ ἐπὶ 
τούτῳ" οὐ γὰρ εἰκῆ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες ὡς Παύλου αὐτὴν παραδεδώκασι. τίς δὲ ὁ 
γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν, τὸ μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς οἶδεν, ἡ δὲ εἰς ἡμᾶς φθάσασα ἱστορία 
ὑπό τινων μὲν λεγόντων ὅτι Κλήμης ὁ γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος Ῥωμαίων ἔγραψε 
τὴν ἐπιστολήν, ὑπό τινων δὲ ὅτι Λουκᾶς 6 γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὰς 
πράξεις. This is copied inaccurately in Cramer, Cat. vii. 285f., but 
accurately and almost entire in a scholion in one of the Athos MSS. (von der 
Goltz, S. 85). For the interpretation see GK, i. 287, A. 1! To take αὕτη 
with ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολήν instead of with εἴ ris οὖν ἐκκλησία, as Hofmann 
suggests, v. 46, is impossible, both in view of the construction and of the sense. 

8. (P. 301.) The Canon Muratori, which mentions by name and rejects 
two pseudo-Pauline letters, and takes account of differences in opinion con- 
cerning a writing of Peter’s and the Shepherd of Hermas, has nothing to say 
concerning Heb. The same is true also of the African canon, circa 360 


310 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(Grundriss, 83). There are no citations from Heb. in Cyprian and contem 
poraries, in Optatus of Milevi and in the Acts of the Donatist controversy 
In Rome, furthermore, the number of Paul’s Epistles was limited to thirteen 
by Caius (circa 210), and Eusebius makes the statement, that even in his day 
the Roman Church, or many Romans, 7.e. Westerners, objected to Heb. as un- 
Pauline (H. E. iii. 3. 5, vi. 20). On the other hand, clear traces that Heb. was 
read with great esteem in Rome are first found in Clement of Rome and 
Hermas (GK, i. 963 f., also 577£. on Justin, and 295 ff. on Theodotus). Ad- 
ditional matter in nn. 9 and 11; also § 47, n. 7. 

9. (Pp. 295, 301, 302.) Stephanus Gobarus says in the year 600 (see Photius, 
Bibl. 232) : ὅτι “Immodvutros καὶ Εἰρηναῖος τὴν πρὸς "Eßpaiovs ἐπιστολὴν Παύλου 
οὐκ ἐκείνου εἶναί φασι (whereas Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius reckon 
it among the Pauline letters). Photius says the same thing, Bibl. 121, about 
Hippolytus, the author of the work against the thirty-two heresies. Since 
Stephanus mentions Hippolytus before he does Irenzeus,—although the latter 
is older,—it is probable that his information about Irenzus is derived solely 
from a remark of Hippolytus with regard to Irenzus’ views concerning 
Heb. Evidently Hippolytus was the first who had occasion expressly to 
deny the Pauline authorship of Heb. in opposition to the Theodotians, while 
Irenzeus appears to have quoted Heb. without naming the author (Eus. H. E. 
v. 26 ; cf. GK, i. 296-298). 

10. (P. 302.) Tert. de Pud.xx.; cf. GK, i. 290 ff. Inasmuch as there was 
no Latin Bible in Tertullian’s time, he must have had before him a Greek 
copy of Heb. with the title, Bapvaßa πρὸς "Eßpaiovs (ἐπιστολή). Merely 
oral traditions which are associated with the text of the books Tertul- 
lian is in the habit of reproducing in a different way, eg. with regard to 
the relation of Mark to Peter and of Luke to Paul, contra Marc. iv. 5, he uses 
the words ajirmatur adscribere solent. The attempt has been made incorrectly 
to discover the same tradition in the index of Cod. Clarom. of the letters of 
Paul, where, after the seven catholic Epistles, we have the words, Barnabe 
epist. ver. 850. This view is supported by Westcott, Ep. to the Hebrews, 1889, 
p- xxviii, with oyermuch emphasis upon the idea that the numbers suit 
Heb. better than the so-called Epistle of Barnabas. Cf. per contra, GK, ii. 
169 f., 950 ff. 

11. (P. 303.) Tractatus Origenis de libris ss. scripturarum, ed. Batiffol, Paris, 
1900. Up to the present time the result of the discussion seems to be the conclu- 
sion that these twenty sermons are not the work of Origen, and that they are 
not translations from the Greek. The view that they were written hy Nova- 
tian is supported by Weyman (Archiv f. lat. Lexicographie, xi. 467, 545-576), 
Hausleiter (TALB, 1900, Nos, 14-16), Zahn (Ν ΚΖ, 1900, S. 348-360), Jordan 
(Die Theologie der neuentdeckten Predigten Novatians, 1902). Some of the ob- 
jections raised to this view demand earnest consideration. In Tract. 10, p. 108, 
between a saying of the beatus apestolus Paulus quoted from Rom. xii. 1, 
and a quotation from 1 Cor. iii. 16, is found the following : “Sed et Sanctissi- 
mus Barnabas, ‘Per ipsum offerimus,’ inquit, ‘deo laudis hostiam labiorum 
confitentium nomini eius’” ; οἵ, Heb. xiii. 15. According to Epiphanius (Her. 
lix. 2), Philaster (Her. Ixxxix. 3-8), Ambrose (de Penit. ii. 2), the Novatians, 
like Tertullian (de Pudit. xx.), used Heb, vi. 4-8 to justify their rejection 
of the “second repentance.” About the opinion of the Novatians of the 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 311 


fourth century concerning the author of Heb. there is no tradition, but it 
is probable that they also followed the Barnabas tradition, and that it 
was with reference to their opinion on this matter that Philaster wrote at 
the beginning of the chapter in which he deals with the misuse of Heb. 
by the Novatians : “Sunt alii, qui epistolam beati Pauli ad Hebr®os non 
adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabe esse beati apostoli aut Clementis 
de urbe Roms (Roma?) episcopi, alii autem Luce beatissimi evangeliste 
aiunt.” This was probably written somewhat earlier than the kindred 
statements of Jerome, Vir. IU. v., and much earlier than Jerome’s letter to 
Dardanus (above, p. 308, n.5; GA, ii. 234f.). Philaster does not copy Jerome, 
nor does he, like him, attribute the Barnabas tradition to an individual, 
namely, Tertullian, but to a party of his own day. Pacian, Epist. i. 2, 
mentions the Montanist Proculus (al. Proclus) as holding a position midway 
between Montanism and Novatianism. When now Caius of Rome, in his 
dialogue with Proclus, charges the Montanists with making new Holy 
Scriptures, and in this connection mentions the thirteen letters of Paul 
exclusive of Heb. (Eus. H. E. vi. 20), it is extremely probable that 
Proclus had quoted Heb. as Holy Scripture, which Caius and the other 
Catholics in Rome (Can. Mur. and Hippolytus) did not accept as such. But 
it does not in any sense follow that Proclus quoted Heb. as a work of Paul’s. 
It is much more probable that Proelus, like his admirer and fellow-Mon- 
tanist, Tertullian, regarded Barnabas as the author of Heb., and, like Ter- 
tullian, quoted this Epistle as an authority, only he gave it more weight 
than Tertullian did. 

12. (P. 304.) The hypothesis of Fr. Overbeck (Zur Gesch. des Kanons, 
1880, S. 1-70), according to which Heb. at the time of its canonising in 
Alexandria (160-170), and with a view to its being canonised, was artificially 
made an Epistle of Paul’s by the omission of the original greeting of the letter 
and the addition of Heb. xiii. 22-25, cannot be presented here with all the 
absurdities which it involves (ef. GK, i. 300f., A. 1). The main difficulty 
with it is its failure to explain how Irenzeus, Hippolytus, and the other 
Western writers, who did not like the Alexandrians, have Heb. in their 
Canon, and who were in general independent of Alexandria, came to lose 
the greeting. Neither does it explain the rise of the Barnabas tradition, 
which could originate only when and where the letter was received as anonym- 
ous, without any greeting and without any association with the name of 
Paul. Ifthe alleged original greeting contained the name of Barnabas, the 
desire on the part of the Alexandrians to canonise the letter was no reason 
why they should omit the greeting; since for a time in their Church they 
accepted as canonical the letter which by themselves, and afterwards in 
Christian literature, was attributed to Barnabas (GK, i. 347-350, ii. 159, 
169 f., 948-953). Even if a less distinguished name had stood in the greet- 
ing, it is inconceivable that men who were willing to make Heb. an Epistle 
of Paul’s in an underhanded manner, and who were bold enough to set 
aside the greeting that stood in their way, and to insert a closing paragraph 
obscurely referring to Paul, should have lacked the courage and intelligence 
required by their undertaking to replace the original greeting with another 
which met their wishes. 

13. (P. 304.) A parallel is found in the tradition concerning the so-called 


312 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. For some reason this ancient 
sermon, preached probably in Corinth, became associated with the letter of 
the Roman Church to the Corinthians, which, according to tradition, was 
written by Clement. After the writings became associated, both the address, 
πρὸς Κορινθίους, and the author’s name, Κλήμεντος, were applied to the second 
writing also. As a result, in the time of Eusebius mention is made of a 
second epistle of Clement (A. E. iii. 38. 4), and in both Greek MSS. and in 
the Syriac version in which these two writings are found, the sermon had 
come to be called a second letter of Clement to the Corinthians. It is due 
simply to the fact that in the MSS. of certain spurious writings of Justin as 
they were handed down, there was added a τοῦ αὐτοῦ, which perhaps was at 
first supplied only in thought, but which is found written in the one existing 
MS., that the Epistle to Diognetus came to be regarded as a work of Justin’s 
(Otto, Just. opp.* ii, p. xiv). 

14. (P. 304.) The reading decpios, Heb. x. 34, is supported by AD* 67** 
(a marginal reading of the Vindob. @r. theol. 302, which very often agrees 
with the uncials BM in which Heb. x. is wanting), Coptic, Vulgate, Armenian, 
versions S! S?, Ephr. Lat. trans. 229 (otherwise he would not have omitted this 
sentence, p. 201, in his discussion of the Pauline authorship of Hebrews). 
In fayour of the reading δεσμοῖς μου are NHLKP (also the scribe who cor- 
rected D, hence also E), most cursives, Clem. Strom. iv. 103; Orig. Exh. 
mart. 43 (but without pod); Theodoret in Heb. x. 34 and in Isa. v. 17 
(Schulze, ii. 202, iii. 611) ; Cramer, Cat. vii. 241 ; pseudo-Euthalius (Zacagni, 
670). Hofmann, v. 461f., is the last writer who vigorously defends the 
latter reading. The reading of Origen and of the Latin text Clarom. (vinculis 
eorum, referring to the οὕτως ἀναστρεφόμενοι mentioned in ver. 33) would 
seem to indicate that first δεσμίοις was changed to δεσμοῖς in a purely 
mechanical way, and the attempt was made later to make this reading clear 
by the addition of pod or αὐτῶν. The latter word was inserted from the 
text, without thought of supporting any theory of the letter’s origin, but the 
former word is suspiciously connected with the tradition of its Pauline 
authorship. Where this tradition prevailed the reading was accepted ; it 
may also have helped to confirm and to give currency to the tradition, if the 
reading was in existence before Clement's time; the pseudo-Euthalius, 
op. cit., uses this text as proof of the Pauline authorship of Heb. 


$ 46. THE LITERARY FORM AND THE HISTORICAL 
PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE 
HEBREWS, 


It is not only the lack of a greeting which makes the 
beginning of Hebrews seem more like an essay than an 
Epistle. In all the writings of the apostolic and post- 
apostolic age, whose epistolary character is indicated at 
once by the greeting, the sentences which follow the 
greeting are very different from those in Heb. i. 1-14, 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 1: 


In every case, even where a connected doctrinal exposition 
is intended and presented later in the course of the letter, 
the Hpistle begins with personal remarks often very closely 
connected with the greeting, These vary in character, 
consisting sometimes of an expression of the feeling of the 
author toward the readers; sometimes of a remark about 
the occasion of the letter, or the relation between the 
author and the readers; or it may be some request or 
admonition addressed to the readers (n. 1). 

The assumption that Hebrews originally had a greet- 
ing which was later intentionally removed (above, p. 311, 
n. 12), or accidentally lost, does not adequately explain 
the peculiarity of the letter’s beginning. If the beginning 
of Hebrews was ever intended to give the impression of 
a letter, much more than an opening greeting must have 
been lost. But in this case it is incomprehensible, and 
without analogy in the early Christian literature, that the 
didactic body of the letter, which has been preserved, 
should begin with a fully-rounded rhetorical sentence, 
which does not permit of logical or stylistic relation to 
something that preceded. Comparison may be made with 
Romans, if Rom. i. 1-15 (or =16a τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) had been 
lost; or the experiment may be tried of cutting out the 
introductory part of any letter of Paul’s which is pre- 
dominantly didactic, to see whether it is possible to obtain 
something comparable to the beginning of Hebrews. ‘The 
assumption that the beginning of Hebrews was intention- 
ally or accidentally mutilated, is just as untenable as the 
supposition that the same thing was done to 1 John, the 
introduction to which seems at first sight to resemble that 
of Hebrews. It will be observed at once, however, that 
while 1 John shows in a more distinct way an epistolary 
character at the beginning than Hebrews, in the further 
course of the letter and in the conclusion it is less so. 
The author of Hebrews describes his production as a short 
letter (xiii, 22, διὰ βραχέων ἐπέστειλα ὑμῖν), He charges 


314 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the readers to greet their officers and all the Christians 
in their locality, and he conveys to them the greetings 
of the Christians from among whom he writes (xiii. 24). 
He expresses the hope that he may in the near future 
visit them, or rather return to those among whom he had 
formerly lived. In this journey he hopes to be accom- 
panied by Timothy, who has recently been released from 
imprisonment, if the latter can reach him in time (xiii. 
19, 23). But even leaving out of account xiii. 18-24, 
Hebrews is not an essay, but, as the author himself says, 
an exhortation directed to the heart and conscience (xiii. 
22, ἀδελφοί, ἀνέχεσθε τοῦ λόγου τῆς παρακλήσεως). The 
longer as well as the shorter theoretical discussions always 
end in practical exhortations (ii. 1-4, ii. 1-4, 16, v. 11-vi. 
12, x. 19-39, xu. 1-xi. 17). Nor do these exhortations 
give the impression of being an appended moral. The 
intensity of their language and the detail with which they 
are frequently worked out, would seem to indicate that they 
express the main purpose of the letter to which even the 
most artificial and detailed discussions are subordinate. 
From the first exhortation to the readers in iii. 1 (ef. ii. 
1-4) on, it becomes more and more evident that Hebrews 
is not an essay meant for whoever may chance to read it, 
but a letter addressed to a group of Christians living at 
a particular time in a definite locality. It is also apparent 
that they are living under practically the same conditions 
as before conversion; that they have been and are still 
exposed to the same inward and external perils; conse- 
quently that they are a homogeneous and harmonious 
body. Hebrews is really an Epistle in the same sense as 
the letters of Paul to particular Churches, but less than 
any one of these an Epistle designed for some specific 
occasion. Hebrews is accurately described by what Jude 
says regarding the didactie writing which he planned, and 
for which, on account of the pressing need, he temporarily 
substituted a short practical letter (Jude 3; above, p. 242 f.). 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 31; 


Of the extant writings next to 1 John, Hebrews most 
resembles James in point of style. But both James and 
1 John omit all direct personal communications, and in- 
dicate at once in the salutation the distinction between 
their written address to a wide circle of readers and oral 
preaching in a local Church. The author of Hebrews, on 
the other hand, leaves it to the bearer of his letter to 
indicate to the readers for whom it was intended, that it 
is his word to them, 2.6. the word of their well-known 
teacher. 

Even without entering deeply into the content and 
the development of the thought of Hebrews, it is possible 
to gather from the letter much that throws light upon the 
character of the readers and the author. The N.T. pro- 
clamation of salvation which Jesus Himself, the great 
original Apostle, was the first to proclaim (iii. 1, ef. i. 1), 
was brought to the readers and writer alike by those who 
heard the preaching of Jesus, and had been confirmed among 
them by the accompanying witness of signs and wonders, 
by works of healing, and by manifold manifestations of the 
inspiring spirit (ii. 8f.). The author himself was not a 
personal disciple of Jesus, but owed his Christian faith to — 
the preaching of such disciples. The same must ‘also 
have been true of all his readers. They are represented as 
standing in exactly the same historical relation to Jesus 
and the apostles as the readers in 2 Pet. i. 16, iii. 2: cf. 
i 4 and Jude 17 Though the language shows points 
of resemblance to passages like 1 Cor. i. 6, 1 Thess. i. 5, 
a difference comes at once to view. It could not be said 
of Churches founded by Paul and his helpers that they 
received the gospel—the first announcement of salvation— 
from those who heard the preaching of Jesus, nor is this 
anywhere said by Paul or by Peter, where he speaks to 
such persons (1 Pet. i. 12, 23-25, ii. 25), or by John 
(1 John ii. 7, 24, iii. 11). On the other hand, among the 
readers there could not have been personal disciples of 


316 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Jesus; or those who were such must have been so few ir 
number and so unimportant as to be left out of account. 
Those diseiples of Jesus who had brought the gospel to 
the readers no longer live among them. They have either 
gone elsewhere in the prosecution of their missionary 
labours, or they are no longer alive. The latter is certainly 
true of the men to whom primarily the readers owed their 
conversion (xiii. 7). In order to emphasise their obligation 
to the leaders, of whom they are to be mindful, these are 
described as those who spoke to them the word of God, 
which means simply that they brought the gospel to them 
and were instrumental in their conversion (ef. Phil. 1. 14; 
1 Thess. ii. 16; Mark iv. 33 ; Acts iv. 29, vin. 25, xi. 19). 
When the readers are exhorted further to consider with 
admiration the end of their life and to imitate their faith, 
it is implied that the missionary preachers died as martyrs. 
The description of these deceased teachers as of ἡγούμενοι 
ὑμῶν is justified only if they occupied, at least temporarily, 
an official position in the Church to which the readers 
belonged (above, p. 124, n. 5). The same must have 
been true also of the author. From xii. 18f. (ef. xi. 
23) it follows that prior to this time the author had lived 
among the readers, and hoped that his return in the near 
future would be a gain to them. Moreover, the general 
tone of the letter, and especially such passages as v. 12- 
vi. 3, vi. 9, xii. 4f., 12f., show that he was aceustomed to 
teach, and enjoyed a certain reputation as a teacher, not 
only among other Christians, but also among the readers. 
That he was one of their ἄνδρες ἡγούμενοι (Acts xv. 22) 
while he lived among them, and that he will resume this 
position, is conclusively proved by the transition (xiii. 17 ff.) 
which he makes from his exhortation that the readers obey 
their leaders and not render their pastoral work difficult, 
to the request for their prayer on his behalf, the avowal 
of his effort to live a blameless life, the expression of his 
hope through the intercession of the readers to be restored 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 313 


to them, and, finally, the reminder that, while human 
teachers may come and go, Christians have always with 
them their great Shepherd, Jesus (n. 2). 

The unconditional recognition of the preaching and life 
of the apostles and disciples of Jesus, who brought the 
word of salvation to them, carries with it a similar recog- 
nition of the original religious life of these Christians. 
This is also expressed directly. The foundation of Chris- 
tian knowledge was rightly laid among them (vi. 1 1.) ; 
they have only to hold fast the confidence of their first 
faith (iii. 14); at present they are in a state of doubt and 
discontent, and in serious danger of falling away ; and 
everything that the author must lament in their condition, 
and must fear for them, is an indication of the relaxation 
of the religious energy which they had shown earlier and 
possessed from the beginning (cf. especially xu. 12). Pre- 
viously this energy had manifested itself in various ways. 
Its first fruit had been charity toward “ the saints,” which 
they displayed earlier and have not ceased to exercise 
even now (vi. 10). They must have distinguished them- 
selves in this matter above other Churches, since the author 
bases his confidence that after all his worst fears of their 
final apostasy will not be realised, on the righteousness. of 
God which will not permit Him to forget their labour and 
love in rendering this service to the saints in God’s name. 
The language used plainly indicates that this was not 
mutual aid among the readers themselves, nor the charity 
of the well-to-do toward the poor around them, nor even 
charity on the part of the whole body of readers to Chris- 
tians generally outside their circle. It can only mean that 
the readers had a prominent part in the great collection 
for the mother Church in Jerusalem which was begun in 
Antioch as early as 44, and had since been carried forward 
by the earnest and repeated efforts of Paul (n. 3). In the 
second place, the faith of the readers had been maintained 
considerably earlier in the face of severe persecution (x. 


318 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


32-34,n. 4). It is an error to conclude, as has been often 
done, from xi. 4 that this persecution was bloodless ; for 
the reference in this passage is not to suffering for the sake 
of the Christian confession (Phil. i. 29 f.), nor, in general, 
to the struggle for the faith (Jude 3), but to the conflict of 
the believers with their own sins (cf. Heb. xii. 1; 1 Cor. 
ix. 25f.). This struggle does not, therefore, like that of 
x. 32, belong to the past, but extends throughout the 
whole earthly life. At the time when the letter was 
written the readers had grown weary in this struggle. 
They had not resisted “unto blood” the sin besetting 
them through manifold temptations, especially those arising 
through the hostility of persons not of their faith, and the 
necessity of life in the world (Heb. xu. 3, 5-11, ii. 18, iii. 
13, iv. 15). Rather have they yielded to the same. On 
the other hand, in the great tribulation now long past 
(x. 32, ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε δὲ τὰς πρότερον ἡμέρας), they stood the 
test nobly. The fact that nothing is said of the taking of 
life, but only insults and oppressions, imprisonment and 
confiscation of property, are mentioned, does not justify 
the assumption that the persecution was a bloodless one. 
The author is not here giving a chapter of Church history 
in which the Church of a city or province is represented as 
a permanent corporate body outliving its individual mem- 
bers (n. 4), his object rather is to speak to the conscience 
of the Christians to whom he writes, by recalling the 
courage and willingness to make sacrifices which they once 
had manifested. Certainly they were not put to death at 
that time ; in which case the author could not write to them. 
Nevertheless they must have been in great distress, from 
which they escaped only with their lives. In their suffer- 
ings they presented to the world and the Church at the 
time a notable spectacle (θεατριξόμενοι, ef. 1 Cor. iv. 9). 
Furthermore, when they themselves escaped with life and 
liberty, they were not ashamed of the fellowship of those 
who fared worse (cf. 2 Tim. i. 8, 16f.), but visited and 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 319 


comforted them in prison. When forcibly deprived of 
their possessions they gladly sacrificed them. A reference 
to those who had actually suffered as martyrs in the per- 
secution would have been out of place here, where the 
author's object is, not to make the sufferings and services 
of the survivors seem small by comparison with those of 
the martyrs, but to represent them as great as possible. 
It is natural to assume that the teachers who laid the 
foundations of the faith among them, whose martyrdom is 
referred to in xiii. 7 (above, p. 316), lost their lives in the 
same persecution. In all probability the μνημονεύετε in 
xi. 7 refers to the same event as the ἀναμιμνήσκεσθε in 
x. 32. 

The author’s remark, that the readers endured this great 
tribulation after they were enlightened (n. 5), 2.e. after 
their conversion, does not in any sense imply that the 
persecution took place immediately after their conversion. 
It is only intended to guard against the possible mis- 
understanding of the phrase “earlier days,” which might 
be made to refer to the time prior to their conversion. 
Whether this remark was occasioned by the peculiar 
character of the earlier history of these Christians remains 
to be considered later. It is perfectly clear that the 
author intends to speak only about what they suffered 
as Christians, though this was at a period considerably 
earlier. What is here indicated incidentally is expressly 
stated in v. 12, namely, that the readers have behind 
them a long Christian experience. Because of this fact 
one might expect that they would teach Christianity 
to others; but, as a matter of fact, they have grown so 
dull as to seem in need again of instruction in the most 
elementary principles of Christianity. This blame, like the 
praise in x. 32 ff., shows how incorrect it is to suppose that 
Hebrews was addressed to the second generation of a Chris- 
tian Church. In this case it would have been necessary to 
remind the readers not simply of their original confidence 


320 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


in the faith (11. 14), of their own earlier days (x. 32), of 
the spirit of sacrifice which they themselves manifested 
at that time, and of the long period that had elapsed 
since they were first instructed in the principles of Chris- 
tianity, but primarily of the faith, sufferings, and ripe 
knowledge of their deceased fathers (cf. 2 Pet. iii. 4) and 
mothers (2 Tim. i. 5). It is self-evident that in the 
interval between the first preaching of the gospel to the 
readers and the present, other Christians of their circle, as 
well as their apostles (xiii. 7), have died ; but in the main 
the same generation is still ving which had heard the gospe! 
from the lips of the disciples of Jesus (ii. 3; ef. n. 4). 
Besides these indefinite hints, which indicate the date of 
the Epistle only relatively, there is another, disputed, to be 
sure, which, rightly understood, fixes the time of the com- 
position of the letter absolutely (n. 6). The writer does 
not quote Ps. xev. 7b-11 as seripture in ii. 7-11 to prove 
some statement which precedes or follows, but he puts 
rather what he himself has to say to the readers into the 
language of the Psalm. This is indicated by the formula 
of introduction and the manifestly intentional alteration of 
the text of the Psalm. Furthermore, the words thus freely 
quoted from the Psalm are referred to the Holy Spirit by 
the parenthetical remark, καθὼς λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, 
not in order to say incidentally that they are taken from 
the Holy Seripture,—for this it was customary to use 
simpler formulee,—but in order to soften the harshness of 
the sudden transition from his own words in ii. 9 to those 
of God, as is also the case in Ps. xev. 9 (ef. x. 15). The 
warning which the Psalmist once uttered to his own 
generation, in view of the wanderings in the wilderness, 
the author utters anew to the Hebrews of his time. Since 
it is only in proportion as they hold fast the Christian 
hope to the end that Christians have a right to feel them- 
selves members of the household of God (iii. 6), the readers 
should not harden their hearts to-day when they hear 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 321 


God’s voice, as was the case in the provocation in the day 
of testing in the wilderness, where their fathers saw and 
proved the works of God for forty years. It was because 
this generation, notwithstanding their experience, failed to 
acknowledge His ways that God’s wrath burned against 
them, and that He swore that they should not enter into 
the rest promised by God to His people. To us it may 
seem that the author is only recalling events from the 
history of Israel, just as the Psalmist, whose words he 
appropriates, did in his time. But if this were the case, it 
is surprising that he adds further exhortations (vv. 12-14) 
without expressly comparing the facts of O.T. history with 
the present, and without a formal application of them to 
the conditions of the readers, returning at the close to the 
thought of ver. 6. Not so with the readers who were 
familiar with the author’s typological mode of teaching. 
Although here as elsewhere (xiii. 13) he clothes his own 
thoughts in language borrowed from the description of 
conditions long past, which, taken literally, do not apply 
to the present, still he is not, like the Psalmist, speaking 
of that generation which came out of Egypt with Moses, 
but of this generation, namely, the generation to which he 
and his contemporaries belonged. To this evil generation 
of the Jewish people who hardened themselves against the 
Son of God (Matt. xi. 16, xii. 39-45, xxiii. 32-38, xxiv. | 
34), and who for forty years (from 30-70 A.D.) witnessed 
God's redeeming work, first in the person of Jesus and 
then in the preaching of the apostles, accompanied as it 
was by miracles, and yet failed to acknowledge God’s ways, 
God has sworn in His wrath that they should have no 
part in the rest promised to the people of God. This does 
not apply to the readers, since they suffered themselves to 
be saved from this generation through the preaching in 
which they believed (Acts ii. 40). But they understood 
perfectly what was meant when the author, using the 


language of the Psalmist, called this unbelieving Israel 
VOL. II. 21 


322 INTRODUCTION TO, THE NEW TESTAMENT 


their fathers (Heb. 11. 9), instead of employing the prosaic 
expression their “ brothers after the flesh” (Rom, ix, 3), 
or their “brothers and fathers” (Acts vii. 2). Those re- 
ferred to are the Jewish people from whom they descended, 
and the decisive acts in which the hatred of the Jewish 
people against the final revelation of God found expression 
were committed by persons no longer living. 

A second allegory (ii. 15-iv. 11) begins with what 
seems, to be a purely historical exposition of the passage 
from the Psalm, which previously the author had used to 
express his own thoughts. But this interpretation ends 
by showing how, in its typical significance, the history of 
the wanderings in the wilderness applies also to the present 
and the future (cf. 1 Cor. x. 1-11). . The entrance of God’s 
people into the Promised Land, from which the unbelieving 
contemporaries of Moses were excluded, was, according to 
the testimony of Ps. xev., still future in David’s time. It 
was the same in the author's time. It is not stated in,so 
many words that between David’s time and the present a 
second redemption of God’s people had taken place,—which 
was always considered the counterpart of the deliverance 
from Egypt (above, p. 262, n. 12), and which, like the latter, 
was connected with a promise. Nor is it expressly said 
that in Jesus Christ reappeared a more perfect antitype of 
Moses (Heb. iii. 2 f.), of Jesus, 2.e. of Joshua the son of Nun 
(iv. 8), and also of David (vil. 1-17). But both are taken 
for granted as known by the readers, and simply recalled 
by a mere suggestion (iv. 2). It is presupposed throughout 
the whole letter that the readers understood this reference, 
and saw in it an allusion to the fact that as at the time of 
the wandering in the wilderness, so now in their own time 
a separation had taken place between the majority of the 
Jewish people hardened by their unbelief and a minority 
who had believed (iv. 2f.; ef. vi. 18). It is also assamed 
that they understood that, while the Jews who had ac- 
cepted Christ, including the author and his readers (iv. 3, 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 323 


vi. 18), are on the way toward the realisation of the 
promise, the wrathful oath of God has been fulfilled upon 
the rebellious majority (especially i. 19, iv. 6). The fact 
that such typological and allegorical treatment of the O.T, 
history and the corresponding changing picture of present 
events does not suit our occidental taste, does not alter 
the fact that it was much employed in the apostolic age 
(cf. Gal. iv. 21-31; 1 Cor, x. 1-11; 2 Cor. vi. 16-18; 
Rom. ix. 14-24, xi. 2-10, especially Jude 5; above, p. 260 £.). 
From Heb. iii. 7-ἰν. 11 we conclude that Hebrews was 
written after the year 70, and that both author and readers 
were of Jewish origin. 

The latter statement has been comparatively seldom 
disputed, but is questioned by some even to-day (n. 7). 
The title πρὸς “Εβραίους does not prove that the readers 
were native Jews; since, whatever the age of the title, it 
does not necessarily reflect a yet older tradition, but may 
be due solely to a misunderstanding of the letter itself 
(above, p. 295f.). Nor is it absolutely proved by the fact 
that the author calls the ancient Israelites his own and 
the readers’ fathers (1. 1, ii. 9), nor by the fact that he 
calls the Church whom Christ redeemed Abraham’s seed 
(ii. 16; cf. vi. 12-18). The former expression is found 
also in 1 Cor. x. 1; the latter, in Gal. iii. 7-29, iv. 21-31; 
Rom. iv. 11-18 (cf. vol. i. 81). And yet there is a 
difference between Hebrews and these thoughts of Paul’s 
and such statements as are found in Eph. 1. 18,11. 1-11. 12 ; 
Cold, ZLf.,..11f., Wt. 8-11,5,,1;Thess.4,.9%5 J; Cor. xii. 2; 
1 Pet. ii. 10, ui. 6, iv. 3; for Hebrews does not contain a 
single sentence in which it is so much as intimated that the 
readers became members of God’s people who descended 
from Abraham, and heirs of the promise given to them 
and their forefathers, and how they became such. It 
follows, therefore, that they were the people of God 
through birth and training. If ii. 9 has been correctly 
interpreted, this is true beyond doubt. The difference 


324 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


between the godly of the O.T. and the Christians whom 
the author addresses, or with whom he identifies him- 
self, is throughout only that between Past and Present 
(i. 1, xi. 2, 39f., xii. 23). It is nowhere said in early 
literature intended for Gentile Christians that God spoke 
to them directly through His Son (i. 1; n. 8). Although 
the author states plainly the significance of the work of 
redemption for all men (ii. 9, 15; ef. v. 9, ix. 26-28), still 
he views and discusses it so entirely from the point of 
view of the pre-Christian Jewish congregation, as almost 
to make it seem that he was limiting the atoning effect of 
the death of Jesus to the sins of Israel (ix. 15, xiii. 12; 
cf. Matt. 1. 21), and the significance of the New Covenant 
entirely to the people of the Old Covenant (viii. 6-13, x. 
16f.). That both the readers and the author belong to 
the Jewish people is proved directly by xii. 13. After 
showing that the Christians cannot expect any material 
advantages from their acts of worship, because the one 
sacrifice upon which their salvation rests is of the nature 
of a sin-offering,—which, according to the law, must be 
burned without the camp,—and, after recalling how this 
idea is in keeping with the history of Jesus’ life, since He 
was crucified outside the gates of Jerusalem,—a criminal 
rejected by His people,—the author adds this exhortation, 
“ Let us therefore go forth unto Him without the camp, 
bearing His reproach. For we have not here an abiding 
city, but we seek after the city which is to come” (n. 9). 
That this is figurative language is, of course, apparent ; 
since the camp in which the Israelites dwelt at the time 
of the wanderings in the desert has long since ceased to 
exist. Nor is it possible to supply in its place the city of 
Jerusalem, since in ver. 12, where Jerusalem is meant, the 
author does not name it, and nothing is said of a city. 
On the other hand, there was nothing to hinder him from 
naming the city instead of the camp in ver. 13. Moreover, 
there was no moral profit in journeying from the Holy City 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 32; 


to the place before the gates of the eity, partieularly since 
it certainly would not lead to Jesus, who was no longer to 
be found before the gates of Jerusalem. What we have 
is therefore a figurative expression in keeping with the 
symbolie language of the entire letter, meaning that the . 
readers were to renounce fellowship with the Jewish people 
who had rejected Jesus, to confess the erucified Jesus, and 
to take upon themselves all the ignominy that Jesus met 
at the hands of His countrymen. This demand is essen- 
tially the same as that in Matt. x. 24-39; Luke xiv. 26 f. ; 
John xii. 25f.; cf. Gal. vi. 14. But in its present form _ 
it was not applicable to Gentiles. These could be exhorted 
not to be ashamed of Christ and the gospel, or to imitate 
Jesus in bearing injustice (1 Pet. u. 21 ff), or to follow 
the example of Jewish Christians in enduring the hostility 
of their countrymen (1 Thess. 11. 14). But where they 
are urged to renounce race affiliations, it is in the form, 
“Come forth from Babylon” (2 Cor. vi. 17; ef. Isa. li. 11, 
xlvii. 20; Rev. xviii. 4; Jer. li. 6). The summons, on 
the other hand, to go forth without the camp of Israel, - 
presupposes that those exhorted have always dwelt there. 
It has been maintained that the Gentile origin of the 
readers is proved by the fact that their conversion in 
time past to the Christian faith is described as a turning 
from dead works, and as faith in God (vi.1; n.7). With 
reference to the second characterisation, it is not to be 
overlooked, in the first place, that the author elsewhere 
describes the same experience as believing in the gospel 
which they had heard (iv. 2 £.; ef. 11. 3), as a fleeing for 
refuge (vi. 18), as receiving the knowledge of the truth 
(x. 26), as a coming to the heavenly Jerusalem and to the 
blood of Jesus by which they were sanctified (xii. 22-24, 
x. 29). Furthermore, in the experience of the Israelites the 
time came, in connection with the gospel, when faith took 
the place of the law (Gal. iii. 23-25), which up to this time 
had dominated their religious life. This is faith in the 


326 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ordinary sense, which is, primarily, faith in God (Mark 
xi. 22; John xiv. 1). So deeply had the emphasis which 
Jesus laid upon faith as the saving power impressed itself 
upon the Jewish Christians, that it gave rise to a false 
application of this truth which was opposed by James 
(ii. 14; vol. 1. p. 126). It cannot be proved that ἔργα νεκρά 
—-an expression occurring nowhere in the Bible except in 
Heb. vi. 1, ix. 14—means sinful conduct of every kind, in 
particular the sins of heathen life or even idolatry (n. 10). 
Universally, the opposite of dead is not pious or good, 
but living. Only those works are living which are ani- 
mated by faith and done under the influence of the life- 
giving Spirit. On the other hand, everything is dead, 
even the conduct which outwardly has the appearance of 
being pious, which lacks spirit and faith, and is therefore 
vain (cf. Jas. i. 26, μάταιος; Matt. xv. 9, μάτην). The 
author, who universally represents the O.T. cultus as of 
divine establishment, although incomplete, cannot any 
more than Paul or Jesus treat the conscientious observance 
of the law as dead works, from which it was necessary 
to turn to God (vi. 1) and to be cleansed by the blood of 
Jesus (ix. 14). But he could speak in this way of conduct 
/ in accordance with the forms of legal piety, void of faith 
and without spiritual power. Those common human sins 
of which Jews and Gentiles alike must repent, and from 
which they must have their consciences cleansed, are mani- 
festly not excluded. But it was only among the Jews that 
these sins had become connected with the observance of a 
formal religion of such a character that the renunciation 
of sin could be called a renunciation of dead works (ef. 
Rom. vii. 4-6). 

In contrast to these dead works are those acts of 
worship (ix. 14)—for this is the meaning of λατρεία and 
Aarpevew in Hebrews (viii. 5, ix. 1, 6, 9, x. 2), as every- 
where else in the N.T. (1 John xvi. 2; Luke ii. 37; Rom. 
i. 9, 25, ix. 4, xii. 1)—which the Christians must render to 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 327. 


the living God throughout their whole life. This worship 
of the Christians is based upon the high-priestly work of 
Christ performed once for all, and consists in constant 
prayer and thanksgiving, in works of mercy, and, generally, 
in a life well-pleasing to God, bearing testimony of the 
gratitude for grace experienced (xii. 28, xiii. 15 f.). The 
work of Christ is everywhere contrasted with the sacri- 
ficial system of the O.T. and the whole Mosaic ceremonial 
law, being represented as a living service which was per- 
formed through the Spirit (vii. 16, 25, ix. 14, x. 20), 
which satisfies the deepest needs of heart and conscience, 
and which truly corresponds to the relations existing 
between men and God. While, on the one hand, in the 
same way true Christian conduct is deseribed in figures 
borrowed from the Mosaic sacrificial system (xii. 28, 
xill. 10, 15 f.), on the other it is represented as being the 
only form of religious service (ix. 14) in keeping with, 
faith in the living God and membership in the common- 
wealth of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (xii. 22), 
By the use of similar figures Paul also describes the 
Christian life to the Jewish Christians of Rome as a 
spiritual service, the offering of a living sacrifice (Rom. 
xii. 1; cf. Phil. iii. 3). Jesus condemned the legalistic 
piety of His fellow-countrymen as impious hypocrisy, and 
compared those who devoted themselves to this life to 
whited sepulchres, and, in contrast to the ceremonialism of 
the temple in Jerusalem or of Gerizim, He demanded a 
spiritual worship in keeping with the spiritual nature of 
God (Matt. xv. 7 ff, xxiii. 27; John iv. 20-24). In the 
same way Paul bids the Jewish Christians in Rome to 
consider that, while under the letter of the law, they 
brought forth fruit unto death, and reminds them that it 
was only through their conversion, new birth, and baptism 
that they were enabled to render a true and living service 
to God (Rom. vii. 6, vi. 11, 17). Now it was just as 
possible for the author of Hebrews as it was for Jesus and 


328 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Paul to contrast the dead works in which the readers 
lived before conversion, while under the law, with the 
service consisting of spiritual sacrifices, which it is their 
duty as Christians now to render to the living God. In 
both these cases the characterisation is applicable only to 
those who were Jews by birth. 
= The Jewish character of the readers is also apparent 
from the contents of the entire letter, in so far as the 
epistle is designed to save the readers from deserting their 
Christian confession. Apostasy from Christianity is a 
personal matter, and it does not need to be said that it is 
for individuals that the author is always primarily con- 
cerned. (This explains the use of tis in i. 12, iv. 1, 11, 
ΧΙ. 15, 16.) These the others are not to leave to their 
fate, but they are to guard them from apostasy by ex- 
hortation and good example (x. 24f., xü. 13, 15; n. 11), 
in order that the evil may not increase (xi. 15). But it 
already had such a hold upon the entire Christian com- 
munity that the writer warns all the readers most earnestly 
against open and complete apostasy from the living God 
and from their Christian confession (ti. 3, 111. 7-iv. 2, vi, 
4-8, x. 26-31, 35-39, xii. 17, 25), with frequent reference 
to the judgment of destruction that will inevitably follow 
such a course. The same condition of things also makes 
him lament their spiritual dulness (v. 11-vi. 2) and their 
religious and moral apathy (xii. 3-13), and leads him 
constantly to exhort them to hold fast their Christian 
confession (iii. 1, iv. 14, x. 23). They are especially 
exhorted to hold fast. their hope in the certain though . 
delayed fulfilment of the promises of God made to His 
people (iii. 6, 14, iv. 1-10, vi. 11-20, x. 35-39, xi. 40, 
xii. 26-28). There is scarcely a word of recognition of 
what was good in their conduct at the time (vi, 10, καὶ 
διακονοῦντες) to soften the severity of this judgment. They 
all lack that ideal power of faith which is illustrated by a 
long series of witnesses from the O.T. and by the perfect 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 329 


example of Jesus (xi. 1-xii. 3), %e. a faith the essential 
quality of which is patient waiting for hoped-for blessings, 
and which finds in itself sufficient proof of invisible real- 
ities (xi. 1). It is for this reason that they find it so 
hard to bear the adversities arising from their Christian 
confession (xii. 4-11, xiii. 13; above, pp. 314 f., 324), so 
insignificant in comparison with what they endured in an 
earlier persecution (x. 32). This explains why, like their 
fathers in the wilderness, they make regretful comparisons 
between what they have lost and gained by the acceptance 
of the gospel (iv. 1; ef. iii. 7-iv. 10). In their disappoint- 
ment they are on the point of giving up, as did Esau for 
a mess of pottage, their birthright which belonged to them 
as Christians (xii. 23) for a mere temporary improvement 
in the conditions of their life (zii. 16). They are about 
ready to treat, what for the Christians must always be most 
sacred, the Son of God and His atoning blood as a common 
thing, and thereby to make themselves guilty of the sin 
of the murderers of Jesus (vi. 6, x. 29). They have not 
yet reached this extreme, but the dissatisfaction with which 
they have necessarily been seized, as their faith in the 
unseen blessings and the hope of future blessings has grown 
less and less, has come to affect their belief in the Redeemer 
Himself (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 19). They found it impossible 
permanently to regard Jesus, who died a common and 
ignominious death and then disappeared from the world, 
and whose promises have remained so long unfulfilled, 
either as God’s final and complete revelation, or as the 
Saviour from sin and death, or as the head of an eternal 
kingdom. It is necessary to show them that Jesus per- 
fectly fulfils for them all these three functions, if only they 
hold fast their faith and profession. The Son of God 
through whom God spoke His final word to them is the 
true apostle of God; since He surpasses in dignity, not 
only all the prophets from Moses on, but even the angels 
through whom the law was given (i. 1-ii. 4; cf. iii. 1-6, 


330 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


xii. 18-29). In order to cleanse the seed of Abraham and 
through them the entire race from sin, to save them from 
death and sustain them in all their weaknesses, He must 
enter fully into fellowship with human life, temptation, 
and mortality (ii. 5-18; ef. iv. 158). It was necessary 
at the close of such a human life, subject to temptation 
and weakness, for Him to offer His life to God, taking 
the place both of priest and sacrifice, and with His own 
blood to enter the Holy Place in the heavens, in order 
perfectly to perform the service which the high priest by 
his official acts had only incompletely foreshadowed, and 
in order, at the same time, to fulfil the promise of a priestly 
kingship and a royal priesthood (iv. 14—x. 18). From the 
material out of which these thoughts are developed, it is 
plain that the readers not only knew the law (Rom. vii. 1; 
vol. 1. 374 f), but that they were accustomed to measure 
everything of the nature of a Divine act or institution by 
the standard of the O.T., especially of the O.T. law. "This 
also proves that they were Jews by birth. 

The danger against which the writer endeavours to 
guard the readers is not a possible falling back into their 
pre-Christian state, 1.6. into a legalistic Judaism, or a 
Judaism in which the coming of the Messiah was expected. 
This idea is precluded by the elaborately developed com- 
parison with the Israelites who wandered in the desert 
(iii. 7-iv. 10), and the short but impressive allusion to Esau 
(xii. 16), and the expressions used to describe the threatened 
apostasy. It would be an apostasy from the living God, 
brought about by the deceitfulness of sin, consisting in a 
state of unbelief (ii. 12 f., x. 26); a falling of such as are 
now standing (vi. 6); a cowardly abandoning of all hope 
in the fulfilment of the Divine promise (x. 35-39 ; ef. iv. 9, 
vi. 12+20); a renunciation of the sacrifice which alone 
has atoning power, without hope and prospect of another 
(x. 26f.); a reviling and erucifying of the Son of God 
without hope of a better king (vi. 6, x. 29). If in spite 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 3251 


of all this they still elung to their Jewish institutions, of 
which we cannot think apart from religion, what they 
possessed would be only a shadow of Judaism, a Judaism 
like that of Caiaphas and his companions (John xix. 15), | 
It is not a false belief, but unbelief, into which they are | 
in danger of sinking. All this makes it clear that the 
readers have not been misled, or are not in danger of 
being misled, by some false gospel, and by teachers of 
such a gospel. If this were the case we should certainly 
have a clear reference to such a danger, such as we find 
throughout Paul’s letters, and also in 2 Peter and Jude. 
It is not until toward the end of the letter, when the 
main discussion gives place to exhortations, the substance 
of which would be appropriate in a letter to any Christians 
whatsoever (xiii. 1-8), that we find this warning: “ Be not 
carried away by diverse and strange teachings, missing 
your goal; for it is good that the heart be established ” 
(n. 12). In expressing this thought the author suggests 
that this takes place by grace. Then follows the rejection 
of the erroneous view that steadfastness of heart is secured 
by the use of certain foods, from which, nevertheless, those 
accepting this doctrine have reaped no profit. This is all 
the data we have for determining what sort of doctrines 
are referred to. It is impossible to derive further material 
for determining the character of these teachings, or the 
specific teaching mentioned by way of example from the 
following section (xiii. 10-16: n. 9), which is both gram- 
matically and logically independent. As contrasted with 
the self-consistent word of God which their deceased 
apostles had brought to the readers, and the word of the 
one immortal Master Teacher, who still abides with them 
(xiii. 7 £.), these teachings are a motley assortment, and 
foreign to the nature of the Christian Church. This could 
not very well be said, especially to Jewish Christians, of the 
regulations of the Mosaic law, e.g. of the Mosaic prohibi- 
tions of the use of certain foods. Nor is it very probable 


332 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


that abstinence from these would be said to establish the 
heart. Still less does the description suit the religious 
meals, such as the Passover meal, or the saerificial meals 
following the peace-offerings. Taking part in the sacrificial 
ceremonies, against which it would certainly have been 
necessary to warn the readers, could not be called a, περυ- 
πατεῖν ἐν βρώμασιν, as has been claimed in the light of ix. 10. 
The language indicates rather a prescribed manner of life 
(n. 12). Now we know that Jewish Christians in Rome 
regarded abstinence from meat and wine as a means of 
imparting steadfastness to the Christian, and keeping him 
from falling (Rom. xiv. 4; cf. xiv. 13, 20, 21, xvi. 25; 
vol. i. p. 365 f.). In Colossze also such rules were recom- 
mended as indispensable means of sanctification where 
men lived in a heathen environment (Col. ii. 8-23 ; vol. i. 
p. 463 f.). Paul, also characterises such abstinence as 
incapable of accomplishing this end, and as generally 
unprofitable (1 Tim. iv. 1-8; Tit. 1. 15f.), while he 
describes the recommendation of such abstinence as foolish 
human commandments and laws (Col. ii. 6-8, 20-22). 
The description of such a manner of life by the positive 
expression ἐν βρώμασιν περιπατεῖν, which to some has 
seemed peculiar, has a parallel in Paul’s statement to the 
effect that ascetics in Rome are vegetarians (Rom. xiv. 2), 
in his holding up before them and their opponents the 
truth that eating and drinking do not constitute the 
essence of the kingdom of God (xiv. 17), and his warning 
to both not to injure a brother for the sake of food (Rom, 
xiy. 15, 20). Both the one who from principle abstained 
from certain foods and the one who used all without ques- 
tion (1 Cor. viii. 8) moved in the sphere of the βρώματα, 
It is evident, therefore, that an ascetic teaching of the 
character represented by Jewish Christians and Jewish 
Christian teachers in Rome, Colossee, Ephesus, and the 
island of Crete had made its appearance also among these 
Hebrews. With this conclusion agrees the exhortation 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 333 


(xiii. 4) τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν, which does not mean that 
those in the married state are to regard it as holy,—this is 
not considered until the following sentence,—but that all, 
especially those who are unmarried and are inclined to 
despise marriage, are to honour this state. There were, 
therefore, those among the Hebrews who from principle 
despised the married life, and consequently all relations 
between the sexes. 

With the assumption that the readers of Hebrews are 
to be sought for in Jerusalem has always been connected 
the idea that they took part in the temple worship after 
as well as before their conversion, and that the author is 
endeavouring to separate them from it, or, if they were on 
the point of resuming it after having broken it off, to 
warn them against it. So deeply rooted was this idea, 
that there were scholars who believed that the readers, who 
were to be found in Alexandria, assumed a similar relation 
to the schismatie worship in the temple at Leontopolis 
(n. 13). With reference to the Christians in Jerusalem, 
we know that from the beginning until their flight from 
Jerusalem shortly before the destruction of the temple, 
under the leadership of their apostles and of James, they 
continued to participate in the temple worship, and gener- 
ally to observe the forms of the Jewish law. But if, in 
the opinion of the author, this constituted a forty years’ 
resistance of the will of God revealed through Jesus, he 
could not have praised the beginning of their faith and 
their earlier Christian life (iii. 14, vi. 10, x. 32f.). Nor 
could he have represented the teachers and leaders who 
left the impression of their personality upon them (xiii. 7, 
il, 3) as models of faith, but must have pictured them 
as warning examples of that stubborn self-will which 
clings to dead works and brings punishment upon itself. 
Naturally, on this hypothesis there could be no question 
of an actual or possible relapse of the readers into Jewish 
worship,—of which, to be sure, there is not the slightest 


334 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


hint in the whole letter, —because the Christians in Jeru- 
salem had never ceased to take part in the temple services. 
The author is not dealing at all with the question as toe 
how the Christian confession was to be combined with 
temple worship, and how, generally, life under the law is 
to be judged,—a question which every Christian. before 
the destruction of Jerusalem had to meet, because of the 
existence of the Church there. If that had been his pur- 
pose, consistency with the theories developed by him 
would seem to demand that he condemn the whole atti- 
tude of the mother Church; and yet, in view of the 
position which Paul took toward the Church in Palestine, 
this would appear to. be historically impossible. Nor 
during the first decades after the destruction could. it be 
forgotten that until recently thousands of the Jewish 
Christians in Palestine had been zealous for the law (Acts 
xxi. 20), or were still so. If the author believed that this 
was no longer right, he must, in the first place, have 
demanded expressly that the readers cease from all observ- 
ance of the law, now that worship according to the law 
was made impossible by the destruction of the temple. 
But he does not refer to this fact, of so much importance 
in determining the attitude of the Palestinian Jewish 
Christians toward the law, nor does he make any such 
demand of them, not even in xiii. 13 (above, p. 324). 
In the second place, tf he did not wish to condemn the 
legalism of the mother Church and of the apostles, which 
he would have the readers give up, he must have excused 
it, either on the ground that it was a weakness, pardon- 
able in their time, or a peculiarity for which there were 
good reasons. In the third place, it would have been 
necessary for him to state that what was accepted as right 
by the entire Church prior to 70, and what was practised 
by an important part of the same, was now no longer to 
be recognised, and for the change of attitude he must have 
given reasons. The fact that none of these things are 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 335 


found in Hebrews, and that none of these questions 
entered the author’s mind, proves that he did not have 
the mother Church in view, and that he is writing to 
Christians who prior to conversion had no connection with 
the Jewish sacrificial worship. Throughout the letter we 
find him speaking, not of a temple or system of worship 
existing in his time at Jerusalem or Leontopolis, but of 
the tabernacle and the worship appointed for it in the 
Pentateuch. It is by this that he and his readers are, to 
measure the service of Christ. Once he speaks of that 
system of worship, and the whole institution of which it 
was a part, as a thing of the past which was already doomed 
by Jeremiah’s time (viii. 7-1x. 10); but, as a rule, he uses 
the present tense, which in a theoretical discussion is most 
natural (n. 13). To conclude from this that the system 
of worship, mutatis mutandis, still existed, would be as 
wrong as to infer from xii, 11, 13 that when Hebrews 
was written the Jewish people did not dwell in towns and 
villages, but in tents. Here, however, we touch questions 
which cannot be answered from Hebrews alone. 

1. (P. 313.) Paul, as well as Peter in 1 Pet. i. 3, begins his letters to the 
Churches regularly with an expression of thanks to God on behalf of the 
readers immediately after the opening greeting. An exception to his habit 
is afforded by Gal., where he uses an expression of indignation at what is 
happening among the readers. The expression of thanks in 2 Tim. i. 3 and 
Philem. 4 passes immediately into a description of his mood toward the 
recipients and an exhortation to them. Paul begins with similar expressions 
of feeling and of exhortation, but without any expression of thanks, in 
ΤῊ 1 ose lit.riap. ln Jas, 12 and im Pet. 1. .o-pi—im the, latter 
without making any grammatical separation—there is in close connection 
with the greeting, a transition to an exhortation of the readers (vol. i. 146, 
n. 1; above, p. 220, n. 10). Jude 3; 2John 4; 3 John 3 (for the greeting is 
not completed till ver. 2); Clem. 1 Cor.i.; Polyc. Phil. i. ; Ep. Smyrn. de mart. 
Polye. i., and all the letters of Ignatius, are begun with a statement of the 
circumstances which led to the writing of the letter. The Epistle of Barnabas, 
also, which begins by prefacing “ All hail!” a form of greeting absolutely 
divergent from what is customary, follows it by an address to the readers, 
and an expression of the feeling of the author toward them. 

2. (P. 317.) Even without the καί before ἡμῶν, xiil. 18, attested by D* 


and its Latin translation and by Chrysostom, there arises the impression 
which is repeated above, p. 316f. The sudden transition from the plural of the 


336 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


first person, xiii. 18 (cf. ii. 5, v. 11, vi. 9, 11)—elsewhere a common’ expression 
of the author’s—to the singular, xiii. 19 (cf. xi, 32, xiii, 22 f.), must have been 
caused by the fact that from ver. 17 on he considers himself to be one of 
those who watch over the spiritual welfare of the readers,—often with sighing, 
—and so, for that reason alone, he keeps the plural; but he also finds the 
“T” more natural, where he comes to speak of his outward circumstances and 
of his impending journey. Just as in xiii. 8 the eternally living and un- 
changeable Christ is presented as the immortal teacher in contrast to the 
preachers who pass away, so the Jesus who has been raised to heaven from 
the world of the dead is contrasted with the earthly readers and ministers 
who come and go, as the great Shepherd of the sheep, xiii. 20 (cf. 1 Pet. ii. 25, 
v. 4; John x. 11-18), 2.6. as the ever-present regent and minister of His 
whole Church on earth. The author was and is still to a certain extent one 
of these. 

3. (P. 317.) With vi. 10, διακονήσαντες τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ διακονοῦντες, ef. 
the expressions used with reference to the collections for the Jerusalem con- 
gregation, 2 Cor. vill. 4, ix. 1, τῆς διακονίας τῆς eis τοὺς ἁγίους ; ix. 12 (cf. also 
ver. 13), ἡ διακονία τῆς λειτουργίας ταύτης . . . τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν ἁγίων ; 1 Cor, 
xvi. 1, τῆς λογίας τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους, evidently also xvi. 15, εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς 
ἁγίοις ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς ; furthermore, Rom. xv. 26, κοινωνίαν τινὰ ποιήσασθαι 
εἰς τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῶν ἁγίων τῶν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ; XV. 31, ἡ διακονία μου ἡ εἰς 
Ἱερουσαλὴμ εὐπρόσδεκτος τοῖς ἁγίοις, perhaps also Rom. xii. 18, ταῖς χρείαις τῶν 
ἁγίων κοινωνοῦντες (on the contrary, not Philem. vv. 5-7; vol. i. p. 455, n. 2); 
also Acts xi. 29f., xii. 25, xxiv. 17; Gal. 11. 10; vol.i. p.310f. According to 
the usage well attested here, οἱ ἅγιοι, even without any geographical refer- 
ence, signifies the Christian community of the “ Holy City” (Matt. iv. 5, 
xxvii. 53; Rev. xi. 2, xxi. 2, 10, xxii. 19), without the words necessarily 
having ceased to signify the Christians generally in distinction from the non- 
Christians (1 Cor. vi. 1f.; Col. i. 12; Jude 3; Rev. xiii. 7), especially with 
πάντες (Eph. i. 15, iii. 18, vi. 18; 1 Cor. xiv. 33). This attribute would also 
not be wanting in Heb. vi. 10, if, in contrast to the mutual support of those 
addressed, the extension of their practical love to the whole of Christendom 
was to be praised ; cf. 1 Thess. iii. 12f.; Col. i. 5; Philem. 5. The ἅγιοι 
without an article in 1 Tim. v. 10 is not a parallel case. 

4. (Pp. 318, 320.) Clemens Romanus, circa 96, includes in the address to his 
readers the Corinthians of the years 52-57 with the members of the “old 
Church of the Corinthians” of that time (1 Cor, xlvii., cf. chap. i.) ; similarly 
also Polycarp, circa 110, includes the Philippian Christians of his time with 
those of the time of Paul (Polye. Phil. xi. 3; cf. Forsch. iv. 251 ff.); while at 
the same time he very clearly distinguishes “the men of that time” from the 
people of the present. In this respect there is nothing to be compared with 
the expression of Heb., save the way in which Paul, without taking account 
of single deaths and new conversions, identifies the Christians who were 
converted by him at the founding of a congregation with the members of 
the same congregation at the time of writing the letter (1 Cor. ii. 1-5, iv. 15; 
2 Cor. i. 19; Phil. iv. 10-16). 

5. (P. 319.) Heb. x. 32-34. On the text of ver. 34 see above, p. 312, 
n. 14. Aside from the false δεσμοῖς μου instead of δεσμίοις the text is given 
by Clemens Alexandrinus exactly as by the modern textual critics. Accord. 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 337 


ing to vi. 4 (cf. Eph. iii. 9; Just. Dial. exxii,, twice ; especially of baptism 
φωτισμός and φωτίζεσθαι, Apol. i. 61), φωτισθέντες signifies conversion to 
Christianity. But inasmuch as no ἄρτι (1 Thess. iii. 6; Matt. ix. 18>, cf. 
1 Pet. ii. 2) or προσφάτως (Acts xviii. 2) accompanies it, it cannot have also 
the meaning of νεόφυτοι (1 Tim. iii. 6) or νήπιοι ἐν Χριστῷ (1 Cor. iii. 1). 

6. (P, 320.) For the exegesis of Heb. iii. 7-19, very little can be re- 
marked here: (1) The stylistic ability of the writer forbids the hypothesis 
that the clause beginning with διό is not to be continued until ver, 12, so that 
all that is between would be a parenthesis, or that the clause introduced by 
διό has been left out altogether. The parenthetic insertion is limited to 
the words καθὼς λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, beyond which, just as with a 
parenthetical καθῶς γέγραπται, John vii. 38, Rom. iii. 4, xv. 3, 21, 1 Cor. 
i. 31, i, 9, the statement before begun—in this instance the statement begun 
by the author with 60—is resumed. The situation here is not essentially 
different from that in passages where a καθὼς γέγραπται and similar expres- 
sions. without a following citation are joined on tothe statement proper 
(Rom. ii. 24 ; John i. 23), or, where the author does not say at all that he is 
employing words from other writings, 1 Pet. i, 24, 11. 7, iü. 10-12; Rom. 
x. 6-8. (2) For this reason the author, contrary to his custom of using 
formal quotations, reproduces the O.T, text with conscious freedom. Without 
alluding to what is doubtful, he has, by the insertion of a διό, given the 
chronological reference to what precedes ; furthermore, by changing ἐκείνῃ 
after τῇ γενεᾷ to ταύτῃ, he has shown that he means not the Israelites of the 
Mosaic age, but a generation of the Jewish people much nearer him and his 
readers. The former change seems so much the more intentional from the 
fact that the author, in explaining the words of the psalm according to their 
original historical sense, restores also the original connection of the words 
(προσώχθισεν τεσσεράκοντα ἔτη, iii. 17). (3) If we recognise, e.g. with Bleek, 
Heb. ii. 436 ff., 440 ; Delitzsch, Komm. 119 £.; Grimm, ZfW Th, 1870, S. 31, that 
the author refers to the forty years since the death of J esus, which Hofmann, 
v..167, has called a venturesome exegesis, we must not conclude that the 
letter was written circa 70, and that the readers have had opportunity for 
forty years to contemplate the works of the N.T. redemption. The latter is 
impossible, because this is said not of the readers, but of their forefathers, 1,6. 
of the Jewish people ; the former, because the end of the forty years and the 
visible realisation of the Divine oath against the unbelieving, which was 
manifested in the destruction of Jerusalem, must have been behind the 
author, if he is supposed to have spoken in this sense, or in this double sense, 
of the forty years and of the exclusion of the unbelieving Jews on account of 
their forty years of unbelief, from the Sabbath rest of the people of God. It 
is unlikely that, among other notions of the old rabbis, the idea of a forty 
years’ duration of the days of the Messiah, depending in part on Ps. χουν. 10 
(Bleek, ii. 439 ; Delitzsch, 119; Weber, Jüd. Theol., $ 82) should have been in 
the mind of the author ; for the “ days of the Son of Man” (Luke xvii, 22, οἵ, 
Heb. ν. 7) were terminated for him, on the one hand, by the death of Jesus ; 
on the other hand, they were still in the future, and in yet another sense 
endless (xiii. 8). But the utilisation of the forty years of Heb. iii. 9 for the 
chronology seems to the present writer to be much better justified by the 
character of Heb. as a whole and especially by the character of this section, 

VOL. 11. : 22 


338 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ 'THE NEW TESTAMENT 


than when it is concluded from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Act 1 
Scene 3, “’Tis since the earthquake now eleven years,” that this drama was 
written in the year 1591. 

7. (Pp. 323, 325.) “ Epist. vulgo ad Hebreos inscriptam non ad Hebreos, 
sed ad Christianos genere gentiles et quidemad Ephesios datam esse demon- 
strare conatur,” E. M. Roeth, 1836. This thesis is maintained with character- 
istically confused and extravagant rabbinical learning, and with a profusion 
of new interpretations of N.T. passages (sixty-three of which are enumerated 
in a special index, 5. 265f.) ; cf. below, n. 10. Roeth, p. 256 f., was led to 
think of Ephesus by the words θέατρον, Acts xix. 29, and θεατριζόμενοι, Heb. 
x. 33. V. Soden (JbfPTh, 1884, S. 435 ff., 627 ff.) also contested the Jewish 
‘nationality of the readers, and thought that Heb. could be understood as a 
circular letter to the preponderatingly Gentile Christian congregations of 
Italy, including those of Rome (especially S. 647-652). Cf. per contra, 
Grass, Ist der Hb. an Heidenchristen gerichtet? Petersburg, 1892. 

8. (P. 324.) It follows from ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ev υἱῷ (i. 1) that the author 
and the readers, who as individuals have not heard the preaching of Jesus 
(ii. 3), belong to the people of the circumcision, whose servant Jesus was all 
through His ministry ; cf. Rom. xv. 8. God, or Christ, speaks to the heathen 
through the apostles. Cf. 2 Cor. v. 19f.; Eph. iii. 7; Rom. x. 12-15 ; also 
Clem. 1 Cor, xlii. 1. Christ is in a way the mouth by which God has spoken, 
and the word 'which He has caused to go forth into the world (Ign. Rom. 
viii. 2; Magn. viüi. 2) ; but the Gentile Christians of the old time do not say : 
“Christ has spoken to us.” He is to them always the Christ preached, and 
even the idea that He was the apostle sent of God into the world (Heb. iii. 1) 
is noticeably unobtrusive. 

9. (Pp. 324, 331.) A fundamental condition of the correct exegesis of xiii. 
10-16 is a recognition of the fact that the tabernacle must be of the same im- 
portance as the altar ; in other words, that it is not definitely stated that the 
Jewish priests, or indeed the Jews who cling fast to the Mosaic cultus, had 
no part in the Christian institution of salvation. Inasmuch as Christ is con- 
sidered here not as a priest officiating at the sanctuary (viii. 2), but simply 
as a sacrifice, only those Christians whose altar is concerned can be called 
of τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες, f.e. priests who there offer sacrifice (cf. ix. 14, xii. 28, 
xiii. 15 f.; Rom. xii: 1; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9; Rev. i. 6, v. 10, viii. 3). They are to 
bear in mind that they, in contrast to the O.T. priests who derived their 
support also from their altar (1 Cor. ix. 13), have no such advantage to 
expect from their cultus ; for the offering, upon which their whole relation 
to God is based, is like that of the Day of Atonement, from which no priest 
and no layman had anything to look for but forgiveness of sins (see above, 
p. 324). ‘The expression for the N.T. facts which are brought to mind, and 
for the demand which is based upon them, is borrowed, on the one hand, 
from the gospel story, and, on the other hand, from the Mosaic age and its 
institutions, and, in so far as the latter is the case, is quite as consciously 
anachronistic as xi. 26 is the ‘opposite. Moses bore the shame of Christ in 
tHat he renounced the honourable position among the Egyptians which he 
possessed from earliest childhood, and attached himself to his own people. 
The Hebrews of tlie present are to take upon themselves the shame of Christ, 
by renouncing their connection with the Jewish people, to whom they belong 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 339g 


by birth, and by their confession of the crucified Christ to take to themselves 
the same hatred and the same abuse which this people had heaped upon 
Jesus (cf. xii, 2f.; Rom. xv. 3). 

10. (P. 326.) In the misinterpretation of Heb. v. 12-vi. 2, Roeth, 218- 
239, has gone the furthest astray. By the λύγια τοῦ θεοῦ he understood 
the Messianic prophecies, while the whole revelation of the Word of God, 
including that of the N.T., is meant (cf. Heb. i, 1, ii. 8, iv. 2, vi. 5, xiii. 735 
Rom. iii. 2), and found it inconceivable that those who were Jews by birth 
had first to be instructed in them. Cf. per contra, e.g. Matt. ix. 13, xii. 3-8, 
xxii, 29, 42 f.; Luke xxiv. 26f., 44 f.; John v. 46, xx: 9; Acts ii. 16-35, iii. 
21-25, vil, 2-53, xiii. 16-39, xvii. 3, xxviii. 23. But, as far as the words ἔργα 
νεκρά are concerned, it is well known that the gods of the heathen, not in the 
N.T. to be sure, but elsewhere, are said at times to be dead (Ps. evi. 98 ; cf. 
exv. 4ff.; Wisd. Sol. xiii. 10; Didache vi. 3); and one is reminded of the 
instances in which God, in contrast to the idols, is called the Living God, 
1 Thess. 1.9; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Acts xiv. 15. But He is also so called even where 
the contrast with unbelieving or legalising Judaism obtains or is obvious, 
Matt. xvi. 16; Rom. ix. 26; 2 Cor. iii. 3-11; cf. Matt, xxii. 32; Luke xx. 
38 ; John vi. 57. In Heb. ix. 14, also, any thought of the λατρεία τῶν εἰδώλων 
is far from the intent of the passage, as the whole context shows. On the 
contrary, it is rather the O.T. λατρεία (ix. 1, 9, 21) that underlies the thought. 
Furthermore, in Heb. xii. 22 the heavenly Jerusalem is called a city of the 
Living God, not in contrast to Babylon or Rome, but to the earthly J erusalem, 
in which God no more reveals Himself as the Living One. In Heb. iii. 12, 
x. 31, 1 Tim. iii. 15, iv. 10, the contrast with false gods is as impossible as in 
Ps. xlii. 3. Besides, the condition of men who remain in heathendom and in 
heathen sinfulness of life may perhaps be characterised as spiritual. death 
(Col. ii. 13; Eph. ii. 1, 5, v. 14); but so also is the condition of the Jews 
who do not yet believe in Jesus (Matt. viii. 22, cf. xxiii. 27; John v. 24, 40, 
viii. 21, 52), and essentially the same is said of Jewish Christians in Rom. vi. 
4-11 as is said of Gentile Christians in Col. ii.12f. But the former depraved 
life of Christians who had come from a state of heathendom is nowhere 
characterised as a dead or lifeless way of living, but always alluded to in 
other terms, 6.0. 1 Cor. vi. 9-11 ; Gal. vi. 16-21; Col. 11. 5 ff., v. 3-14; 1 Pet. 
i, 14-18, iv. 2-5. 

11. (P.328.) The μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες τὴν ἐπισυναγωγὴν ἑαυτῶν: of Heb. 
x. 25 by way of contrast has both before it and after it, on the part of those 
who are still firm in faith, an exhorting and inciting of others who are in 
danger of falling away. It cannot be said, therefore, that in many cases the 
tendency toward falling away had already shown itself in the habit of neglect- 
ing to attend the Christian assembly. The contrast would then have been: 
“Neglect not the assembling of yourselves together, but visit the services 
of the congregation and listen there to words of exhortation.” This habit 
of neglecting attendance upon the gatherings shows itself much more in the 
case of those who perhaps would be in a position to strengthen the wavering 
and “to heal that which is lame” (xii. 13). Instead of fulfilling this duty 
and of taking the part of the weak (cf. Rom. xv. 1f.), they abandon the 
assembly to which they belong, and the brethren who meet there; for their 
action is called ἐγκαταλείπειν (2 Tim. iv. 10, 16; 2 Cor. iv. 9; Heb. xiii, 5), 


340 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


in distinction from καταλείπειν. What they do is from lack of love and 
from ill-feeling toward those with whom they have to associate, and in a 
spirit against which the author himself has to be upon his guard in his 
relations with the readers (cf. v. 11-vi. 9),—a spirit which he holds to be 
possible in the case of their leaders also (xiii. 17). The result of this is that 
the purpose of ἑαυτῶν after τὴν ἐπισυναγωγήν---ἃ term which at all events is 
not the equivalent of ἡμῶν, or, in the sense of τινές, equal to a’ray—is not 
to aflirm that those Christians absent themselves from the Christian meetings, 
while they visit the Jewish synagogues, Those who had departed so far from 
the faith could not be called upon to exhort the others. The contrast to that 
assembly to which the Christians in question belong can lie only in other 
Christian assemblies of the same place ; as to these see below, 8 47. Further- 
more, ἐπισυναγωγή (2 Mace. ii. 7) means, at any rate, not the place of meeting, 
for which συναγωγή is the technical expression, nor perhaps the individual 
assembly (or as 2 Thess. ii. 1, the union in a passive sense), for which only 
the plural would be natural, but the assembled congregation (cf. vol. i. p. 94), 
to which ἐγκαταλείπειν is most appropriate. 

12. (Pp. 331, 332.) Heb.xiii. 9. Luther’s otherwise masterful translation 
fails only in rendering the aorist ὠφελήθησαν incorrectly. Along with this 
the present περιπατοῦντες is, with 8*A D%*, to be retained—the idea being that 
there are at the present time people of this manner of life, though it has 
already become evident that they do not attain their purpose. In the N.T. 
περιπατεῖν is used of the daily manner of life thirty-two times in Paul’s 
writings, ten times in the letters of John (cf. Acts xxi. 21)—in fact, always in 
this sense in the N.T.—apart from the passages where it is used in its literal 
meaning. 

13. (Pp. 333, 335.) In regard to the description in the present tense of the 
ceremonial acts prescribed in the Mosaic law, and all that is connected with 
them (Heb. v. 1-4, vii. 5, 8, 20, viii. 3-5, ix. 6-10, 22, x. 1-4, 8, 11, xiii. 11), 
it is to be noticed that (1) the same form of expression is quite commonly found 
in writings which, without any doubt, were written after the year 70. It is 
so in Josephus’ works, where he portrays the Mosaic institutions, Ant. iii. 7. 
1 ff., 9. 1 ff.; indeed, it is so in his apology on behalf of Judaism (Contra Apion. 
ii, 23), where he even speaks in imperative futures and imperatives, as 
though the service of the high priest and the priests would continue still in 
time to come. So Clement, 1 Cor, xl. xli. ; Plutarch, Quest. conviv. iv. 6. 2, 
and the Talmud. (2) Pressing the use of the present tense would lead to the 
absurdities that the priests, according to ix. 6 f., still serve in the tabernacle, 
as they are described together with their utensils in ix. 1-5, and that the sin- 
offering of the Day of Atonement is still burnt before the tents in the wilder- 
ness (xiii. 11), and that Melchizedek still serves.as priest-king (vii. 3). (3) 
Preceding and together with these expressions in the present tense, occur in 
decisive passages, imperfeets and other forms which show that what is 
described as present really belongs to the past (ix. 1f., ii. 2), (4) From ix. 9, 
where an especially strong proof of the continuance of the temple cultus has 
been found, rather the contrary is to be concluded. Of course, much in this 
connection is yet in debate among commentators. But, according to the 
definite statements of ix. 2 f., 6f., the “ first tabernacle” of ix. 8 can only be 
the Holy Place in contrast to the Holy of Holies, and τὰ ἅγια means not 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 341 


(contrary to the usage of ix. 2) the Holy of Holies, the entrance to which was 
by no means unknown or closed (ix. 7), but only the true sanctuary into 
which Jesus was the first to find and open the way (vi. 20, viii. 2, ix. 12, 
x. 19f.). The time when the approach to the true sanctuary was not yet 
known, because the Holy Place still existed (ix. 8), is for the author time past, 
because he knows and believes that Jesus has entered into that true sanctuary, 
that He has opened the way to it, and made it known (ix. 11f., x. 19f.). He 
calls this, for the Christians, past time ὁ καιρὸς 6 eveornkos from the stand- 
point of the Holy Spirit, who uses the legal cultus as a means of instruction, 
and in the sense of all the presents in ix. 6-9. This period of the legal cultus 
has its limits at the καιρὸς διορθώσεως (ix. 10). If, beyond all question, how- 
ever, this epoch has already begun through the high-priestly function of 
Christ, then the καιρός which, from the standpoint of the Holy Spirit who 
taught through Moses (ix. 9) was spoken of as present, has thereby reached its 
close. The Holy Place, or the division of the sanctuary by its separating 
curtain, is no more. To be sure, this is understood primarily in an ideal 
sense, 1.96. for the faith of the Christians. But the expression in ver. 8, 
especially the ἔτι which, according to vv. 10-12, has become for the Chris- 
tians an οὔκετι, must seem very unnatural to us, if in the author’s day a 
temple with that division into a Holy Place and a Holy of Holies, still existed. 
The hypothesis that the readers of Heb. were still connected with the temple 
of Leontopolis which Wieseler, Unters. ii. 81 ff.; ThStKr, 1867, S. 665 ff., has 
zealously defended, hardly finds a representative to-day. All the presupposi- 
tions upon which it is based are untenable, namely (1) that the readers had 
anything at all to do with any temple cultus ; (2) that the author describes, 
or has in mind, a Jewish temple and cultus, still existing somewhere in his 
day ; (3) that the alleged contradictions between the statements in Heb. re- 
garding the tabernacle and the arrangement of the temple in Jerusalem, 
find their solution in the supposition of a reference to the temple in, Leon- 
topolis, concerning whose interior arrangement and cultus we know very 
little (ef. the literature in Schiirer, iii. 99 [Eng. trans. τι. ii. 2877); (4) that 
in Philo, who never mentions this temple, but, on the contrary, looks upon 
the temple at Jerusalem as the only sanctuary of the Jewish people (de Mon. 
ii. 1-3, and in Eus. Prep. ev. viii. 14, 64), there should occur for the same 
reason—that he has in mind the temple in Leontopolis—departures from 
the ordinances of the Pentateuch and from the cultus at Jerusalem similar 
to those in Heb., ef. per contra, PRE® vii. 500f.; Grimm, Z/WTh, 1870, 8. 
57-66, who, however, has misjudged the “literary carelessness” in Heb. vii. 
27, ix. 4f., x. 11; on which ef. below, § 47, n. 14, 


§ 47. READERS, DATE, AND AUTHOR OF THE 
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


It is so clear from § 46 that Hebrews was not directed 
to the Church in Jerusalem shortly before or shortly after 
the year 70, that it is only necessary to summarise a 


342 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


number of observations. (1) If Hebrews was written to 
the Church in Jerusalem shortly before or shortly after 
the year 70, the legalism practised by the Jewish Christians 
in Palestine, and particularly the participation of the 
mother Church, its teachers and leaders, in the temple 
worship, would not have been passed over so lightly, 
while at the same time they are so severely condemned, 
z.e. if the letter is supposed to answer the question as to 
how the Christian confession was to be combined with the 
cultus of the Jewish temple, which as a matter of fact it does 
not ask (above, p. 333f.). . (2) The very great poverty 
of the mother Church, which necessitated the frequent 
sending of money for its relief by Christian Churches 
abroad, proves that they could not have exercised charity 
to other Churches in the noteworthy way for which they 
are praised in vi. 10. On the other hand, it is clear that 
it was the mother Church which was so largely benefited 
by the charity of the readers of Hebrews (above, p. 337). 
(3) Until it was banished from Jerusalem, the mother 
Church had in its membership not a few persons who 
heard the preaching of Jesus. Consequently the Church 
could not be treated as one which owed its faith to the 
preaching of the disciples of Jesus (11. 4, xiii. 7; above, 
p. 315) (4) It could not be said of the Church in 
Jerusalem by way of reproof, that because of its age it 
ought to be capable of instructing others in the knowledge 
of “galwation and was under obligation to do the same, 
since in rich measure the Church had always done so 
(Acts viii. 4, xi. 19 ff). Even after Antioch became an 
independent centre of missionary effort among the Gentiles, 
missionaries continued to go from Jerusalem to Galatia, 
Corinth, and Rome (vol. i. pp. 167 f., 288 f., 442, 540); and 
Paul, who had reason enough to be dissatisfied with many 
of these wandering teachers, nevertheless regarded the 
Church in Jerusalem as the source of the gospel, to which 
the Gentile Church was under obligation out of grateful 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 343 


love to send back their gifts (Rom. xv. 27; ef. per contra, 
1 Cor. xiv. 36). (5) On the supposition that the letter 
is addressed to the Church in Jerusalem, it is necessary to 
assume that the persecution referred to in x. 32 ff. is that 
in which Stephen lost his life, and that in xiii. 7 reference 
is perhaps. made to Stephen, James the son of Zebedee, 
and James the brother of the Lord. But how is it 
possible to speak, as in x. 32, of these martyrdoms which 
took place in the years 35, 44, and 66 respectively, and of 
the accompanying sufferings of the Church (cf. Acts viii. 
1-3, xi. 19, xu. 1-4; 1 Thess. ii. 14), as a single persecu- 
tion belonging to the comparatively remote past? If 
Hebrews were directed to the Church which reassembled 
in Jerusalem after the year, 70 under Simeon, the cousin 
of James, the temporary banishment of the Church from 
Jerusalem, and the sufferings which the. Christians un- 
doubtedly experienced in withdrawing “from the camp” 
of Israel, would be included, But a letter to this Church, 
written before the year 90, as was certainly the case with 
Hebrews (see below), must have taken cognisance of the 
events of the year 70, which affected so deeply the life 
of the Church. 

It would be more plausible to assume that Hebrews 
was addressed to a group of Jewish Christian Churches 
outside of Jerusalem, but in Palestine or the adjoining 
regions, possibly, the readers of 2 Peter and of Jude, who 
are partly identical with the readers of James (n. 1). But 
there is no suggestion in these letters of any dispositions 
or propensities existing in this Church from which. the 
state.of mind among the readers apparent in Hebrews 
could have developed, These Christians were threatened 
only by influences from. without coming from Gentile 
Christian circles; and the libertines, who also despised 
prophecy, seem not to have ventured to criticise it directly 
among Jewish Christians (above, p. 279 f.), Moreover, the 
first two reasons given above, against the supposition that 


344 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Hebrews was intended for the mother Church, hold alse 
against its having been intended for any other Church in 
Palestine. The poverty, relief of which was laid as an 
obligation upon the liberality of the Gentile Christian 
Churches, could hardly have been confined to the city 
of Jerusalem (Acts xi. 29, τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ 
ἀδελφοῖς), and we have no knowledge that the Jewish 
Christian Churches south of Antioch took part in that 
collection. 

Only when it is assumed that Hebrews is addressed to 
Gentile Christian readers is it possible to suppose that it 
was meant for the Church in Ephesus (above, p. 338, n. 7). 
Others have assumed that it was intended for the Church 
in Antioch (n. 2). But, according to Acts xv. 1, 23, 
Gal. π. 1-14, this Church, even before the council. in 
Jerusalem, must have become so thoroughly Gentile in 
character, that the Jewish Christian minority had adopted 
both the morals and the views of the Gentile Christian 
majority. Judging from analogy, the Church in Bercea 
(above, p. 305, n. 2), like the other Churches in Macedonia, 
must have been at an early date one of the “Churches of 
the Gentiles” (Rom. xvi. 4, xv. 26f.). For a long time 
more favour was accorded the suggestion that the readers 
were to be sought in or near Alexandria (n. 3). When, 
however, the additional hypothesis that the readers were 
adherents of the temple at Leontopolis is rejected as being 
inconsistent with the contents of Hebrews (above, pp. 333, 
341), this view has nothing left to support it. Of the 
history of the HKeyptian Church before the time of 
Panteenus and Clement we know practically nothing. It 
is possible that in the first century it contained larger 
Jewish Christian elements, and that influences from 
Palestine were stronger than we are able to discover from 
the later development (n. 4). But this conjecture remains 
only a bare possibility. 

On the other hand, the conjecture that Hebrews was 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 345 


intended for Jewish Christians in Italy, or more specific- 
ally in Rome, can be said to be probable (n. 5). "The 
reasons which support this hypothesis are as follows : 
(1) It is possible if necessary to take the words in xiii. 24, 
ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, to mean that the author 
was at some point in Italy, and that only Italian Christians 
were about him, from all of whom he sends greeting to 
the readers. However, if this is the case, it is strange 
that he does not designate these Christians either as the 
brethren or saints about him, or as the Church of the place 
where he is staying (1 Pet. v. 13), but instead calls them 
persons from Italy, thus simply indicating their nationality. 
Such an expression would be natural only if, from among 
the Christians who are about him, the author distinguishes 
those from Italy. But this would presuppose that at the 
time both he and they were outside of Italy, and that 
these Christians from Italy were closely related to the 
readers, or that the readers had a special interest for those 
sending greeting because the latter were Italians (ef. Phil. 
iv. 22). This interest is most naturally explained if those 
to whom the greeting was sent were also Italians. They 
are greeted by their countrymen (n. 6). (2) At the 
beginning of the year 58, when Paul wrote to the Romans, 
the Church was made up of a large majority of native 
Jews and a small minority of Gentiles, so small that the 
whole Church could be uniformly addressed as a Jewish 
Christian Church (vol. 1. pp. 421-434). When this rela- 
tion between Jews and Gentiles was reversed we do not 
know. But we do know that while Paul was in prison in 
Rome, Jewish Christian missionaries of various kinds were 
at work in the city (Col. iv. 11; Phil. 1. 14 ff. ; vol. i. pp. 
442, 540), and we may assume that these laboured espeei- 
ally for the conversion of their own countrymen. It is 
hardly likely that the large Jewish majority in the Roman 
Church was completely reversed before the year 80. It 
has been conjectured, not without reason, that Clement, 


346 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the author of the letter of the Romans to the Corinthians 
about the year 96 was a Jew by birth; and this was even 
more probable in the case of Hermas, the contemporaneous 
author of the Shepherd (n. 7). Assuming as proved that 
these two Roman writers were familiar with James, and 
that Paul saw fit to take cognisance of this letter in 
Romans (vol. 1. 126 f£, 131 f.), more than ordinary import- 
ance attaches to the fact that beyond question Clement 
of Rome was familiar with Hebrews, and in all probability 
Hermas also (n. 7). A knowledge of James, which was 
addressed to Christians of Palestine and the neigh- 
bouring regions about the year 50, was brought to 
Rome by these Christians, who constituted the nucleus 
of the Roman Church (vol. 1. 126, 428 1). The exact 
acquaintance which Clement and Hermas have with 
Hebrews, which was written much later, and which was 
not accepted and circulated in Rome as an Epistle of Paul 
(above, p. 301 f.), is explained naturally only on the sup- 
position that Hebrews was first received by the Roman 
Christians. In the year 58 the Jewish majority of the 
Roman Church clung with fondness to their people, and 
were deeply grieved that the Jewish people, the majority 
of whom persisted in rejecting the gospel, were losing 
ground in Christendom just as they were declining nation- 
ally and politically. They were still open to many Jewish 
prejudices against the gospel. It was possible for the 
feelings which Paul contends against throughout the whole 
of Romans, especially those encountered in Rom. ix.—xi. 12, 
to subside, but they could also have developed to that 
degree of bitterness which we meet in Hebrews. As early 
as the year 58 there was a party among the Roman 
Christians who regarded abstinence from flesh and wine 
as necessary for steadfastness in the Christian life. We 
encounter exactly the same tendency again in Heb. xiii. 9 
(above, p. 331 f.), while the related movement of which we 
are informed in Col. ii, 8-13 is based upon different ideas. 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 347 


The view here advocated, namely, that Hebrews was in- 
tended for Roman Christians, is also supported by the fact 
that in Romans the Romans (vol. 1. p. 427), and in Hebrews 
the Hebrews (above, pp. 328 f., 339, n. 11), were not in any 
way associated in worship with the Jews in their localities. 
It also deserves notice that the use of the word ἡγούμενοι 
(Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24) to designate the heads of the con- 
gregation, which was not common among the Pauline 
Churches, was retained in Rome (above, p..124, n. 5). 
The use of the expression ἐπισυναγώγή τινων (Heb. x. 25) 
to designate the separate assembly of Christians, finds a 
parallel in the words used by the Roman Hermas (Mand. 
Xl. 9), συναγωγή ἀνδρῶν δικαίων (ef. vol. 1. 94). (3) What 
is suggested in Hebrews with regard to the history of its 
readers suits the Roman Christians. If the gospel was 
brought to Rome for the first time about the year 50 by 
Jewish Christians who came hither from Jerusalem (vol. 1. 
p. 428 f.), if these were followed in the succeeding decade 
by other Christians of the same nationality (Col. iv. 10 f.), 
and if, finally, Peter came to Rome as a missionary 
preacher, there is ample foundation for what is said. in 
Heb. 11. 8. The reference in Heb. xii. 7 is primarily to 
Peter, but also to Paul, and perhaps to others, of the 
numerous Roman teachers (Col. iv. 10£.; Phil. 1. »14 ff.) 
with whose end we are not acquainted. The days of severe 
persecution, which after their conversion the “ Hebrews” 
so bravely endured (x. 32-34), are the days of Nero. In 
view of the descriptions of Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) and of 
Clement (above, pp. 61 ἢ, 68 f.), and the echoes. of this 
persecution in Rey. xvii. 6, xvill. 20, 24, the expression 
used in Hebrews (x. 33, @earpıdöwevo.) is not too Strong, nor 
when rightly understood is it too weak (above, p. 318 f.). 
This hypothesis also explains why the writer remarks 
expressly that they endured this persecution after their 
conversion, thereby implying a contrast to other sufferings 
which they encountered before their conversion (above, 


348 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


p. 319). Some twelve years before Nero’s persecution of 
the Christians, the Jews were driven from Rome by 
Claudius (vol. i. pp. 427 f., 433). Among these the Jews 
who subsequently became Christians, as Aquila, had suffered 
(Acts xviii. 2). Why should we stretch our imaginations in 
order to find a Church to which these allusions in Hebrews 
will apply, when in the events preceding the founding of the 
Roman Church and the history of the Church we can find 
the requisite facts. It is also very easy to understand 
how the members of the oldest Roman Church, because of 
their close relation with the Christian communities in 
Palestine (vol. i. p. 428 f.), exercised charity toward the 
poor Christians in Palestine without it being necessary for 
Paul to urge them (Rom. xii. 13, ef. xv. 25-32) to 46 80, 
and so deserved the praise accorded them in Heb. vi. 10. 
(4) If Heb. x. 25 has been correctly interpreted (above, 
p. 339 f.), it is necessary to seek the readers in a large 
city where the Christians were wont to assemble in 
several. places. Many of the readers are beginning to 
absent themselves from those places of worship which 
they had always been accustomed to attend, not because 
they intended to leave off attending Christian worship, 
and also not because they wished to attend the Jewish 
synagogues instead, but in order that they might visit 
some other Christian assembly in the same city where 
they could find greater edification. The author condemns 
this, because he thinks that those Christians whose religion 
is vital ought rather to stay at their post and strengthen 
and encourage their brothers who are weak in faith, and 
not to withdraw from’ them in discontent, leaving them to 
their fate in a loveless spirit, in order selfishly to connect 
themselves with another Christian congregation where 
they found more satisfaction. Hebrews was not directed 
to the entire Church of a large city. Were this the 
case, it would be difficult to explain the lack of a greet- 
ing if this were originally a part of the letter (above, 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 349 


Ρ. 812 f.), and also the history of Hebrews in the Church, 
especially the ancient title πρὸς ᾿Εβραίους. According to 
the analogy of all N.T. and post-apostolic language (2 Cor. 
vio Lhgyl Lhess,- i) 152 Thess. 4,1; Phil. ἀν, 115 ;-Clem. 
1 Cor, xlvii. 6; Ign. Eph. vii. 1, xi. 2; Magn. xv. ; 
Trall. xiii. ; Philad. xi.), and especially in keeping with 
the external titles of letters, the readers of Hebrews would 
have been described as the inhabitants of their city if they 
had been the only Christians in their locality. The same 
would have been true if these Hebrews had lived scattered 
over a whole country, but had constituted the whole body 
of Christians in the region (ef. Gal. 1. 2, 11. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 
19; 2 Cor. 1. 1, vii. 1, ix. 2; Rom. xv. 26). The whole 
body of Christians in a province or large city could hardly 
have been so homogeneous as regards their condition of 
faith and their frame of mind as the readers of Hebrews 
are everywhere represented as being, especially in passages 
like v. 12 ff., xu. 4ff What differences Paul had to take 
into consideration in the Corinthian and Roman Churches! 
Nothing of this appears in Hebrews. That this undeni- 
able fact should be made an argument against the position 
that Hebrews was intended for a part of a Church (Grimm, 
ZFWTh, 1870, 8. 33; von Soden, JbfPTh, 1884, 8. 439), 
is one of the most incomprehensible things that have been 
said about Hebrews. The Roman Church as a whole must 
have been the principal starting-point for missionary, work 
in the West; at the time of Paul’s imprisonment there 
were inany members of the Church zealously engaged in 
missionary work ; in the year 96, in the letter of Clement, 
the Church takes an active part in adjusting the disturbed 
state of affairs in Corinth, with an apology for having 
delayed so long in the matter (Clem. 1 Cor. i. 1); finally, 
in the year 110, Ignatius praises the Church in this 
language (ad Rom. iii.): “ You have taught others ; but I 
desire that you keep yourself what asa teacher you have 
imparted to your pupils.” Such a Church as this could 


350 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


hardly at any time be reproved on the ground that its age 
ought to enable it to be a teacher of others (Heb. v. 12). 
The readers of Hebrews were a smaller group of persons 
who had been Christians for a long time, and who ‘con: 
stituted a part of the whole Church of a large city.) It 
was a congregation attached to some household, besides 
which there were in the same city one or several other 
similar household congregations. This conclusion is con- 
firmed by the injunction to the readers to greet’ all their 
officers and all the saints (xiii. 24). Since the πάντας 
which is used twice cannot be explained here as elsewhere 
to mean that they were to greet all as distinguished from 
certain individuals or a small group of persons (Gal. i. 2; 
1 Cor. xvi) 20-24; 2 Cor. i: 1; Phil iv. 2152 Tim. ‘iv. 
21; Ignatius, Smyrn. xiii. 2; ad Polye. viii. 2), the contrast 
must be that between the particular and the general, %.e. 
between the readers who are to convey the greeting and 
the whole Church whom they are to greet. Special 
significance attaches to the πάντας in xiii. 24, where the 
heads of the Church are mentioned a second time, in view 
of the fact that the leaders of the Church upon whom the 
pastoral care of the readers devolves are called simply 
ἡγούμενοι in xiii. 17 (ef. 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. v. 17; 
1 Pet. v. 1). The readers, who constitute a separate emı- 
συναγωγή (x. 25), perhaps with their own officers (xii. 17), 
are, nevertheless, a part of the collective Church of the 
ereat city in which they live. ‘The history of the whole 
Church is their history also (vi. 10, x. 32 ff, xiii. 7), and its 
officers are theirs as well. Therefore the greeting is sent to 
all the officers and «ll the saints. It is difficult to find in 
the first century of Church life conditions which correspond 
more perfectly to these exegetical observations than the 
conditions of the Christians in Rome. Paul in his time 
distinguishes three groups in the Church there. In’ addi- 
tion to the Church in the house of Aquila to which all 
persons in close relation to Paul belonged (Rom. xvi. 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 351 


3-13), there were a second and a third (ef. xvi. 14, 15; 
vol. i. p. 430, n. 1). Whether one of these, e.g. the one 
mentioned in xvi. 14, is identical with the readers of 
Hebrews, or whether in the interval between Romans and 
Hebrews new groups were formed in the Roman Church, 
we do not know. Neither are we informed as to how the 
separate ἐπισυναγωγαί were related to the whole Church. 
But it is not unlikely that Hebrews was direeted to a 
group of the Roman Christians consisting sea of 
Jews (n. 8). 

The terminus ad quem of Hebrews is determined by 
three facts: (1) the use of the letter by Clement of Rome 
(96 A.D.); (2) the mention of Timothy (xiii. 23); (3) the 
circumstanee that the author is dealing with readers who 
in the main belong to the first generation of Christians. 
Timothy, who was born about the year 25 (above, p. 37), 
may have lived until the end of the century. The char- 
acter of Clement's dependence indicates that Hebrews was 
written before 90. The terminus ad quem fixed by the 
third fact varies with the place in which the readers are 
sought. If this place be Rome, where Christians had lived 
since about the year 50 (vol. 1. p. 427), we are compelled 
to date the letter somewhat before 90. On the other 
hand, according to x. 32, a considerable time must have 
elapsed since the persecution of the year 64. If the pre- 
ceding interpretation of iii. 9 (above, p. 320 ff.) be correct, 
the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple had certainly 
already taken place. In writing to Roman Christians, the 
author had even less occasion to refer more definitely to 
this event than did Jude, who wrote to readers so much 
nearer Jerusalem (n. 9). There was even less occasion 
if the event had taken place a number of years before. 
In this case also the fall of Jerusalem could make the 
Jewish Christians all the more doubtful about the entire 
Christian hope. It did indeed happen in fulfilment of 
a prophecy of Jesus; but where was the fulfilment of 


352 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the accompanying promise of the second coming of Jesus 
which was so intimately connected in the thought of the 
early Church with the judgment upon Jerusalem? We 
shall not, be far wrong if we place the composition of 
Hebrews about the year 80. 

We shall be least successful in determining the origin 
of Hebrews. It is not necessary to refute the idea that 
some unknown person wrote Hebrews with the deceitful 
intention of passing it off as a work of Paul’s (n. 10). 
A writing which has always been anonymous in form 
(above, pp. 304 f., 812 f) cannot be also pseudonymous. 
The genuineness of the writing is proved fully by the sub- 
ordination of the author’s personality to his subject, by the 
earnestness of his purpose—apparent in every line—to save 
a definite body of readers, distinctive in character, from 
shipwreck, and by an eloquence born out of the depths of 
an inspired soul. Of the two names between which the 
inharmonious tradition of the second century gives us 
choice, those of Paul and Barnabas, the first is certainly to 
be rejected (n. 11). Aside from the fact that Hebrews 
was not written until after 70, 2.6. several years after 
Paul’s death, he could not have been its author. He 
could not be called one of the Christians who received the 
word of salvation from those who heard the preaching of 
Jesus (ii. 3). It is not a question here of mere external 
knowledge of the gospel history, of which Paul also had 
received the tradition from older Christians where he was 
not familiar with the facts, before his conversion, but the 
author is speaking of the, Word of God, preached with 
signs and wonders, implanted in the hearts of believing 
hearers, and bringing salvation—the word which Paul 
calls the gospel of God and of Christ (ef. Heb. iv. 2, vi. 5, 
xiii. 7). This, however, was not received by Paul from 
men, nor through human teachers (Gal. i. 12), but it had 
enlightened him like a stroke of lightning from heaven. 
The matter is also settled by Origen’s judgment, that the 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 353 


style of Hebrews precludes its Pauline authorship (above, 
p. 809). The fact that we have such a large number of 
Epistles from Paul’s hand, covering a period of some fifteen 
years, produced under the most varying conditions and in 
very different states of mind, and on this account showing 
the greatest variety in thought, in form, and in language, 
compels us to affirm positively that he could not have 
been the author of Hebrews, which in that case must have 
been written before 2 Tim. The author of Hebrews is no 
ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ (2 Cor. xi. 6), but a teacher rhetorically 
trained, who, notwithstanding all the earnestness of his 
concern for the salvation of his readers, nevertheless 
makes it a point to put his thoughts into artistie and 
rhythmical language, as appears from the very first sen- 
tence, 1. 1-4 (n. 12). It would be rash to affirm that the 
versatile Paul could not, if occasion demanded, have de- 
veloped the ideas peculiar to Hebrews. But if Paul is the 
author, it is incomprehensible that he should never have 
been led by the development of thought in Hebrews and 
by its contrasts to suggest the thoughts which dominated 
him to the end, namely, that men are justified and saved 
by faith and not by works of the law (cf. among other 
passages, Eph. 11. 8f.; Phil. ii. 9; 1 Tim. 1. 12-16; Tit. 
iu. 5-7), and that in Christianity all national differences 
lose their religious significance (ef. among other passages, 
Col. mi. 11; 1 Tim. ii. 4-7 ; Tit. 11. 11, ii, 4). Further- 
more, it is inconceivable that Paul, who mentions the 
Saviour more than 600 times in his Epistles, either as 
Christ, or Jesus Christ, or our Lord Jesus Christ, or simply 
the Lord,—only very rarely as Jesus (Rom. iii. 26, viii. IT; 
2 Cor. iv. 10-14, xi. 4; Eph. iv. 21; 1 Thess. i. 10, 
iv. 14; cf. Rom. x. 9; 1 Cor. xii. 3), and never in his last 
letters, Philemon, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, —should in 
Hebrews suddenly change his usage and reoularly employ 
the simple name “ Jesus” (ii. 9, iii. 1, vi. 20, vii. 22, x. 19, 
xi. 2, 24, xiii. 12, ef. iv. 14)—‘ Jesus Christ” only three 
VOL. II. 23 


354 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


times (x. 10, xiii. 8, 21)—more rarely simply “the Lord” 
(ii. 3, not in vii. 2, xii. 14), but never the full Pauline 
formula, “our Lord Jesus Christ” (not even in xiii. 20), 
Moreover, the use of the plural to designate the writer 
(ü.:5, iv. 13, v. 11, vi. 1, 8, 9, 11, zii. 18), which 18. re- 
placed by the singular only in xi 32, xii. 19, 22, is 
contrary, to Pauline usage (vol. 1. 171, n. 1, 209, n. 8, 
316, n. 3). An author does not assume for one writing 
a usage which he never afterwards employs. The hypo- 
thesis that Paul is the writer of Hebrews is not only not 
supported by the tradition, but rendered impossible ; for 
although it is easy to understand how, in Alexandria, 
Hebrews, which was associated with Paul’s letters, was 
ascribed to him, it is dificult to understand how the 
tradition of Pauline authorship, if it was originally 
connected with Hebrews, could have been lost in most 
of the Churches, or indeed replaced by another name 
(above, p. 298 £.). . 

More can be said in favour of the Barnabas tradition 
(n. 13). In the first place, we know so little about 
Barnabas that we can form no exact conception of how he 
would have expressed himself as an author. We possess 
no writings of his by comparison with which his production 
of Hebrews might be disproved. It is not impossible that 
Barnabas, who entered the Church in Jerusalem before the 
year 35, who, as early as the year 38, enjoyed a certain 
distinction (Acts ix. 27), and was sent shortly afterward 
on an important mission to Antioch (Acts xi. 22), was 
still alive in the year 80, an old man of about fourscore 
years, although Hebrews does not give the impression of 
having been written by an old man. Just as Mark, his 
cousin and helper, in spite of early differences with Paul, 
worked hand in hand with him later (Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. 
iv. 11), so it is possible that Barnabas may have been on 
the best of terms with Timothy, the disciple of Paul (Heb. 
xiii. 29). There are some traces of a tradition according 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 35; 


to which Barnabas once came to Rome (vol. i..432f.,n. 5). 
The fact that he soon showed himself inferior to Paul as a 
preacher (Acts xiv. 12) does not prove that he was not 
proficient in the use of language, although a Levite born 
in Cyprus and living in Jerusalem (Acts iv. 36 f.) is not 
likely to have possessed the very great rhetorical skill 
which the author of Hebrews shows. Ignorance of the 
ritual regulations of the temple at Jerusalem, which some 
think is apparent in a number of passages in Hebrews, 
would be neither more nor less surprising in the case of 
Barnabas than of Paul. This objection is not serious, 
however, for the simple reason that the author is speaking 
throughout the letter not of the contemporaneous worship 
in Jerusalem, but of the worship in the tabernacle which 
was prescribed in the law (n. 14); so that in any case the 
author can be charged only with lack of a technical know- 
ledge of the law. How much or how little of such know- 
ledge Barnabas possessed no one can say. On the other hand, 
it could hardly be explained how a man, who like Barnabas 
had been a prominent member of the mother Church, could 
have lost so fully from his mind its attitude toward the Jewish 
cultus and the ceremonial law (above, p. 334 £.) ; this would 
remain inexplicable, even if he were writing to Jewish 
Christians outside of Palestine. Although all of these 
comparisons of the little we know about: Barnabas with 
Hebrews do not absolutely exclude the possibility of ‘the 
hypothesis that this λόγος τῆς παρωκλήσεως (Heb. xiii. 22) 
was written by the υἱὸς παρακλήσεως (Acts iv. 36), yet 
it is improbable when the tradition is considered. If the 
tradition that makes Barnabas the author goes back to 
the time when the letter began to circulate, which must 
have been the case if it is true, it is impossible to 
explain its disappearance, especially in circles where Paul’s 
name was not allowed to take its place... We conclude, 
therefore, that the Barnabas authorship of the letter, like the 
Pauline, is unsupported by a real and genuine tradition, 


356 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


but is an ancient hypothesis (above, p. 303f.). It is not 
likely that the future will ever take us beyond hypo- 
theses. The conjecture, probably first made by Luther, 
that Hebrews was written by Apollos, has, not without 
reason, always been regarded with favour (n. 15). The 
union of Greek rhetorical skill with Jewish knowledge 
of the Seriptures for which he was distinguished, and the 
fiery zeal with which he testified to his faith, particularly 
among his countrymen, both appear in Hebrews (Acts 
xvii. 24-28; vol. 1. 262f, 270f., 286£.). The faith in 
Jesus which Apollos brought with him from his native 
city of Alexandria to Ephesus, without having previously 
belonged to a Church whose members were baptized, he 
may have owed to persons who had been-led to believe 
through the preaching of Jesus Himself (n. 4), even before 
Pentecost, possibly while visiting the feast in Jerusalem. 
Apollos could have written Heb. ii. 3. What is said in 
xiii, 23 would be in harmony with his friendly relations 
with Paul (ef. Tit. ii. 13); also xii. 7, if Paul as well as 
Peter is referred to in this passage. Luther's hypothesis 
has a twofold advantage over all the others: (1) among 
the teachers of the apostolic time, so far as we are able to 
form a conception of them, there is no one whom our 
impression of the author of Hebrews suits better than 
Apollos; (2) in the little that we know of his history 
there is nothing directly opposed to the hypothesis. But 
the outcome of every thoughtful discussion of the origin 
of Hebrews is likely to be the same as Origen’s conelu- 
sion: τίς δὲ ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν, TO μὲν ἀληθὲς θεὸς 
οἶδεν, 


1. (P. 348.) W. Grimm, Z/WTh, 1870, S. 19-77, who refutes (S. 46-53) 
the theory yet held by Bleek, Lünemann, Riehm, and others, that Heb, is 
intended for Jerusalem, still retained Palestine as the home of the readers, 
and suggested (S. 71) Jamnia as their residence, Westeott does not wish to 
dispute this, but contents himself with the supposition that it is a eongrega- 
tion in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (p. xlii). 

2. (P. 344.) Böhme, Ep. ad Hebr. 1825, p. xxxii ff., held the Antiochian 
community to be the circle of readers of Heb. ; and Hofmann, v. 531 ff., with 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 357 


the added supposition that Paul is the author, believed them to be the Jewish 
Christians of Antioch and vicinity. But the very fact that in Antioch as late 
as 63, at the time when Hofmann believes Heb. to have been written, the 
Jewish portion of the congregation was still separated from the Gentile 
portion, is, according to Acts xv. and Gal. ii., inconceivable That Timothy 
had any very close connection with Antioch is nowhere proved ; and that 
he, profiting by the opportunity offered by the journey of Acts xviii. 22, 
stayed there with Paul for any length of time (Hofmann, 532), is a theory 
incompatible with Acts xviii. 18. At the time of Paul’s leaving Corinth, 
Timothy was not with him, and we do not meet him again with Paul 
until very much later in Ephesus (Acts xix. 22; 1 Cor. iv. 17; cf. vol. i. 
265, n. 2). 

3. (P. 344.) The readers of Heb. were sought in Alexandria by Wieseler, 
Chron. 479 ff.; Unters. über den Heb., Heft ii. 1861; Köstlin, ThJb, 1854, 
S. 388 ff.; Ritschl, ThStKr, 1866, S. 89 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Hinl. 385 ff., and 
others. It is possible that the author was a native Alexandrian; but 
there is nothing to make it likely that he belonged by birth to the circle 
of the readers. It would not be possible, therefore, from the origin of the 
author to draw any conclusion as to the residence of the readers. Concerning 
the alleged reference to the temple at Leontopolis see above, p. 341. The 
attempt of Köstlin (ThJb 1854, 8. 395 ff.) to refer the οὕτως ἀναστρεφόμενοι, 
Heb. x. 33, to the sufferings of the non-Christian Jews of Alexandria under 
Caligula, is unsuccessful. Of. especially, Grimm, op. cit. 67 ff. 

4. (P. 344.) If Apollos in 54 brought with him from his home in 
Alexandria a belief in Jesus which made him an ardent preacher of the 
gospel in the synagogue of Ephesus; and if, on the other hand, he knew 
nothing of the ecclesiastical baptism, and did not as yet possess the Christian 
knowledge which had developed in the Church (Acts xviii. 24-26 ; ef. xix. 
1-7), then the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah must have spread to 
the Jews of Egypt independently of the organised Church, and perhaps 
before the rise of a Church in Jerusalem, 2.e. in the days of John the Baptist 
and of Jesus Himself. It is to these Jews that Mark in the first instance 
must have turned, if he is to be rightly considered the founder of the 
Alexandrian Church (Eus. H. E. ii. 16. 1 and 24), and Barnabas also if he 
went to Alexandria (Clem. Hom. i. 9-14; οἵ, vol. i. 482f., τι. 5). The Jewish 
population of Egypt is estimated at one million (Philo, contra Flaccwm, vi.) ; 
and the Samaritans, who wished to be reckoned as Jews (Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 6), 
were also represented there in large numbers (Jos. Ant. xii. 1). There was, as 
a matter of fact, in the neighbourhood of Arsinoé, a city which was either by 
them or after them named Samaria (The W. Flinders Petrie Papyrus, ed. 
Mahaffy, ii. 14, 88, 93, 94). Cf. Schiirer, iii. 19-25 (Eng. trans. 11. ii. 226-230). 
There was, consequently, no lack of material for Jewish Christian communities 
in Egypt. If the Didache was written in Egypt about 110 (vol. i. 304), we 
might conclude that there was a connection between the primitive Egyptian 
Church and that of Palestine. The very fact that there were originally 
twelve presbyters of Alexandria (Eutych. Alex., ed. Pococke, i. 331; ef. Clem. 
Hom. xi. 36; Recogn. vi. 15) might point in the same direction. Further 
evidence may be found in the traces of a knowledge of Jewish Christian 
Gospels, which appear in many of the fragments of apocryphal Gospels 


358 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


found in recent years in Egypt (ThLb, 1897, col. 426, 480; NZK, 1900, 8. 
361-370; 1905, S. 171-175). The present writer refrains from expressing 
any opinion concerning the Epistles of St. Anthony (especially Ep. 2 ad 
Arsinoitas, Migne, 40, col. 981). As a matter of fact, we have no certain 
knowledge of Jewish Christian communities in Egypt. 

5. (P. 345.) | Wettstein was the first to think of Christians in Rome, 
Novum Testamentum, ii. 386 f.; and more recently Holtzmann, Kurz, and 
the present writer (PRE?, v. 666 ff. ; ed. 3, vii. 501f.). Erroneous notions 
concerning the composition of the Roman congregation have been the chief 
hindrance to the spread of this view. 

6. (P. 345.) It should not be denied that expressions such as οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς 
Ἰταλίας, xili. 24 ; οἱ ἀπὸ Κιλικίας καὶ ᾿Ασίας, Acts vi. 9; ὁ ἀπὸ Nalaped, Matt. 
xxi. 11; John i. 46; Acts x. 38, denote origin, whether that of birth, or the 
place from which one has just arrived (cf. e.g. Acts xxi. 27; Matt. xv. 1, if οἱ 
is genuine here= Mark iii. 22, vii. 1), and that such a description of persons 
can only have arisen outside of the places where they were born, or where 
they customarily resided... This is not in any way altered by the transfer of 
the formula to other expressions than those of place, such as oi ἀπὸ τῆς erkAn- 
σίας, Acts ΧΙ]. 1; or οἱ ἀπὸ σκηνῆς and similar ones ; nor by the cases in which, 
by virtue of a sort of attraction (Kühner-Gerth. Gr. i. 546), the departure 
from a place is combined with the preceding residence in it, Acts x. 23, xvii. 
13; cf. per contra, xvii. 11. As an instance of this is the case where a 
messenger sent from Sparta to Thessaly speaks in Herodotus, viii. 114 (ef. in 
connection also Polyb. v. 86.10) of Ἡρακλεῖδαι of ἀπὸ Σπαρτῆς. On the other 
hand, it must be admitted that a narrator, who as such is generally removed 
from the standpoint of the events narrated, might on occasion so express 
himself as to introduce a person by his title of origin, although at the time of 
writing the person is within his own place of residence. As the Lazarus 
whom Jesus raised from the dead is generally called the Lazarus of Bethany 
to distinguish him from others of that name, he is so called in John xi, 1, 
which, inasmuch as the narrative is centred at Lazarus’ own home, is a not 
very elegant form of expression. Still worse is the ἀσπάζονταίσε . . . πάντες 
οἱ ἀπὸ Φιλίππων, ὅθεν καὶ ἐπέστειλά σοι, Which the pseudo-Ignatius, circa 370 or 
400, makes Ignatius in Philippi write (ad Her. viii.). It would be hard to 
point out anything of this sort in a real letter, even of a man of much less 
education than the author of Heb. The theory of a similar clumsiness of 
expression in Heb. xiii.24 would in no wise explain why the writer designates 
by their origin, or place of residence, those who are sending greetings, instead 
of characterising them as Christians of his vicinity (Gal. i. 2; Phil. iv. 21; Tit, 
iii. 15). If he wished, however, in a manner similar to 1 Cor. xvi. 19, Rom, 
xvi. 16, to extend, greetings, not expressly entrusted to him to deliver, in 
behalf of all the Christians of the country in which he was living, he 
would have written ai ἐκκλησίαι τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, or something similar. It will 
probably have to be granted, then—(1) that the author and the Italians 
who send greeting are outside of Italy.) (2) The Italians alone, of the 
Christians, of his vicinity, have commissioned him to extend greetings, 
because they most naturally have a greater interest in the readers who live 
in Italy. ) 

7. (P. 340.) Lightfoot, Clement, ii. 205, holds Clement to be a Hellenistic 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 3595 


Jew. The present writer attempted to prove the Jewish origin of the author 
of the Shepherd of Hermas in his Hirt des Heras, 485-497. Spitta, Urchrist. 
ii. 243-437, makes the greater part of the Shepherd the work of a Jew, Hermas, 
who had not yet become Christian. After attention had been called, even 
before Origen’s time, to the points of contact between Heb. and Olem. 
1 Cor. (above, pp. 299 f., 308 f.), Eusebius noticed that the latter betrayed the 
borrowing from Heb. not only of thoughts, but also of words. “The fact 
is unmistakable,” writes Overbeck (Zur Gesch. d. Kanons, S. 3), “that this 
letter of Clement’s makes use of Heb. without acknowledgment, at times 
copying it outright.” For details, ef. @K, i. 963f. The. present writer 
attempted to demonstrate the dependence of the Shepherd upon Heb. in his 
Hirt des Hermas, 439-452, cf. Hofmann, v. 45. Spitta, ii. 412-414, allows 
nothing more than the possibility that the author of Heb. was acquainted 
with the original purely Jewish writing of the Shepherd. 

8. (P. 351.) As the Roman Christians, since the time of Claudius, had 
been cut off from the fellowship of the synagogue (vol. i. 427), the division 
of the Roman Jews into a considerable number of synagogue congregations 
furnishes merely the analogy and not the basis for the division of the Roman 
Christian congregations into smaller circles, meeting at different places. Least 
of all is it to be imagined that one of those Jewish synagogue congregations, 
which during the first centuries remained such (vol. i. 47 f., 67, n. 14; 438 f., 
n. 6), had been transformed, at so early a period as the apostolic age, into a 
Christian congregation, and that the particular assembly to which the readers 
of Heb. belong, and which they are not to leave (x. 25; above, p. 339, n. 11), 
is one of these Jewish synagogues. Nestle’s question (ET, 1899, p. 422), 
whether the title πρὸς “Ἑβραίους might not be connected with the name of the 
συναγωγὴ "Eßpaiwv (vol. i. 67, n. 14), is on this account to be answered in 
the negative ; and all the more decidedly as the historical significance which 
Ἑβραῖοι had in the name of that synagogue was not applicable to the first 
recipients of Heb. (above, pp. 296, 306 f.). 

9. (P. 351.) On Jude 5, where, not the destruction of Jerusalem or of the 
Temple, but, as in Heb. iii. 7-19, iv. 6, the ruin of the generation of the 
Jewish people which had sinned against Jesus is expressed, in a form borrowed 
from the history of Mosaic times, see above, pp. 253 f.,320f. If Jerusalem and 
the Temple were in ruins, the readers must have thought of this fact when 
they came to Heb. viii. 13, xii. 22, xiii. 14, as the Corinthians must have done 
in reading Clem. 1 Cor. vi. 4 (ζῆλος καὶ ἔρις πόλεις μεγάλας κατέσκαψεν καὶ 
ἔθνη μεγάλα ἐξερίζωσεν) ; and they must have understood the author’s reason 
for using in xiii. 13 παρεμβολῆς instead of πόλεως or πύλης, as he has it in 
xiii. 12. Jerusalem and its gates were no longer standing. If the readers 
found in xiii. 14 a contrast between the Christians, who had no end uring eity 
upon earth, and the Jews, who in Jerusalem still possessed’ one, it was only 
because they failed to take into account the fact that (1) this contrast would 
have had to be expressed at least by an emphatic ἡμεῖς ; (2) that a Christian, 
eirca 66-70, in view of the prophecy of Jesus and of the actual conditions, could 
not possibly have said, even indirectly, that Jerusalem was ἃ πόλις μένουσα. 
The Jews who have imagined this, through their unbelief, have lost the city, 
which they held to be enduring ; the Jewish Christians, through the faith in 
which they have followed their forefathers (xi. 10, 13-16), have won for them- 


360 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


selves an eternal eity. That the author would have had to direet attention 
more clearly and strongly to the judgment of the year 70 than he does in iii. 
7-19, iv. 6, ix. 8-12 (above, pp. 321 ff., 339 f.), xiii. 14, and that he would have 
had to use—particularly in viii. 13—the annihilation of the temple-cultus 
which had occurred as a most powerful argument for his position, instead of 
saying, from the standpoint of Jeremiah, that the end of the old covenant was 
near at hand, in that a new one was opposed to it by the prophets,—these and 
other similar challenges would be in place only if it had been necessary to 
combat a false devotion to the Temple and its cultus. But there is no trace 
of this in Heb. If a Jewish Christian addressing Jewish Christians, who 
viewed with a sad heart their ruin and the ruin of their people, had allowed 
“the brutal logic of facts” to speak more loudly and decisively, he would 
have been open to the reproach against which Paul guards himself in Rom. 
ae 1 ff. 

10. (P. 352.) Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, ii. 304f., declares Heb. to 
be a pseudo-Pauline forgery. Baur, Christ. u. Kirche der drei ersten Jahrh. 
(2 Aufl.) 109, who viewed it as a product of Jewish Christianity, believed, 
however, that in xiii. 23 he had discovered the author’s fraudulent purpose to 
introduce “ his writing as one which had come from among the associates of 
Paul.” Köstlin wrote against Schwegler from within the circle of his own 
school, ThJb, 1853, S. 420 ff. ; 1854, S. 437, so that Overbeck also (S. 6) viewed 
the hypothesis of a fiction as permanently disposed of. 

11. (P. 352.) Among those who more recently represent the theory of 
the Pauline authorship may be mentioned Hug, Einl.3 ii. 461-496 ; Hofmann, 
v. 42-52, 520-561 ; Biesenthal, Das Trostschreiben des Ap. Pl. an die Hebräer, 
1878; Holtzheuer, Der Br. an die Ebriier, 1883. 

12. (P. 353.) On the language and style of Heb., especially in comparison 
with the writings of Paul, ef. Seyffarth, De ep. ad Hebr. indole, 1821 ; Bleek, 
i. 315-338 ; Hofmann, v. 555-561. In regard to the rhythm, see Blass, 
ThStKr, 1902, Heft 3, also his “(Barnabas) Brief an die Hebr. Text mit 
Angabe der Rhythmen,” 1903. The idea of Hofmann that Paul, freed 
from a five years’ imprisonment, and awaiting the return of Timothy in an 
Italian port, must have had leisure to bestow a care in the execution of Heb. 
which is not his custom, is not obvious. Torn from an environment in Rome 
which had been familiar to him for two years past, and which was in no way 
oppressive, in the discomfort of a seaport city, where there could hardly have 
been a Christian community, and in the impatience of awaiting the arrival 
of Timothy, or a suitable chance of obtaining passage, Paul would have been 
much less in a position to bestow a conscious care upon his style than when, 
in the bosom of the reconciled Corinthian congregation, he wrote to the 
Romans ; or when from Rome, surrounded by friends and helpers, after‘ he 
had beeome aecustomed to the local eustoms, and previous to the opening of 
the exciting trial, he wrote the Col. and Eph. letters. A conscious effort to 
attain elegance of expression and a euphonious rounding out of clauses was 
contrary, in any case, to the character of Paul. Such an effort is also not to be 
aseribed to the real author. He who would write in the style in whieh Heb. 
is written, with such great care and such ardent desire to produce an effect 
upon the hearts and consciences of his readers or hearers,—and the “ readers” 
of that time were always for the most part hearers (Rev. i. 3),—to him such 8 


ω» 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 361 


style of writing must have become second nature; he could no longer do 
otherwise. Besides periods, everywhere grammatically transparent, sym- 
metrically formed, and rhythmically rounded (i. 1-4, ii. 2-4, v. 1-3, vi. 16-20 
vii. 18-25, x. 19-25, xii. 1, 2), in the carrying out of which the author 
does not allow himself to be disturbed by lengthy citations (iii. 7 ff. ; above, 
p. 337)—besides these, alliterations and paranomasia are conspicuous (i. 1, 
moA-, moA-, maA-, mar-, προῷ ; 1]. 1, wep-, προσ-, map-; ii. 10, mav-, mav-, woX-, 
mad-; ν. 8, ἔμαθεν---ἔπαθεν ; Vii. 3, ἀπάτωρ, ἀμήτωρ; Xi. 4, πισ-, πλει-; map-, 
mpoo-). The hexameter, xii. 13, καὶ τροχιὰς ὀρθὰς ποιήσατε τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν, has 
evidently arisen by chance (cf. vol. i. 118, n. 5). According to NP (ποιεῖτε 
instead of ποιήσατε) it does not exist; but comparison with the original 
(Prov. iv. 26, ὀρθὰς rpoxıas ποίει σοῖς ποσίν) shows, nevertheless, the author’s 
sense of rhythm. The correct verdict of Origen (ἑλληνικωτέρα, above, p. 309) 
has been sadly exaggerated when, eg. Kurz, Komm. 8. 19, “praises” Heb. 
“for using a Greek idiom free from any sort of Semitic colouring.” Abso- 
lutely Semitic is the adjectival use of the genitive in Heb. ix. 5, Xepoußeiv 
δόξης, “glorious cherubs” (in which the Aramaic and therefore modern 
Hebrew form of the name is to be noticed, which the Antiochian recension has 
changed to the old Hebrew Χερουβίμ) ; 111. 12, καρδία ἀπιστίας ; xii. 15, ῥίζα 
πικρίας ; iv. 2, ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀκοῆς ; also iv. 16, ὁ θρόνος τῆς χάριτος. No Greek, 
not even a Philo, would have written em’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων, i. 1; ἐν 
ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, ν. 73 τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, i. 3; cf. per 
contra, Col. i. 20,22; Rom. vii. 24. ἧς τὸ τέλος eis καῦσιν, vi. 8, cf. Num. xxiv. 
20, Ps. cix. 13, Isa. v. 5, is thoroughly Hebrew in conception, and still no 
part of a citation. The Hebraic ἐνώπιον with the genitive, iv. 13, xiii. 21, 
the pleonastic ἑαυτοῖς with ἔχειν, x. 34 (DKL), which badly applied pedantry 
has cancelled (P) or emended to ἑαυτούς (NAH) or to ev ἑαυτοῖς (min.), and 
other examples of the same sort, would not have been passed over by the 
stylists which a Josephus made use of. The complete correspondence with 
the LXX the author has in common with Paul; whether he had a knowledge 
of the Hebrew text also, and used it (ef. Hofmann, v. 522 f.), is as much a 
matter of dispute as in the case of Paul, and the proof of the theory that 
he had before him a different text of the LXX than Paul possessed (Bleek, 
i. 369-375, cf. per contra, Hofmann, v. 522 f.)—proof, which is presented in a 
manner far from convincing—is really of no importance, when, apart from 
this, it is certain that Paul is not the author. The opinion that Heb. is a 
translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original, was held at a very early 
date, but on very unsubstantial grounds (above, p. 298), and has been 
maintained, moreover, by Michaelis, Einl. 1356-1384, very learnedly, and 
by Biesenthal, S. 43 ff, very superficially. It seems unnecessary to refute 
it again. 
13. (P. 354.) The theory which makes Barnabas the author has been 
defended most energetically by Weiseler. Without exactly advocating his 
aggerated presentation of the tradition in favour of Barnabas, Ritschl, 
Trike, 1866, S. 89, among others, has agreed with him. Recently also 
Blass in his edition, cited in n. 12, above, S. 9, with unsatisfactory proof 
from tradition. 
14. (P. 355.) There has been a disposition to find, especially in vii. 27, 
an ignorance of the regulation of the cultus, in so far as it is held that the 


362 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


passage indicates a daily offering of the twofold sacrifice for his own sins anc 
for the sins of the people as the duty of the high priest. No account is to be 
taken of x. 11, where ἱερεύς is better attested than ἀρχιερεύς, and indicates 
nothing as to a definite kind of sacrificial procedure. On the contrary, in 
vil. 27 the twofold offering of the high priest on the Day of Atonement is 
unmistakably referred to, concerning which a similar expression is used in 
v. 3, ix. 7, and of which it is said expressly in ix. 7 (cf. ix. 25, x. 1, 3) that 
the high priest has to offer it only once a year. It is therefore inconceivable 
that vii. 27 should mean that the high priest was bonnd to offer this sacrifice 
daily. To this yearly twofold sacrifice of the high priest corresponds what 
Jesus has done once for all in offering Himself as a sacrifice. The limiting 
of the rovro to the second part of the twofold sacrifice, which previously 
without repetition of the ὑπέρ is joined with the first part, is not per- 
missible, any more than limiting it to the first part of the sacrifice,—a 
proposition which, as a matter of fact, is advanced by A. Seeberg (NJb/DTh, 
iii. 367, 370). If it were intolerable to the author to think that Jesus, 
like the high priest, made offering also for Himself, he could not have 
brought out this point prominently three different times (v. 3, vii. 27, 
ix. 7); at best he could have called attention in passing to the fact that 
this part of the function of the high priest was not applicable to the sinless 
Jesus (iv. 15), 1.6. that in this respect the typical comparison was incom- 
plete. Instead of this, in v. 3 he lays the greater emphasis precisely upon 
the offering of the high priest in his own behalf, and shows in ver. 
7f. that Jesus, in spite of His innate dignity, and in contrast to His 
present exaltation as heavenly priest-king, nevertheless in His earthly life 
did offer a sacrifice, which was evidence of His weakness, His fear of death, 
and His unreadiness for the dread experience, and which corresponds, there- 
fore, mutatis mutandis, to the yearly offering of the high priest for himself. 
In so doing the author can have in mind nothing but the struggle in prayer 
in Gethsemane, which he looks upon as the act of Jesus introductory to the 
function of high priest. In offering up His will in Gethsemane, His body 
upon the cross (x. 10), and His blood in the heavenly sanctuary (ix. 12), He 
offers Himself continually. If these three points are included in the ἑαυτὸν 
mporeveyras of vii. 27, it cannot be denied that Jesus had to make an offering 
for Himself, or for His own sins. It is denied only that He was under the 
necessity of making daily the offering which corresponds to the twofold 
offering of the high priest ; for this might seem necessary in so far as Christ 
has to discharge His function of high priest, not merely now and then, but 
continually (ii. 18, iv. 15 f., vii. 23-25, ix. 14), But this is not necessary, 
because Christ’s offering of Himself once for all, as distinguished from that 
which is accomplished by the typical service of the legal high priest, has 
secured an eternally valid atonement and redemption (vii. 27f., ix: 12, 26, 
x. 10). If the author, by his negation, in contradiction of his repeated and 
correct statement, wished to advance the erroneous assertion that the legal 
high priest was bound to offer the twofold sacrifice daily, he would have had 
to choose (1) another word-grouping, and write perhaps: οὐχ ὡς ol ἀρχιερεῖς 
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν Or οὐ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ὥσπερ ol ἀρχιερεῖς ἔχει ἀνάγκην κτλ, ; and (2) alter 
he had just designated Jesus in vii. 26 as the high priest, he would have had 
to characterise the O.T, high priests, in contrast to this true and perfect high 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 363 


priest, as οἱ κατὰ νόμον ἀρχιερεῖς (vii. 16), or something similar. The phrase 
ὥσπερ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, unobtrusive because of its position and brevity (ef. per 
contra, iv. 10, ix. 25), opens the infinitive clause, which is dependent upon ἔχει 
ἀνάγκην, and serves merely to call to mind the fact that the action whose 
daily repetition is unnecessary for Jesus, inasmuch as He has completed it 
once for all, is precisely that which belongs to the office of high priest. 
Hofmann has already given what is essentially a correct interpretation of 
the passage. When one remembers that καθ᾽ ἡμέραν expresses proverbially 
the frequent and constant recurrence of a process, no matter whether it takes 
place once a day or three times a week (ef. 1 Cor. xv. 31 ; 2 Cor. xi. 28; Heb. 
iii. 18, x. 11), he will not easily understand why A. Seeberg, op. cit. 368, 
demands πάντοτε instead of the preceding explanation. If this demand were 
justified, it would have precisely the same value over against the new 
explanation, according to which the καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, which is excluded in spite 
of the position of the negation, is to be translated “in his daily recurring 
acts,” by which would be meant the intervention of Christ for His own 
people (S. 369f.). This, too, may be necessary a hundred times a day, if all 
the Christians on earth are to find help seasonably for their needs (iv. 16). But 
this new interpretation goes beyond most of the earlier ones in the obscurity 
of its assumed modes of expression (8. 368). In ix. 4 the error was dis- 
covered that the incense altar is made to stand in the Holy of Holies. χρυσοῦν 
θυμιαστήριον surely cannot refer to anything but this, which Symmachus and 
Theodotion (Ex. xxx. 1) as well as Philo (Rer. Div. Her. 46 ; Vita Mos. iii. 9) 
and Josephus (Ant. iii. 6. 8) regularly call by that name, though LXX, Ex. 
xxx. 1 and elsewhere regularly substitutes for it θυσιαστήριον θυμιάματος ; 
neither can an incense pan, or a censer, be meant, for which, in Ezra viii. 11, 
2 Chron. xxvi. 19, 4 Mace. vii. 11, and, according to one translator, Lev. x. 1, 
θυμιατήριον is used, but elsewhere πυρεῖον (Ex. xxvii. 3, xxviii. 3; Lev. x. 1, 
xvi. 12). The reference cannot be here to a vessel of secondary importance, 
which in the descriptions of the tabernacle is mentioned only incidentally 
among other vessels, and which is described, not as being of gold but of 
bronze, and which, furthermore, inasmuch as it was to be handled by the 
priests daily, every child must have known was not kept in the Holy of 
Holies—a place accessible only to the high priest, and to him but once 
a year. Even the consideration of a golden censer mentioned in the Mishna 
(Joma iv. 4), which was used only on the Day of Atonement by the high 
priest, could not lead the author astray ; for this was kept, as a matter of 
course, outside of the Holy of Holies (Joma vii. 4). If, however, the golden 
incense altar is meant, it could have been no more a matter of doubt to the 
author, according to Ex. xxx. 1-10, xl. 1-5, 22-27, Lev. xvi. 12, than to a 
Philo or a Josephus, that the incense altar, as well as the table and candle- 
stick, stood in the Holy Place. Furthermore, from the law, without any 
knowledge of the Jewish cultus of his time (Luke i. 8-23), he must have 
known that the service of the incense altar belonged to the daily duties of the 
priesthood (Ex. xxx. 7 f.; οἵ. Heb. ix. 6, x. 11), consequently that it did not 
stand in the Holy of Holies, which only the high priest entered once a year 
(Heb. ix. 7). Accordingly, in ix. 4 the special inclusion of the golden censer, 
or incense altar, within the Holy of Holies, cannot be what is affirmed,—a 
meaning which is not required by the expression (ἔχουσα; cf. ix. 1, x. 1, 35, 


364 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


xiii, 10, and per contra, ἐν 7, ix. 2, 4),—but merely an ideal relation to it, δὲ 
in 1 Kings vi. 22, which corresponds to the service connected with the altar 
on the Day of Atonement; ef. Delitzsch, 356-360 ; Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hb. 
489 f.; Hofmann, 318 f. ; Westcott, 246 f. The author follows a tradition 
voiced in LXX, Ex. xvi. 23, and therefore followed by Philo (Congr. Braud. 
Gr. 18), when he makes in ix. 4 the manna jar to be of gold ; and it is upon 
the basis of the traditional exegesis of Ex. xvi. 34 and Num. xvii. 25 that he 
transfers the manna jar and the staff of Aaron to the arkof the covenant, a 
tradition whose age is rather corroborated than controverted by 1 Kings viii. 9. 
What, aside from this, has been actually believed, and the fictions that have 
been invented concerning the whereabouts of these articles and of the ark 
itself, do not concern us, since the author describes (ix. 1) here, as unequivo- 
eally as anywhere, the legal regulations of the O.T. cultus specified in the 
Thora, and does so without any regard for possible changes of a later day, 
or for a cultus existing in his time. 

15. (P. 356.) Luther in the Vorrede aum Heb. of 1522 (Erl. Ausg., Bd. 63, 
$, 154 f.), by a comparison of Heb. ii. 3 and Gal. i. 1, 12, declared a Pauline 
origin of the Epistle to be out of the question, and maintained that it 
was the work of a disciple of the apostles, “ perhaps long afterward.” He 
called attention, furthermore, to the passages vi. 4-8, x. 26-31, xii. 17, as in 
their thought dogmatically questionable, closing his discussion with the 
words: “ But whoever wrote them is unknown, and wishes perhaps to remain 
unknown for a time.” In the Kérchenpostille (Bd. vii. S. 181) he calls their 
Pauline origina ‘credible delusion. They are not the work of St. Paul, for the 
reason that they have a diction much more ornamental than St. Paul elsewhere 
is accustomed to use, Some believe them to be St. Luke’s, some St. Apollos’, 
whom St. Luke praises” (Acts xviii, 24). Similarly, Enarr. in Gen. xlviii. 20 
(Op. exeg. xi. 188): “ Auctor epist. ad Hebr. quisquis est, sive Paulus sive, ut 
ego arbitror, Apollo.” Finally, in a sermon of the year 1537 on 1 Cor. iii. 4f. 
(Bd, xviii. S. 181), he says, * This Apollo(s) was a man of great intelligence, 
the Epistle of the Hebrews is indeed his.” This hypothesis was recommended 
especially by Bleek (i. 423-430) and adopted by many ; also by Klostermann, 
who, op. cit. 47-51, aptly portrays the characteristics of the author. The 
conjectures of H. Ewald (Der Heb. S. 30), that the N.T. Apollos fell later 
into bad ways, and might be identical with the swindler Apollonius of 'Tyana, 
has no more value than the fanciful identification of the ΝΟ, Apollos with 
the martyr Apollonius, circa 180-185, in the title of his Acta (ed. Klette, 
S. 92). As proof of the Alexandrian origin of the author, which would be 
an‘ additional reason for ascribing the letter to Apollos, special emphasis has 
been laid upon the points of contact between Heb. and the writings of Philo. 
Parallels have been diligently collected by J. B. Carpzov, Sacra Exercit. in S. 
Pauli ep. ad Hebr. e Philone Alew., Helmstüdt, 1750 ; some also by Siegfried, 
Philo, 321-330. Intelligent discussions are to be found in Riehm, Lehrberg: des 
Heb. 855 fl., and briefly also in Hofmann, v. 530. There exists between Philo 
and. Heb. an occasionally apparent. similarity of expression and a common 
basis of rabbinical and rhetorical training. It remains unlikely, however, 
that such a gifted Christian as the author of Heb. would have found pleasure 
in such terribly tiresome writings ad those of the Alexandrian Jew ; cf. 
Michaelis, 1385. This has no bearing, of course, upon the origin of the 


EPISTLES OF PETER, JUDE, AND HEBREWS 365 


letter, which statement applies also to the incidental, points of contact between 
Heb. and the remaining writings of the N.T. The citation of Heb, x. 30, in 
its similar departure from LXX and from the original also, as in the case of 
Rom. xii. 19, is the foremost proof of the author’s knowledge of Pauline 
writings. And it is easily conceivable that, when the author wrote to the 
Christians in Rome, he had in mind Paul’s letter to the Romans. The rest 
that has been collected (Briickner, Chronol. Reihenfolge der ntl. Schriften, 1890, 
S. 239-241) is unimportant. The alleged undeniable dependence of 1) Pet, 
and Jas. upon Heb, (Brückner, 35-41, 291) would compel us to accept, the 
composition of Heb, before the year 50; and the alleged use, on the part of 
the author, of the Antiquities of Josephus, completed in the year 94 (Hitzig, 
Zur Krit. der paul. Briefe, S. 34-36), would bring us down to the year 100. The 
latter assertion does not seem to have found any favour even with Krenkel, 
who in his Josephus und Lucas, 1894, S. 345-353, would not otherwise have 
silently passed over the matter. As far as the relation to James is concerned, 
observations must be limited to the seemingly contradictory treatment of 
the sacrificing of Isaac and the deed of Rahab in Heb. xi. 17, 31 and Jas. 
ii. 21-25. To return to serious questions: the wholly original theory 
put forward by Luther, has the advantage over all others which have arisen 
in earlier and later times. Luke, whom Clemens Alexandrinus regarded as 
a translator, and others of about the same period, as a secretary under Paul’s 
direction (above, pp. 298, 308), was declared by Grotius in Preloguwum zum 
Heb. to be the independent author. Delitzsch also, in the course of his 
learned commentary and at its close (S. 701-707), has attempted to prove 
that Luke “ wrote” Heb. “by order and according to the directions of Paul.” 
Against Harnack’s conjecture, that Aquila and Priscilla wrote Heb., but that 
the larger portion of the same should be ascribed to the more capable Priscilla 
(ZfNTW, 1900, S. 16-41), the following is to be noted—(1) The variation 
between the we and the I of the author (above, p. 354) which Harnack ex- 
plains by stating that formally two persons are introduced as authors, but 
that in fact only one of the two wrote the letter, would by just this hypo- 
thesis be fully unintelligible. In case Aquila and Priscilla are the speakers 
in xiii. 18 (vi. 1-3, 9, 11, but then also ii. 5, iv. 13, v. 11), and, on the other 
hand, only one of them the speaker in xiii. 19, 22f., the readers of the letter 
could not guess whether Aquila or Priscilla wished to be considered the actual 
and only author of the letter, and which of the two, who everywhere else in 
the N.T. form an inseparable pair, was intending soon to visit them without 
the other consort. While the information is given that Timothy will travel 
in company with the author, there is lacking in xiii. 19, 22 f. the much more 
necessary information that Priscilla, whose name could not have been want- 
ing here (cf. 1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Cor. x. 1), was planning shortly without 
Aquila to visit the readers, and the explanation why this was so. (2) It is 
inconceivable that a Jewish artizan, and especially his wife, who, according 
to Acts xviii. 3, regularly shared the work of her husband, should have 
possessed a rhetorical culture, like that of which Heb. gives evidence. 
(3) This hypothesis explains no better at least than the Apollos-hypothesis 
the disappearance of the true tradition (in opposition to Harnack, 24, 32, 38). 
The prejudice against the thought that the röle of a Church teacher should 
fall to a woman as co-author of the letter, could at all events have led to 


366 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the striking out of her name from the opening greeting, if indeed Hebrews 
ever had a greeting. If, however, an intentional omission of the “ Address” 
(above, pp. 311, n. 12, 312f.) is not to be considered as possible, as also 
Harnack seems to realise (16, 21), it is therefore not conceivable by what 
other means the names of both authors, or the name of Priscilla should 
have been “suppressed.” Memory cannot be controlled by force ; its gradual 
extinction is a process of nature. The latest hypotheses, according to which 
Aristion is said to be the author both of Mark xvi. 9-20 and of Heb. 
(Chapman, Revue. Bénéd. 1905, pp. 50-62) will scarcely need to be seriously 
controverted even when the promised proofs appear in full. A μαθητὴς τοῦ 
κυρίου, such as Aristion was, according to the evidence of his disciple Papias 
(Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 4, ef. Forsch. vi. 138 tf., 218 ff.) could not have written 
Heb. ii. 3 f. 


IX. 
THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS. 


§ 48. THE UNWRITTEN GOSPEL. 


THE writings investigated up to this point have been, 
without exception, letters. Some of these (Kphesians, 
James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, Hebrews) were found not to 
be letters in the strict sense in which nearly all that we 
possess from Paul’s hand are, but gave the impression, 
rather, of a written sermon or of an essay. Still in every 
instance what the absent teacher wrote was intended for 
a definite circle of readers in the same locality, pre- 
dominantly of the same origin, and living under similar 
conditions. In these writings we found repeated reference 
to other Christian writings belonging to the same class. 
From Paul himself we learned of other letters of his, which 
have not come down to us, written to the Corinthians and 
Philippians, also of a letter which the Corinthian Church 
had sent to him (vol. 1. pp. 261, 524f.). In 2 Pet. iii. 15 
we learned of a letter of Paul’s to the Jewish Christians 
in Palestine, which has not come down to us, and in 
2 Pet. iii. 1 of an epistle of Peter’s to the same readers, 
now lost. Furthermore, it was clear from 2 Pet. ui. 16 
that numerous letters of Paul’s were read outside the circle 
of readers for which they were originally intended, and 
that Peter himself had read not a few of these (above, 
pp. 198 ἢ, 209, 274f.). In agreement with this last state- 
ment is the fact that 1 Peter betrays familiarity on the 


part of its author with Romans and: Ephesians (above, 
367 


368 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


p.176 £.); while Jude and the author of Hebrews appear to 
have been acquainted with Romans (above, pp. 279, 291, 365, 
line 2 ff. Paul had read James when he wrote to the Romans, 
and he took cognisance in his letter of its peculiar teaching 
(vol. 1. 126 ἔ, 428 f). We saw that 1 Peter was likewise 
influenced by James (vol. 1. 133; ii, 186, n. 3). Jude 
appeals to the authority of 2 Peter, although he does not 
mention the author by name, but characterises him merely 
as an apostle (above, pp. 250 f., 266 f.). From what we learn 
in 2 Pet. 1. 13-15 and Jude 3 of the literary intentions of 
these two authors, we conclude that their writings were 
to be in part letters and in part more comprehensive 
didactic compositions, but that they were still to retain 
the essential character of letters (above, pp. 199 ἢ, 242). 
The question arises whether during this whole period 
there was no other form of Christian literature in exist- 
ence—in particular, whether what Jesus had “done and 
taught” (Acts i. 1) was committed to writing quite as 
little as the revelations of the prophetic spirits in the 
Churches. Jesus’ words and deeds certainly could not 
have been forgotten, and the existence of a comprehensive 
body of gospel literature is of itself sufficient proof that 
the recollection of both was fostered in many ways. Much 
that Jesus desired to be left unpublished during His 
earthly ministry His disciples were to proclaim in all 
the highways and upon the house-tops. What they had 
experienced in fellowship with Him they were to testify 
openly before the world (John xy. 27; Acts 1. 8, 22; 
Matt. x. 27; Acts x. 39, 42). His words, which are to 
outlast the world (Matt. xxiv. 35; Mark xiii. 31; Luke 
xxi. 33; John vi. 68), which taken separately are words 
of God, and which in their totality constitute God's Word 
(John xvii. 8, 14, 17),—partieularly His commands and 
prophecies,—they were not merely to lay up in their own 
hearts and to exemplify throughout their whole life (Mark 
iv. 20, xi. 23; Luke viii. 21; John viii, 31, 51, xiv. 18, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 369 


21, 23, 26, xv. 7, 10, xvi. 4, 14 f.), but were to impart, to 
others also. And they were to do this because what Jesus 
says to them applies to all men (Mark xiu. 37 ; Matt. x. 
27, xxviii. 20). In fact, without proclamation of the 
deeds, the sufferings, and the resurrection of Jesus the 
missionary preaching was impossible, and teaching within 
the Church necessitated that the sayings of Jesus be 
recalled. Nor could one of these functions ever be fulfilled 
without in some way involving the other. ‚So far as we 
are able to form a conception from Acts u.—x. of the 
missionary preaching among the Jews and Jewish prose- 
lytes in Palestine, it was possible during the first years, 
at least, to take for granted a certain familiarity with the 
gospel history. The preachers needed only to recall it in 
order to set it at once in its true light. But even when 
recalled in this way the principal events of Jesus’ public 
ministry as preacher and miracle-worker, from the days 
of the Baptist until the crucifixion, were brought out and 
made the basis of the testimony regarding His resurrec- 
tion and second coming (n. 1). Among the Jews of the 
diaspora and the Gentiles, however, not even acquaintance 
with the main features of the history of Jesus’ life could 
be presupposed. In the case of such hearers even these 
had to be imparted (n. 2). Here also the missionaries 
appear to have begun their historical account with the 
preaching and baptism of John (n. 1). Naturally the 
chief emphasis was laid upon the death on the cross and 
the resurrection, but the missionaries could not preach 
about these facts without making statements about Jesus’ 
place in the history of His people, His Davidie descent,— 
which was the presupposition of His appearance as the 
Messiah, —His submission to the Jewish law, His activity 
as a preacher of the kingdom of God, and an undaunted 
witness to the truth, — which brought upon Him the 
deadly hatred of His own people,—the truly human life 
which He lived in spite of all the halo of miracle gathered 


VOL. II. 24 


370 INTRODUCTION TO "THE NEW TESTAMENT 


about it, and His sinlessness. Where one who had seen 
and heard Jesus appeared quite outside of Jewish eircles 
among the Greeks, and proclaimed the gospel to the latter, 
those who became converts must have been eager to learn 
the whole truth about Jesus’ life,—a desire which must 
have been satisfied by the missionaries (cf. 1 John 1. 1-4, 
iv. 14). Nor could the elementary regulations of Church 
life and religious worship be established in the newly 
founded Churches without reference to what Christ had 
prescribed and instituted. How far Paul went into the 
details of Jesus’ life and sayings in his missionary preach- 
ing we are unable to determine from the scanty hints of 
Acts and the references to it in his letters, which are 
always incidental (n. 3). 

That abandant details of this character were not 
wanting, is evident from the very necessity which every 
intelligent missionary must have felt who desired to 
arouse faith in the Founder of a religion and enthusiastic 
love for a Saviour on the part of hearers who had never 
heard of this person before. Furthermore, the expression 
“gospel of Christ,” so frequently used by Paul to charac- 
terise the gospel preached by him, rightly understood 
(n. 2), shows that Paul always remained conscious of the 
connection of all true preaching of the gospel with what 
Jesus Himself had preached and taught (Rom. xvi. 25). 
Though Paul’s position in this regard was not so favour- 
able as that of the personal disciples of Jesus, it isnot to 
he overlooked that, quite apart from his visits to Jeru- 
salem, which were always short, Paul from his conversion 
in 35 A.D. onwards frequently had intercourse, lasting for 
years, with earlier members of the mother Church. Thus, 
during his three years’ stay in Damascus, which was only 
temporarily interrupted by a journey into the dominion 
of Aretas, and the six or seven years when he was engaged 
in teaching in the Antiochian Church,—the nucleus of 
which consisted of refugees from Jerusalem,—there were 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 371 


abundant opportunities of this kind. On his missionary 
journeys he was accompanied and supported in his preaching 
by persons who had been members of the mother Church 
in the early stages of its growth, at first by Barnabas and 
Mark, later by Silas, which arrangement was manifestly not 
accidental, but due to careful forethought. At the time 
of his Roman imprisonment also, we find him again in close 
relations with Mark, together with a certain Jesus Justus, 
who was his companionable fellow-labourer in missionary 
work (Col. iv. 10 f.); and again in his last imprisonment 
the personal ministrations of this native of Jerusalem 
seemed to him to be almost as indispensable as the books 
which he had left behind (2 Tim. iv. 11-13). It is clear, 
therefore, that the Churches founded by Paul and his 
helpers did not lack from the first opportunity and means 
of becoming acquainted with the history of Jesus’ life in its 
details, and their members could not have been like other 
men if they failed to make diligent use of this material. 
If, in the judgment of the greatest of the missionaries to 
the Gentiles, the missionary preaching was to continue to 
be the ‘“‘ gospel of Christ,” in spite of the changes effected 
in the gospel by the death, resurrection, and exaltation 
of Jesus, and to retain a close relation to Jesus’ own 
preaching, the view held regarding the relation of instrue- 
tion within the Church to Jesus’ teaching must have been 
at least equally strict (n. 2). [Ὁ is “the word of Christ” 
Himself which is to be fully appropriated in the Church 
where it has found permanent lodgment, and to be repro- 
duced in various forms of teaching and in spiritual song 
(Col. iii. 16). It is the very “words of our Lord Jesus 
Christ” which are to be followed in all religious teaching 
and all sound discourse designed for the instruction of the 
Church (1 Tim. vi. 3). In the passage in which Paul 
boasts that at the time of the founding of the Ephesian 
Church he had preached the whole counsel of God without 
omissions, and that he had given them besides full instrue- 


372 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tion how they ought to walk, he counts it a part of his 
work also that he exhorted them to remember the words 
of the Lord Jesus, one of which he quotes (Acts xx. 27, 
35; ef. GA, i. 916,n. 1). Though unable to distinguish 
sharply between what was communicated originally with 
the missionary preaching and what was imparted later, 
we do, nevertheless, recognise that very early a con- 
siderable body of information concerning the history and 
sayings of Jesus had been circulated in Gentile Christian 
(n. 4) and Jewish Christian (n. 5) circles. Though, on 
account of the meagreness of the sources, no cautious 
investigator would venture an opinion as to what parts 
of the gospel tradition familiar to us were unknown in the 
Churches between 50 and 80, nevertheless it is clear that 
parts of the tradition then current in the Church were not 
embodied in the canonical Gospels (n. 4 under i. 8, 12 
c,e, f, ii 1; n. 5 underi. 13). It is also to be noticed 
at this point that, judging from the facts disclosed by a 
comparison of our Gospels with the tradition which the 
other N.T. writings show to have been current in the 
Church, the claims of the first three Gospels to be an 
accurate or even full reproduction of the traditions con- 
cerning Jesus’ deeds and sayings current in the apostolic 
Church are no greater than those of the Fourth Gospel 
(n. 4 under i. 10, 11, it. 5; vol. 1,121 -f.). 

It is a peculiar though ‘tndéniable fact that, apart from 
the Gospels and the Gast sentence of Acts, which connects 
it with the Gospel, and with the single exception of 
1 John i. 4 ($ 70)—and this is not altogether clear—there 
is nothing to, show throughout. the literature of the N.T. 
that the memory of Jesus’ life and words in the Church 
was aided by written records of the same. ‘‘ Remember 
the words of the Lord Jesus” (Acts xx. 85); “ Keep His 
word and testimony, His commandment and teaching, 
which ye have heard from the beginning” (e.g. 1 John 
ii. 5, 7); “ Remember the command of the Saviour trans- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 373 


be and taught to you by your missionaries” (2 Pet. 
ili. 2, ii. 21; above, p. 210, n. 1): so we read everywhere. 
What the witnesses saw of His life and heard from His lips 
they preach to others, that they might come to believe and 
to love Him whom they had not seen and heard (1 John i. 
1-3, 5, iv. 14; 2 Pet. 1. 16-18; Heb. i. 3; cf 1 Pet. i. 
8,12, v. 1; above, p. 147f.). The great missionary to the 
Gentiles, who did not belong to the circle of Jesus’ dis- 
ciples, did not fail when occasion required to say to his 
converts in so many words, that he had delivered to them 
the account of Jesus’ life and words, when he preached to 
them, just as it had been handed down to him, the gospel 
on which their faith was founded. The tradition spread 
by Paul in his work as a missionary and organiser of 
Churches came from the Lord Himself, whose words and 
life were the theme of his preaching. Nevertheless he 
received his knowledge of both through men (n. 6) quite 
as much as the Churches to whom he brought it; and 
when he desires to substantiate the trustworthiness of 
this tradition, he does not appeal to a book or to several 
books whose credibility is acknowledged, but to the Twelve 
and the hundreds of witnesses still living (1 Cor: xv. 5=7). 

The opinion which arose in the third century, that 
where Paul speaks of “his gospel” he has a book in view, 
possibly Luke’s Gospel (n. 7), no longer requires refutation. 
Throughout the whole N.T., even in Rev. xiv. 6° and 
Mark i. 1, the word εὐαγγέλιον means the oral proclamation 
of God’s lait of salvation as made known and realised by 
Jesus; not until after the beginning of the second century 
do we find the word used to designate written records of 
the gospel history. But of the existence of such records, 
if we leave the Gospels out of account, there is no evidence 
whatever anywhere in the N.T. with the exception of Acts 
i. 1 mentioned above, and, if it be insisted, 1 John i. 4 
Still, too much weight is not to be laid upon this fact. ~ In 
the first place, we must remember that in antiquity books 


374 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


were much more frequently read by a single person to'a 
large body of hearers than in modern times, and in this 
wity were made known to many. Private reading was 
confined for the most part to the learned. It happened 
even in the realm of heathen literature that where one 
person gained his knowledge of a book by reading, often 
hundreds became acquainted with it through hearing, 
which was still more true on Christian soil in the Churches 
for whose use primarily the Gospels, like the other N.T. 
books, were written (n. 8). Therefore it is impossible, on 
the basis of the statements which represent the Christians 
of the apostolic age as receiving their information about 
Jesus’ words and deeds only through hearing, to conclude 
at once, and’ for the whole period covered by the N.T. 
documents, that the anagnost, 1.6. the lector, who read to 
them, was not one of those through whom they received 
this information.. In the second place, we still meet such 
formule as ““ remember the words of the Lord Jesus,” even 
when there is no longer any question not only as to the 
existence of the Gospels, but also as to their use in re- 
ligious worship (n. 9). And there are times even at 
present when the preacher makes use of the same ex- 
pression. The only thing that can be concluded from the 
preceding observations is that, during the lifetime of Paul 
and Peter, the beginnings of gospel literature which may 
have been in existence were without perceptible influence 
upon the life of the Church, and that, until toward the end 
of the first century, the gospel literature then existing, 
or in process of formation, was not regarded as the chief 
source from which the Church was to derive its knowledge 
of the words and deeds of Jesus--at least in regions where 
there were persons still living who had seen and heard Him. 

The tradition regarding the origin of our Gospels 
places them all later than the year 60. And this tradition 
niust ‘appear @ priori credible when it is borne in mind 
that in » later age the desire for trustworthy information 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 375 


about Jesus, together with the circumstance that these 
four books were the only sources from which such infor- 
mation was to be had, must have produced a disposition 
to furnish these books, which came more and more to be 
treated as sacred original documents, with every possible 
guarantee of their trustworthiness, and to put back their 
composition as close as possible to the facts which they 
recorded. The Protevangelium of James, which was 
written before the middle of the second century, is repre- 
sented as having been written directly after the death of 
Herod, when Jesus was still a child (GA, u. 775), The 
apocryphal literature connected with the name of Pilate, 
the beginnings of which belong to the same period, pur- 
ports to be based upon an official report of Pilate con- 
temporaneous with Jesus’ trial and death, as shown by 
its ancient title (Justin, Apol. 1. 35, 48, τὰ ἐπὶ Ποντίου 
Πιλάτου γενόμενα “Axta). The tradition regarding the 
origin of our Gospels, which goes back at least as far as 
the time when these apocryphal accounts were written, 
and puts the: first steps in their preparation thirty or 
more years after Jesus’ death, stamps it as essentially 
genuine. Independently of this, however, the tradition 
is confirmed by the silence of the other N.T. writings 
regarding the existence of a gospel literature. That this 
generation (from 30 to 60 A.n.), living as it did in con- 
stant expectation of Jesus’ return, should have taken little 
thought of the coming generations for whom the memory 
of the gospel history must be preserved, is less strange 
than that men should have felt so long that the necessities 
of the present could be met without written records of 
Jesus’ words and deeds. In comparison with the multitude 
of those who wished and had to know more of the details 
of Jesus’ earthly life, the number of original witnesses who 
could narrate what Jesus had said and done was none too 
great to begin with, and grew less with every decade. 
Moreover, must not the original witnesses themselves have 


376 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


felt the necessity of giving their own memory the definite 
support which the recollection of a large number of sayings 
heard only once, and of a multitude of events differing in 
character and following in rapid succession, usually finds 
only in written records? The single express statement 
which we have about numerous writings treating of the 
gospel history, composed before at least a part of the 
gospel literature that has come down to us (Luke i. 1), 
contains no indication of the date when these writings 
began to make their appearance, nor is anything definite 
said about their purpose and character. Notes which 
were intended simply to meet the personal necessities of 
those who prepared them can be meant or at least in- 
cluded. The statement can cover also such books as 
Luke’s own Gospel, designed primarily for: individuals 
who desired fuller information concerning Jesus. The 
only thing that the negative testimony of the other 
N.T. writings does exclude is the possibility that the 
Gospels were regularly read in the religious services of 
the Christians before the death of Peter and Paul, and 
the possibility that they were employed as the basis for 
instruction in the Church. Accordingly we are free to 
use our imagination and to fill even the period before 
60-70 with manifold beginnings and attempts in the 
direction of a gospel literature. However, it is to be 
remembered that the imagination has a place in historical 
science only in so far as it serves to set in a clear light 
the possibility and probability of the presuppositions 
which are demanded by the actual facts. Nor has the 
imagination any rights over against a tradition, be this 
as meagre as it may, until it is shown that the latter 15 
without basis in faet, and therefore false. Finally, the 
imagination must guard itself carefully against postulates 
which have possible support only in the narrow experience 
of scholars whose vision is bounded by the four walls of a 
study. 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 377 


1. (P. 369.) Acts ii. 22, καθὼς αὐτοὶ οἴδατε ; X. 37, ὑμεῖς οἴδατε τὸ γενόμενον» 
ῥῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς Ιουδαίας. The apostolic testimony, strictly considered, 
begins with the fact of the resurrection of Jesus (Acts ii. 32-36, x. 40-43, 
Of. Luke xxiv. 18-21, Acts iii. 13b-15a, on the one hand, and Acts 111..186, 
15b, iv: 2, 10, v. 30-32, 2 Pet. i. 16 [see above, p. 203 f.] on the other). That 
the preaching of conversion confined itself to the public ministry of Jesus, 
which in turn was connected with the work of John the Baptist, appears 
most clearly in Acts x. 37f., but alsoin ii. 22, and indirectly in 1. 22. The 
preaching among the dispersion was essentially the same in this respect (xiii. 
23-25). .(! : 

2. (Pp. 369, 371.) The difference between the preaching outside of Pale- 
stine and that in Palestine (see note 1) is well characterised (Acts xiii. 23-29). 
We get also an expressive phrase in τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (Acts xviii. 25, xxiii. 11, 
xxviii. 31), which does not differ in conception from the corresponding usage 
with reference to other persons (Eph. vi. 22; Col. iv. 8; Phil. i. 27; ef. 
Luke vii. 3, 17, xix, 9, xxiv. 19). It is the events, circumstances, and his- 
torical conditions that have to do with Jesus which, in the missionary 
proclamation, naturally become the subject not of communication merely, 
but of a preaching which aims at conviction and of an instructional dis- 
cussion (Acts xviii. 25, xxviii. 23, viii, 12), forming thus an element, and a 
very essential element, in the εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ... περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (Rom. 
i. 1,3). Quite different from this designation of the gospel in terms of the 
centre about which it moves is the phrase τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Gal, 1.7 ; 
Rom. i. 9. 16 (the reading in this instance not well supported), xv..19; 1 Cor. 
ix, 12, 18; 2 Cor. ii. 12, ix. 13, .%..14; Phil. i..27;.1 Thess. ii. 2. ef. 
2 Thess. i. 8, The translation, “Evangelium von Christo” [Gospel about 
Christ], upon which Luther ventured only in Mark i. 1, Rom. i. 9, 16, but 
avoided everywhere else, is to be rejected—(1) because it is the construc- 
tion with περί which Paul uses (Rom, i. 3; cf. 1 John i. 1) to express the 
thought that Christ is the chief object of the Christian preaching (cf. 1 Cor. 
16-23, (xve[125 2 Cor. i. 19, iv. 5, ixi. 4 5° Phil. 1. 16 5. Acts v.42,) viii. 35, 
ix. 20, xix. 18); (2) because the analogy of εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ (Rom. i. 1, 
xv. 16; 2 Cor. xi. 7; 1 Thess. ii; 2, ii..8, 9;.1 Pet. iv. 17), which cannot 
possibly mean the glad tidings of the existence or the attributes of God, is 
decisive against construing τοῦ Χριστοῦ in connection with εὐαγγέλιον as 
objective genitive, and for its construction «as subjective genitive. The 
gospel can be named from God as the original author and sender of this 
message of salvation; and also from Christ as its first herald in the: world. 
In Mark i. 1 this latter usage may be inferred directly from the opening (i. 14) 
of the narrative thus entitled, but:it also holds good in general for the simple 
reason that the gospel was first proclaimed by Jesus (Heb. ii. 3, iii..1 ; ef. 1. 1). 
The ‘ preaching of Jesus” Himself, to which Paul refers in Rom, xvi. 25, is the 
original form of the gospel, which no more ceases to be the gospel of Christ, 
because, after His departure, it is proclaimed by the apostles and other sinful 
men, than it ceases to be the gospel or word of God. (3) The same conclusion 
follows from the analogy of τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 1 Cor. i. 6 (cf. 2 Tim. 
i, 8), which does not, and cannot grammatically, mean anything different 
from τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ Oeod, 1 Cor. ii, 1; and, further, from the equivalence 
of ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου and τοῦ θεοῦ as a designation of the gospel (cf. Acts viii 


378 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


25, xiii. 48, 49, xv. 35, 36, xix. 20; 1 Thess, i. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 1, on the one 
hand, and Acts iv. 31, vi. 2, 7, vill, 14; 1 Cor. xiv. 36; 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2; 
Col. i. 25, on the other), where there can be no question that the gospel, like 
every revelation and proclamation similarly designated (Rom. ix. 6; Heb. 
iv. 12; Ps. xxxiii. 4; Hos. i. 1, iv. 1; Amos v. 1), can be called the word of 
God or of the Lord simply because in the last analysis God or the Lord is 
the speaker in it. (4) That every genitive of a person with εὐαγγέλιον is 
with Paul himself a subjective genitive (or genitivwm auctoris), is shown 
further by τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου (Rom. 11. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. 1: 8; οἵ. 
1 Cor. ii. 4) or ἡμῶν (2 Cor. iv. 3; 1 Thess. i, 5; 2 Thess. ii. 14). When 
Paul, Rom. xvi. 25, sets τὸ κήρυγμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ beside this gospel of his 
as a second norm, the preaching of Jesus Himself and the truth which He 
preached are undoubtedly intended (ef. Matt. iv. 17; Mark i.14; Luke iv. 18 ; 
also vol. i.412,n. 17)... While the gospel of Paul and the preaching of Jesus can 
be mentioned side by side as two things to be historically distinguished, all 
true gospel, no matter who proclaims it or to whom it is proclaimed (Gal. ii. 7), 
falls in the category of the one indivisible εὐαγγέλιον Χριστοῦ (Gal. 1. 7, 
ZKom, Gal. 47f.)--the gospel of Christ as its author and its first herald. 
(5) The necessity of this interpretation becomes especially clear in 2 Thess. 
i. 8: τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, where the use of the proper name 
“Jesus” (cf. Acts xx. 35) shows that the apostle had in mind the historical 
appearance of the Lord as the pioneer preacher of the gospel. Nevertheless 
here, as in the passages where the εὐαγγέλιον Χριστοῦ is mentioned, the refer- 
ence is not directly, as in Rom. xvi. 25 (τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰησοῦ) to the preaching 
of Jesus in the historic past, but to the one message of salvation brought into 
the world by the preaching ministry of Jesus, and afterwards further pro- 
claimed by His apostles and others. This message can be named from its 
historical origin and author, because on the lips of the apostles it is not 
essentially different from the message of the great First Apostle (Heb. iii. 1), 
the beginner of the preaching (Heb. ii.3). (6) In the same way, too, are we 
to understand ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Col. iii. 16, and the similar plural term, 
1 Tim. vi. 3. It is evident that this can as little signify “the word about 
Christ” as can ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου, where it denotes the gospel (see under (3) 
above), or a single word of Jesus (Acts xx. 35; 1 Thess. iv. 15; cf. vol. i. 
p. 223,n. 4). It is rather the content of that which Jesus first proclaimed, 
and which has since lived on in the Christian community—gospel and com- 
mandment, promise and teaching. Where it is necessary to emphasise—as 
he must emphasise again and again—the application of Christ’s word to the 
life of the believers and the Churches, Paul calls it the commandment outright 
(1 Tim. i. 5, 18, vi. 14). In this he does not differ from the older apostles 
(1 John ii. 7, iii. 23, iv. 21; 2 Pet. iii. 2). He could not speak in this way, if 
he did not know as well as they that Jesus Himself had given this command 
or law (Gal. vi. 2, τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ; ef. 1 Cor. vii. 10, 25, ix. 21) ; for 
men’s commands and doctrines have no weight in the Church of Christ (Col. 
ii. 22 ; Tit. i. 14). In view of all this, it should be self-evident—and may be 
mentioned here—that ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ in Rev. is primarily the testimony 
which Jesus Himself, the true witness (Rev. i. 5, iii: 14), gave during His life 
on earth (ef. John iii, 11, v.31, vii, 7, xviii. 37; 1 Tim. vi. 13). This funda- 
mental meaning occurs in Rev. xix. 10; in i 2 it is transferred to that which 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 379 


the exalted Jesus testifies to the Churches through John. At the same time, 
this passage shows that that which God has spoken or Jesus has testified does 
not cease to be considered God’s word and Jesus’ testimony where it is repre- 
sented that, on this ground, a man acknowledges this word and testimony, 
and bears witness to it before others. Even when thus mediated by men 
(Rev. i. 9, xii. 17, xix. 10a, xx. 4; ef, vi. 9, ii. 13, xvii. 6) it is the testimony 
of Jesus, as it is the word of God, though elsewhere it is spoken of as the 
testimony of the men who hold it and confess it before the world (Rev. xii. 
11). Just as one may not translate ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (Rev. i. 9, xx. 4; ef. 1. 2), 
“the word or doctrine concerning God,” so μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰησοῦ may not be 
rendered “the testimony concerning Jesus.” The derivation of all Christian 
preaching from the lips of Jesus Himself is very clearly affirmed in the 
Johannine Epistles (1 John i. 5; ef. i. 1, 3). The Christian teaching is’ the 
teaching of Christ Himself (2 John 9). The one all-inclusive command of 
God (1 John iii, 22-24, v. 2f.) is the command and word of Christ (ii. 3-8). 

3. (P. 370.) We have examples of the missionary preaching among) the 
Jews of the dispersion, Acts xiii. 16-41, xxviii. 23-28, and a few hints, Acts 
xvii. 3, 7, 11, xviii. 5, 25, 28, xix. 8, 13.. We cannot form ‚a similar idea, of 
the preaching addressed to the heathen from Acts xiv. 15-17, xvii. 22-32, 
for these were occasional addresses called forth by peculiar circumstances, 
and followed the missionary preaching ; ef. Acts xiv. 9, xvii. 17. For Paul’s 
support by helpers from Jerusalem, cf. the writer’s Skizzen, 2te Aufl. $. 82-85. 
With regard to the content of Paul’s missionary preaching and the instructions 
connected with it, more light is to be had from the occasional, references in 
the Epistles, Gal. iii. 1; 1 Thess. i, 9f., ii. 12, iii. 4, iv. 1£,, 6, 11, v. 2; 
2 Thess. ii. 5, 15, iii. 6, 10; 1 Cor. i. 6, 17-25, ii. 1-5, iii. 18, 10£, iv. 17, vi. 
2f., Off, ix. 21f., xi. 2, 23-25, xv. 1-11; 2 Cor. i. 18-20 (ii. 14-iv. 6), v. Ὡς 
18-21, xi. 2-5; Eph. ili, 4-12, iv. 20-24; Col. i. 5-7, 25-29, ii. 6f., iv. 3 
1 Tim. 1. 12- 16, ii. 3-7 (iii. 15£.), vi. 3, 12-16; 2 Tim. i. 8-11, 13, ii. 8 dit. 
10-17), than from Acts (see also Acts xvi. 21, xvii. 18). 

4. (P. 372.) Paret, “ Paulus und Jesus,” JbfDTh, 1858, S. Lff.;,Keim, 
Gesch. Jesu, i. 35 ff. ; Roos, Die Briefe des Ap. Paulus wnd die Reden Jesu, 1887, 
where as an appendix, S. 250 ff,, the relation of the other N.T. writings to 
the Gospels is discussed. These questions, especially with reference to the 
Fourth Gospel, are treated with more suggestiveness and penetration, if 
sometimes a trifle boldly, by P, Ewald, Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage, 
1890, 8. 57-97, 142-160. Cf. further Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, 1902 ; 
Resch, Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu, 1904. Here only a brief state- 
ment of the material can be given, first from the Pauline Epistles, and, 
further, not only from the discourses of Paul in Acts, but also from 1 Pet., 
which is addressed to a circle of Churches founded by Paul and his associ- 
ates, and from the Johannine Epistles and Rev., of which the same is true. 
Rom. and Heb. occupy a peculiar position, inasmuch as the former was 
addressed to the preponderantly Jewish Christian community in Rome, 
and the latter, some twenty years later, to a part of it consisting of 
Christians, who were Jews by birth. For the present purpose these also 
may be included here ;—I. Tak History or Jesus: (1) His Davidie 
descent, Rom. i. 3 (as an element in the missionary preaching, ef. Acts 
xiii, 22f., 32-37); 2 Tim, 11. 8. (as an element jin the Church confession, 


380 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ef. the writer’s Das «post. Symb. 40, 42); Rom. xv. 12; Heb. vii. 14; Rev 
iii. 7, v. 5, xxii. 16. (2) His entrance into the common life of men, Gal. 
iv. 4 (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός Without mention of a human father, ef. the writer's 
Das Apost. Symb. 64); Rom. i. 3 (rod γενομένου... κατὰ σάρκα, for inter 
pretation see vol. 1. 338, n. 8), vili. 3.29; Phil. ii. 7; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Heb. ii. 
9-18, iv. 15, v. 2, xii. 2f.; 1 John i. 1, iv. 2f.; 2 John 7. (8) His’ position 
under the law, Gal. iv. 4; presupposed, Gal. iii. 13; Rom. vii. 1,4; Eph. 
ii. 15; Col. ii. 14. (4) His baptism with water, 1 John v. 6ff., according to 
the most probable meaning of ὁ ἐλθὼν δὲ ὕδατος and οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον. 
On this occasion, though not only then, God testified concerning His Son 
(v. 10, 11). Referred to in John i. 33f., but narrated only in Matt. iii, 175 
Marki. 11; Luke iii. 22. (5) His sinless life in obedience to God, Phil. ii. 7 ἢν; 
2 Cor. v. 21; Rom. v.19; 1 Pet. ii. 22; 1 John ii. 6; Heb. iv. 15 (χωρὶς 
ἁμαρτίας), v. 8, vii. 26. (6) His preaching work in Israel, Rom. xv. 8, xvil 
25; Eph. ii. 17 (with reference to the Gentile world, ef. John x. 16, xii. 32 ; 
Matt. viii. 11f.; Luke xiii. 29); Heb. i. 1 (see p. 338 above), ii. 3, iii. 1. 
(7) His institution of the Lord’s Supper, 1 Cor. xi. 23-25, with which 
Luke xxii. 19f. would correspond exactly, but for the omission of vv. 19-20 
in accordance with the Western text. That this event occurred on the night 
in which Jesus fell into the power of His enemies, or was arrested (for no 
more than this is affirmed in παρεδίδετο, ef. Rom, iv. 25, viii. 32 ; Mark i. 14; 
Matt. iv. 12), accords with the ‘synoptic Gospels, which alone report the 
institution ; likewise the indication that it took place on the oceasion of the 
Passover Supper (xi. 24, 25, eis τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, twice strongly emphasised, 
ef, Ex. xii. 14; also x. 16, τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας). (8) The struggle in 
Gethsemane, Heb. v. 7 ἔν, see above, p. 362. If this passage is taken to refer 
to the prayer on the cross, we obtain, at least, no greater correspondence with 
the Gospels; for we read, it is true, in Matt. xxvii. 46, Mark xv. 34, that 
Jesus prayed with a loud voice in the words of the Psalm, and in Matt. 
xxvii. 50, Mark xv. 37, Luke xxiii. 46, that with His last breath He once 
more cried aloud ; but there is no mention of repeated, wrgent request, with 
strong crying and tears, for deliverance or protection from death. An independent 
tradition, therefore, must be represented here. If Epiph. Ancor. xxxi. was 
right in asserting that in the supposably uncorrected MSS. of Luke xxii. 44 
the words about sweat like drops of blood were preceded by the statement 
that Jesus wept aloud (ἔκλαυσε), this reading, which is otherwise unsupported, 
must have crept into some MSS. of Luke from Heb. v. 7, or else from an 
apocryphal source. But Epiphanius’ appeal to Irenzeus, who is said to have 
cited this phrase, casts suspicion upon his whole account; for Iren. iii. 22.2 
does indeed mention Jesus’ weeping before the bloody sweat, but derives it 
from John xi. 35; while Epiphanius, as so often, by reading carelessly what 
lay before him, has for the first time come upon the interesting fact of which 
he informs us as of something new. Massuet (see in Stieren, p. 543) has not 
succeeded in defending him against Petavius. (9) His trial before the 
Sanhedrin, Acts xiii. 27f. (ef. Matt. xxvi. 59f.; Mark xiv. 55f.; Luke 
xxii. 66ff.); 1 Pet. ii. 23 (ef. John xviii. 22f.; Matt. xxvi. 65 ff; Mark 
xiv, 63 ff, xv. 4f.). (10) His testimony before Pilate, Acts xiii. 28 ; 1 Tim, 
vi. 13 (John xviii. 37 corresponds most nearly, ef. Rev. i. 5, iii. 14). (11) His 
execution by the secular authorities, 1 Cor. ii. 8; the Jews the real murderers, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 381 


1 Thess. ii. 15, who besought Pilate to put Him to death, Acts xiii. 28. 
Then the erueifixion (ef. John xviii. 32), 1 Cor. i. 17-23, ii. 2; Col. ii. 14; 
Phil. ii. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 24, cf. Heb. vi. 6; in Jerusalem, Rev. xi. 8; more 
precisely, before the city gate, Heb. xiii. 12; shedding His blood, Rom. 
iii. 25, v.95; Eph. i. 7, 1. 13; Col. i. 20; 1 Pet. 1.02, 19; 1: John i. 7, vi'6; 
Rev. i. δ, v. 9; Heb. ix. 12, 14, x. 19, 29, xii. 24, xiii. 20 (recorded only in 
John xix. 34, and to be inferred from John xx. 20, 25, 27, but not from 
Luke xxiv. 39); removal from the cross, Acts xiii. 29 (by the Jews? cf. 
Gosp. of Peter vi. 21, also Matt. xxvii. 57 ff. ; Mark xv. 43 ff.; Luke xxiii. 50ff. ; 
John xix. 38 ff.); burial, 1 Cor. xv. 4; Acts xiii. 29, as an element in the 
missionary preaching—perhaps alluded to in Rom. vi. 4; sojourn in the 
abode of the dead, Eph. iv. 9; Heb. xiii. 20; Rev. i. 18 (also 1 Pet. iii. 19, 
iv. 62). (12) His resurrection, as an element in the missionary preaching, 
1 Cor. xv. 3-20 ; Acts xiii, 30-37, xvii. 3, 18,31; and in Church confession, 
2 Tim. ii. 8, ef. Rom. i. 4, iv. 24f.; Gal. 1. 1; Col i.185 1 Pet. i.3 (see p. 156 
above), iii. 18,21; Heb. vi. 2, xiii. 20; Rev. i. 5, 18. Details brought out 
are (a) τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ, 1 Cor. v. 4; (b) appearances during a somewhat 
extended period, Acts xiii. 31, ef. i.3; 1 Cor. xv. 5-8; (c) an appearance to 
Peter—this as an item in the missionary preaching, which is not distinctly 
affirmed of the remaining instances, 1 Cor. xv. 5 (presupposed in Luke 
xxiv. 34, but narrated neither there nor elsewhere, nor referred to in Mark 
xvi. 9-13) ; (d) an appearance to the twelve apostles, 1 Cor. xv. 5 (probably 
identical with Luke xxiv. 36 ff. ; John xx. 19-23); (e) an appearance to more 
than 500 brethren at once, 1 Cor. xv. 6 (otherwise not reported); (f) an 
appearance to James, 1 Cor. xv. 7 (not recorded elsewhere in the N.T.; in 
the Gosp. of the Heb. set back to the morning of the resurrection day, GK, 
ii. 700); (g) an appearance to all the apostles, 1 Cor. xv. 7 (perhaps identical 
with Matt. xxviii. 16-20, or with Acts i. 2-8; Luke xxiv. 44-51). (13) His 
exaltation to heaven or the right hand of God, Rom. vill. 34 ; Eph. i. 20; 
Col. iii, 1; Phil. ii. 9; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. 111. 22; Heb. 1.3, iv. 14, vii. 26; 
Rev. v. 6, ii. 26f. (narrated only in Acts i. 9, implied Luke xxiv.5l, even 
according to the shorter text, cf. Acts i. 2; alluded to, John vi. 62, xx. 17). 
II. Worps or Jesus. (1) Acts xx. 35, πάντα ὑπέδειξα ὑμῖν, ὅτι οὕτως κοπιῶντας 
δεῖ ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι τῶν ἀσθενούντων μνημονεύειν τε τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου 
Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι αὐτὸς εἶπεν" “ μακάριόν ἐστιν μᾶλλον διδόναι ἢ λαμβάνειν." All the 
variations from this fundamental reading (p. 372 f. above) can be reasonably 
accounted for ; thus τὸν λόγον in the Antiochian recension, and τοῦ λόγου in 
others (Sahidic and Vulgate versions, some min.), because only a single 
saying is cited. So also with the somewhat widespread form of the saying 
itself, “Blessed is the giver more than the receiver,” Peshito, and in indirect 
quotation, Ap. Const. iv. 3, Anast. Quest. 13, μακάριος, Cod. D (in the direct 
form), may be a trace of this alteration, so easily suggested by the recollection 
of the uniformly personal subjects of the Beatitudes. More important is the 
proposal of Lachmann and Blass to connect πάντα with what precedes. The 
Peshito has altered the whole construction by inserting a καὶ before πάντα 
and omitting ὅτι. It begins a new sentence with οὕτως, in which μνημονεύειν 
also’ depends upon de. A misunderstanding of the connection of this 
infinitive with ὑπέδειξα gave rise also to the alteration μνημονεύετε. Paul 
admonished the elders of his time to be mindful in the conduct of their office 


382 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


not of this single saying only, but of all the words of Jesus (ef. 1 Tim. vi. 8), 
That these constitute a suitable standard for them in particular is shown by 
the citation of a single saying. It is not found in our Gospels. That Luke 
quoted it “from the Apostolic Constitutions” (see above) was a bit of naive; 
folly on the part of the pseudo-Euthalius (Zacagni, 420), which found 
currency as a marginal gloss. On the other hand, Clement, 1 Cor. ii. 1 (ἥδιον 
διδόντες ἢ λαμβάνοντες), may have known the saying from Acts, or indepen- 
dently of 10. (2) 1 Cor. vii. 10, τοῖς δὲ γεγαμηκόσιν παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ 
ὁ κύριος “ γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς μὴ χωρισθῆναι .. . καὶ ἄνδρα γυναῖκα μὴ ἀφιέναι 
(ef. Matt. xix. 6; Mark x. 9, for the phrase, Luke xvi. 18, ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ 
ἀνδρός). ı The words which the present writer has omitted stand: outside the 
construction, and so do not belong to Jesus’ command. That a traditional 
saying of Jesus is intended is shown by the reverse expression, 1 Cor. vii. 12, 
τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς λέγω ἐγώ, οὐκ ὁ κύριος, and vii. 25, περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων ἐπιταγὴν 
κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω.. We are still in the same position to-day with regard to the 
marriage of hitherto unmarried persons and of widows (vii. 39f.), and with 
regard to mixed marriages (vii. 12-16). Matt. xix. 10-12 also contains no com- 
mand. (3) 1 Cor. ix. 14, οὕτως καὶ 6 κύριος διέταξεν τοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον karayye- 
λουσιν ἐκ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (nv. Cf. Matt. x. 9-11; Luke x. 7f., for the phrase, 
Matt. xi. 1, διατάσσων τοῖς δώδεκα. 1 Tim. v. 18, ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ 
αὐτοῦ, corresponds more closely with the wording of Matt. x. 10, and exactly 
with that of Luke x. 7, but it is not quoted as a saying of Jesus, and only 
apparently as Biblieal ; ef. above, p. 118 ἢ. (4) 1 Cor. xi. 23-25, the words of 
Jesus at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, see above, under i. 7. (5) Here 
may be.added Col. ii. 11, ἐν τῇ περιτομῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, as Paul calls the ecelesi- 
astical rite of baptism. This, of course, could not be described as the eircum- 
cision which Christ underwent (Luke ii. 21; Gal. iv. 4, cf. Rom. xv. 8), for this 
was just what was not to be imposed upon the Gentile Christians, but the cir- 
cumcision commanded by Christ in distinetion from that appointed by the law. 
Nor can τοῦ Χριστοῦ be regarded as a substitute for the adjective “ Christian,” 
—a term not yet found in the apostolic vorabulary,—for Paul uses the formula 
ev Χριστῷ in that sense; as in the construction with τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ete. (see 
above, p. 377f.), it can only be genitive of subject and author. So Eph. 
vy. 25f. ; Paul knows, consequently, a command of Jesus by which baptism 
was ordained in the Church. Such a command we find only im Matt. 
xxviii. 19 (cf. John iii. 22, iv. I). 1 Cor. i. 17 is not inconsistent with this, 
for Paul is not speaking there of preachers in general, nor of the twelve 
apostles, but declares for his own part that the command to baptize was not 
ineluded in his commission by Christ. To this declaration, indeed, he was 
impelled by those Jewish Christians who laid stress on the fact that they 
had been baptized by Peter (vol. i. 303, n. 11). Peter certainly was bidden 
to baptize, but not so Paul, according to all accounts, (6) 1 Thess. iv. 15, 
τούτο γὰρ ὑμῖν λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου «rr. Paul not only wishes to have the 
eschatological teaching which follows received as reverently as if it’ were a 
word of the Lord, but will have it understood as the Lord’s own word. | This 
by no means guarantees a verbal citation, but only a conscious dependence 
on reported sayings of Jesus. If what is thus introduced seems to close with 
iv. 18, this is simply because the teaching up to that point is chiefly occupied 
with the answer to the questions of doubt (iv. 13) ; in faet, it is only in v. 1-5 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 383 


that conscious dependence on the discourses of Jesus becomes unmistakable. 
The parallels have already been indicated in detail, vol. 1. 223, n. 4. 
Suggestions of Johannine character are also present, especially v. 4f., οὐκ 
ἐστὲ Ev σκότει, ἵνα ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμᾶς ὡς κλέπτης καταλάβῃ" πάντες yap ὑμεῖς 
υἱοὶ dards ἐστε, cf. John xii. 95 1, This completes the references to specific 
words of Jesus in the writings designated. There are other passages, e.g. 
1 Thess. iv. 2, which imply a reference to Jesus’ words, though it cannot be 
directly proved. The profusion of thoughts and statements in the Epistles, 
especially. 1 John, which may have been influenced by words of Jesus living 
in the recollection of the writers and the Churches, cannot be indicated here. 
The fancies of Resch, who sees in 1 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 10, xi. 26, Eph. v. 14, 
1 Tim. v. 18 formal citations from ἃ precanonical gospel (Ayrapha, 8. 162, 
172, 178, 222), from which Paul is supposed to have drawn in many other 
passages also, have not become more worthy of belief through the more 
detailed elaborations in his later work, Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu. 
As it is only in the second century, with Ignatius, Barnabas, and Justin, 
that we find it gradually becoming customary to quote from the Gospels 
used in the Churches with γέγραπται, it is self-evident that Paul cannot have 
referred to a Gospel when he used this or a similar formula. Cf. also Ewald, 
Hauptproblem, 143 f., 202-208 ; the writer’s GK, ii. 790 ff., and many other 
passages ; Ropes, Die Sprüche Jesu, 8. 8f., and the remarks there noted. 

5. (P. 372.) Im the writings designed for the Jewish Christians of Pales- 
tine (aside from Matthew), James, 2 Pet., Jude, and in the corresponding 
discourses in Acts i. 15-xi. 18, we find references to the following gospel 
material :—I. Hisrortcan: (1) Davidie descent, Acts ii. 30, and, indirectly, 
Acts iv. 25-27. (2) “That Jesus was of Nazareth,” Acts ii. 22, iii. 6, iv. 10, 
vi. 14, x. 38, cf. xxiv. 5, xxvi.9. (3) The continued intercourse of Jesus with 
His disciples, and His public ministry from (ἀπό) or after (wera) the baptism 
by John, Acts i. 22, x. 37. In addition to His preaching (Acts x. 36), His 
miraculous work is also particularly emphasised, and viewed as a result of His 
anointing with the Spirit and power, x. 38, ii. 22 (ef. iv. 27; and for δύναμις, 
δόξα, ἀρετή, 2 Pet. i. 3, 16; above, p. 220, line 11 from end); the baptism of Jesus 
is to be recalled in this connection. Galilee is mentioned as the first field of 
this activity, x. 37, but “His deeds in Judea and Jerusalem” are also spoken 
of, x. 39, ef. 37. (4) The prediction of Jesus regarding the destruction of the 
Temple and of Jerusalem, and that in the form in which it is given, John 
ii. 19, and only assumed in Matt. xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40, Mark xiv. 58, xv. 29, 
evidently underlies Acts vi. 14 ; cf. also Jude 5 ; see above, p. 254. (5) The 
call and choice of the apostles by Jesus’ Himself, 2 Pet. i. 3; see above, 
p- 220f.; presupposed, Acts i. 17. (6) The Transfiguration on the mount, 
2 Pet. i. 16-18, see above, p. 215 ff. (7) Jesus’ prediction of the martyrdom 
of Peter, 2 Pet. i. 14, see above, p. 212f. (8) The treachery of Judas, Acts 
i. 16 ff., with peculiar details. (9) The crucifixion of Jesus, as the act of the 
Jewish nation, especially its rulers, who used the Gentile Pilate as a tool, 
Acts ii. 23, 111. 13, 17, iv. 10f., v. 30, vii. 52. (10) The choice between 
Jesus and Barabbas before Pilate, Acts iii. 13 f. (11) Herod’s partieipa- 
tion, Acts iv. 27. (12) The resurrection’ from the grave, Acts ii. 24-32, 
iii. 13, 15, iv. 2, 10, v. 30, and that, too, on the third day, x. 40. (13) The 
appearances of the risen Christ, with whom the apostles ate and drank, 


384 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Acts x. 41 (ef. i. 4%); this is not actually stated in the Gospels, as Luke 
xxiv. 41-43. speaks only of Jesus’ eating before the disciples, and John 
xxi. 12f. only of the disciples’ eating before Jesus. It is on the ground of 
these appearances that they are witnesses to His resurrection, Acts: ii. 32, 
iii. 15, v. 32. (14) The exaltation to heaven, Acts ii. 33-36, iii. 21, v. 31. 
II. Worps oF JESUS are not explicitly cited. With regard to the echoes of 
them in James, see vol. i. 114, 121 f. That the apostles, in particular, trans- 
mitted the commands of Jesus also is shown 2 Pet. iii. 2, see above, p. 210. 
With regard to the reference to John xiii. 36, xxi. 18f. in 2 Pet. 1. 14, see 
above, p. 214. From Acts x. 42 it seems that the apostles were commissioned 
by the risen Christ to testify to the nation that Jesus was the divinely 
appointed judge of the living and the dead (cf. 2 Pet.i. 16, παρουσίαν ; i. 4, 
ἐπαγγέλματα ; ill. 9, ἐπαγγελία). 

6. (P. 373.) The chief passages to indicate the form in which the gospel 
tidings were transmitted are 1 Cor. xv. 1-3 (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην 
ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε---παρέδωκα yap ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον) and 1 Cor, xi. 23 
(ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν). From these it 
appears (1) that the παραδιδόναι of the apostle with regard to the gospel facts 
was included in the εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, as was an oral communication, like 
this εὐαγγελίζεσθαι and every other παραδιδόναι in the planting of the faith, 
Cf. on παραδιδόναι, παράδοσις, and the corresponding παραλαμβάνειν, 1 Cor. 
xi, 2; 1 Thess. ii. 2, 8 (μεταδοῦναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον), il. 13 (παραλαβόντες λόγον 
ἀκοῆς map’ ἡμῶν), i. 4, iv. 1 (mapeAdßere παρ᾽ ἡμῶν), iv. 2 (ἐδώκαμεν ὑμῖν), 
iv. 11; 2 Thess. ii. 5, 111. 6 (τὴν παράδοσιν ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν) ; cf. also 
the distinction between the later written communication and the earlier oral, 
2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 14; further, Rom. vi. 17 (vol. i. 374); Gal. i. 9; Col. 
ii. 6; Phil. iv. 9. It appears (2) that the earlier παραλαβεῖν. on Paul’s part 
was like the subsequent παραλαβεῖν of the Corinthians, that is, the hearing of 
oral παράδοσις ; and (3) that, without prejudice to the correctness of Gal. 
i, 12, 16, which has todo not with the external details of the gospel history, 
but with the truth of redemption and the knowledge of Christ (ef, above, 
p. 352, on Heb. ii. 3), Paul obtained his acquaintance with the individual 
historical facts (ra περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, see above, p. 377, n. 2), as the Corinthians 
did, from the narrations of others who knew them before him, and not 
through any extraordinary revelations from God or Christ, whether once, at his 
conversion (Gal, i. 16; 2 Cor. iv. 6), or oftener, subsequently (2 Cor, xii. 1 ff.). 
For, apart from the absurdity of sueh a superfluous revelation, a communica- 
tion and instruction received directly from the Lord would necessarily have 
been expressed by παρέλαβον παρὰ rod κυρίου (cf. 1 Thess, ii, 13, iv. 1; 
2 Thess. iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 13, ii. 2, iti, 14; Gal. i. 12; John i. 41,) vi. 45, 
vii. 51, viii. 26, 40, xv. 15; Acts xx. 24). By ἀπὸ ‘rod κυρίου (which) is 
unquestionably the correct, reading in 1 Cor. xi. 23 against D, which alone 
has παρά, and G, which alone has θεοῦ) Paul means to say neither more nor 
less than that the tradition which he brought, the Corinthians from three to 
five years before, and of which he now reminds them, is not only identical 
with that which he himself received after his conversion some twenty-two 
years earlier, but descended from Jesus Himself to him, or, to, put it 
otherwise, can be traced back to Jesus Himself, with whose acts and words 
on the night before His death we have here to do. Who were. the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 48: 


human media of transmission between Jesus and Paul may be gathered 
from the story of Paul’s life (Acts ix. 17-30, xi. 25-30, xiii. 1; Gal. i. 
17-ii. 14). 

7. (P. 373.) Marcion probably wrote τὸ εὐαγγέλιον without μοῦ in Rom. 
ii. 16 (@K, ii. 516), and his disciples in the time of Origen and the centuries 
following did not emphasise this pov, but the singular in Rom. ii. 16 and 
the assertion of the oneness of the gospel in Gal. i. 6-8, in order thus to lodge 
a complaint against the Church, which had not one Gospel, but several 
(tom. v. 7 in Jo., ed. Preuschen, p. 104. 24; Adamantius, Dial. c. Marc. ed. 
Bakhuyzen, p. 10 f. ; Chrysost. in Gal. i.6f., Montf. x. 667). In these passages 
they thought of a book, and in their dispute with the Catholics now and then 
asserted, on this ground, that Paul was the author of their Marcionitic Gospel, 
after their claim that Christ Himself had written it had been disproved (Dial. 
808 ; Caspari, Anec. p. 11 f.). Marcion himself was not responsible for this. 
On the other hand, Origen was already acquainted with the application of 
2 Cor. viii. 18 to Luke as evangelist as an accepted and traditional inter- 
pretation (Hom. I. in Luc. : “ Unde et ab apostolo merito collaudatur dicente 
‘cuius laus in evangelio est per omnes ecclesias.’ Hoc enim de nullo alio 
dicitur et nisi de Luca dictum traditur.” This is the proper punctuation, 
and not traditur, as introduction of the following citation from Luke i. 3; 
Delarue, iii. 933). This tradition is continued by Ephrem, Comm. in Ep. Pauli, 
103 ; Jerome, Vir. Ill. vii. ; Pref. Comm. in Matth. ; Comm. in Ep. ad Philem. 24. 
Origen, too, does not dispute the right of the Mareionites to refer Rom. ii. 16 
to a book (see above), and has no scruple in calling the Book of Luke “the 
Gospel praised by Paul” (in Eus. A. E. vi. 25. 6). Eusebius (H. E. iii. 4. 8) 
reports it as a common opinion that wherever Paul says κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν 
pov, he means the Gospel of Luke. Cf. GK, i. 156, n. 3, 619, 655. This 
would apply to Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25, 2 Tim. ii. 8, and logically also to τὸ evay- 
γέλιον ἡμῶν, 2 Cor. iv. 3; 1 Thess. i.5 ; 2 Thess. 11. 14 ; and this seems to have 
been Ephrem’s opinion (ThLb, 1893, col. 471). The absurdities to which one 
would thus be led even in Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25, hardly need to be stated. The 
idea that the missionaries immediately after their oral preaching handed the 
Gospels to their believing hearers may fit the time of Trajan, of which Eus. 
H. E. iii. 37. 2, speaks. To carry it back into the time of Paul and Peter is 
an anachronism. On the other hand, what is said of Bartholomew’s bringing 
the Gospel of Matthew into India or South Arabia may be true (§ 54, n. 7). 

8. (P. 374.) Fora contrast of the one reading the book in the assembly 
and the many hearers, ef. Rev. i. 3. In 1 Tim. iv. 13, also, ἀνάγνωσις is not to 
be understood of private study, but of the public reading to the congregation 
which was included in the teacher’s duty. The exhortation and other forms 
of teaching followed the reading (Luke iv. 20; Acts xiii. 15; Just. Apol. i. 67). 
Reading aloud in a circle of friends was a preliminary to publication, 
Plin, Epist. i. 13, ii. 19, iii. 7. 5, 18. 4, v. 3. 7-11, 12 (al. 13), 17, vi. 15, 
vil. 17. 7, viii. 12; Tac. de Orat. 9; Luc. Hist. Conscr. 9. A public read- 
ing, at which those interested gathered in large numbers, often served also 
to bring into more general notice books already published; cf. August. 
Retract. ii. 58. 

9. (P. 374.) Clem. 1 Cor. xiii. 1, μεμνημένοι τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ; 
ef. xlvi. 7 ; Polye. ad Phil. ii. 3, cf. @X,i. 841; Orig. Exhort. Mart. 7, μνημον- 

VOL. II. 25 


386 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


εὐτέον τοῦ διδάξαντος, “᾿ ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω" ; Vita Polyc. xxiv. 31, ed. Duchesne, pp. 


30, 36. But the Christians are also expressly “reminded” of the contents 
of the O.T. Scriptures, with which they were well acquainted, Clem, 1 Cor, 
liüi. 1. 


8 49. THE COMMON TRADITION IN THE CHURCH 
REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 


The history of the Canon shows that by 130 at the 
latest our four Gospels were read in the Church services 
throughout the extent of the ‘Catholic Church” of that 
time (Ign. Smyrn. viii. 2). A definite opinion regarding 
the composition of these books by particular authors was 
equally common, as was also apparently a judgment 
regarding the time when they were written. We begin 
at once with a statement of this general tradition, and 
an estimate of its worth. 

I. In the period between 180 and 220, Matthew and 
John, who were apostles, and Mark and Luke, disciples 
of apostles, were everywhere regarded as the authors of 
the four books which, even as early as 150, were commonly 
called Gospels (Just. Apol. i. 66, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια). The 
occasional designation of the Gospels briefly as writings of 
the apostles, and of the evangelists as apostles (e.g. Iren. 
iii, 11.9; GK, i. 154 ff.), is explained, so far as it requires 
any explanation at all, in the first place, by the fact that 
later writers, influenced partly by the analogous usage in 
the N.T., employed the title apostle, not only for the 
Twelve and Paul, but also to designate their helpers in 
preaching, as Barnabas, Luke, and others (Forsch. vi. 6-8). 
In the second place, it is explained by the fact that even 
the Gospels written by Mark and Luke were associated more 
or less intimately with their teachers, Peter and Paul (see 
below). It was only this tradition of the Church regarding 
the composition of the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
and John which at that time found embodiment in the 
Greek MSS., and soon afterwards also in the MSS. of the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 387 


Latin translation, even in the titles, 1.6. the superseriptions, 
the subseriptions and column-headings of the separate 
Gospels,—the original form of which in all probability was 
κατὰ Mar@aiov, κατὰ Μᾶρκον, ete. (n. 1). To be sure, the 
Manichean Faustus, who referred this κατὰ Ματθαῖον, ete., 
to the authors of the Gospels themselves, found in it, at 
the same time, the admission that the Gospels were not 
written by the apostles and followers of the apostles, but 
composed later by unknown persons, on the basis of alleged 
traditions, from the apostles and their disciples (n. 2). 
This opinion has been very commonly circulated up to the 
present time, only with the difference that it is no longer 
the evangelists themselves, but the Church gathering and 
eirculating the Gospels, which is made to say in this 
peculiar -way that the Gospels were not written by the 
four persons named, but by others writing in their spirit 
and under their names. The absurdity of this view is 
perfectly apparent. For, in the first place, the oldest 
witnesses for the κατὰ Maz@aiov, namely, Ireneus, Clement, 
and the author of the Muratori fragment (n. 3), state as 
explicitly as do Origen and all the other later authors, 
that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels 
bearing their respective names. In the second place, the 
Church teachers of this period had received, and trans- 
mitted as trustworthy, the tradition that the ultimate 
source of Mark’s Gospel was Peter’s oral preaching ($ 51), 
and it was a very common supposition that a similar 
relation existed between Luke’s Gospel and Paul. After 
this tradition regarding Mark’s Gospel, which reaches back 
to the first century, had become general, a title intended 
to designate not the author of the Gospel, but the person 
who was its guarantee and final security, could only have 
read εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Πέτρον, not κατὰ Μᾶρκον. In the 
same way, «ara Παῦλον would have taken the place of 
κατὰ Aovräv. Nor, on the other hand, is this «ara Mardatov 
a book-title in the usual sense in which the term is used, 


388 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


t.e. to designate simply the name of the author, but is 
to be explained, especially in its original form, without 
εὐαγγέλιον, from the peculiar character of these books and 
their place in the Church. Sayings of Jesus were cited 
generally with the formula, “ The Lord says” or “said,” or 
“ The Lord says in the Gospel,” or “ It is written in the 
Gospel,” or “The Gospel says.” The name used in the 
apostolic age to designate the oral preaching of salvation 
was transferred to the documents in which later genera- 
tions possessed this preaching, without any distinction 
being made between the separate books in which the one 
and only gospel of Christ was found. Indeed, the singular 
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον was probably used before the plural τὰ 
εὐαγγέλια as a general designation of all such writings. 
It was not until later that εὐαγγέλιον came to be used of a 
single writing of this character, and εὐαγγέλια to denote a 
number of them. When, however, it became necessary to 
say on what authority the claim was made that the Lord 
had spoken this or that single word in the Gospel, or that 
the Gospel testified this or that fact, following common 
usage, the expression was employed: “ According to 
Matthew, the Lord said”; “ According to John, on one 
occasion Jesus changed water into wine”; “The Gospel 
testifies, according to Mark, that Jesus was asleep in the 
ship upon a pillow.” The apostolic conception of the 
uniqueness of the Gospel—a thought which the Church 
could not give up to the Marcionites (above, p. 385, n. 7) 
—produced necessarily in the Church the conception of 
the inseparable unity of the four Gospels. This idea 
explains not only these formul® of citation, which were 
in use early, and which continued current also in the 
centuries that followed, but also such titles as κατὰ Mar- 
θαῖον κτλ. These last presuppose, as a general title of the 
collection of Gospel writings, εὐαγγέλιον, in exactly the same 
way that πρὸς ‘Pwpaiovs presupposed that the single writing 
so entitled was part of a collection of Παύλον ἐπιστολαί. 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 389 


Leaving out of account the denial of the genuineness 
of the Fourth Gospel, made at a comparatively late date, 
circa 170, by the Alogi, who declared it to be the work of 
the heretic Cerinthus, the tradition of the Church embodied 
in the titles of the Gospels was contradicted by no one in 
the second century, whether members of the Church or 
heretics. Justin calls the Gospels regularly ‘memoirs 
of the apostles,” and remarks incidentally in connection 
with the account of Jesus’ baptism, “ The apostles of this 
our Christ (or His apostles, v.e. apostles of this our Christ) 
themselves have written this” (Dial. lxxxviii.) ; and on one 
occasion, when quoting something a parallel to which is to 
be found only in Luke xxu. 44, 1.6. in a Gospel written by 
a disciple of one of the apostles, he uses the more exact 
expression, “It is written in the memoirs which I claim 
were composed by the apostles and by their disciples” 
(τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων, Dial. cii.). When we take 
into consideration also that in two other passages, where 
Justin introduces material peculiar to Luke’s writings, he 
is careful not to say unconditionally that the Gospels were 
written by the apostles (Apol. i. 33, οἱ ἀπομνημονεύσαντες 
πάντα Ta περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ’I.Xp.; Dial. ev., ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν 
ἀπομνημονευμάτων ἐμάθομεν), it is practically certain that, 
like [renzeus and all the later authors, Justin distinguishes 
between Gospels written by apostles and Gospels which 
originated from their disciples; and that he knew the 
third Gospel to be a work of the latter kind, which did 
not, however, prevent him from speaking generally of the 
“memoirs of the apostles” (GK, i. 476, 478 ff, 497). 
Even the Gnostics, the disciples of Valentinus and 
Marcion, never ascribed the Gospels used in the Church to 
any other authors than those to whom they were ascribed 
by the Church itself. The preparation of a collection of 
Gospel traditions, under the title Hvangelium Veritatis, 
by Valentinus or his disciples (Iren. ii. 11. 9; GK, 1. 
748 ff.), implied a certain criticism of the Gospels used by 


390 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the Church. They claim that in their common form the 
Gospels do not contain the full truth concerning Jesus 
and without knowledge of the secret tradition, their reports, 
which are contradietory in many points, cannot be cor- 
rectly understood. Nevertheless, the Valentinians cite 
and comment upon the Gospels used in the Church as 
apostolic writings (GK, 1. 732 ἢ, 741 f, 744, n. 1). The 
Acts of Peter, written circa 170 by a member of the 
Valentinian school, or by a man in close touch with it 
(above, p. 73, n. 7), represent the book of the Gospel 
read in the Church assembly to be an apostolic work in the 
composition of which Peter also seems to have had a part. 
John xxi. 25 and 1 John i. 1-4 are adduced to show the 
need of interpretation and enlargement ; but still no fault 
is found with the book directly, much less is it aseribed to 
less notable and later authors (Acta Petri, ed. Lipsius, 
p. 66 f.; GK, ii. 848, n. 2, 849 ff), Others went further 
than the Valentinians in their criticism of the Gospels used 
by the Church, and claimed that much of a Jewish legalistic 
character was to be found in them. Still, they did not 
attack the tradition regarding their origin, but charged 
the apostles, whom they also accepted as authors of the 
Gospels, with having combined those elements that did not 
belong in the Gospel with the words of Jesus ; and this was 
explained to be due to Jewish prejudices, by which they 
were still influenced, and to the misunderstanding of Jesus’ 
manner of teaching, which was to a large extent accommo- 
dative (n. 4). Marcion, the boldest of these erities, who 
did not hesitate to criticise the tradition of the Church 
in other points, including literary matters (vol. i. p. 481), 
left the Gospels unassailed as regards their authorship. 
According to him, the apostles, who were of Jewish origin 
themselves, went so far as to deliberately falsify the Gospel 
in the books which they wrote, and this evil work was 
completed by others of kindred spirit through the insertion 
of later interpolations (GA, i, 591-594, 656-680). It 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 391 


cannot here be pointed out in detail how Marcion critieised 
the separate Gospels. The important remnants of his own 
Gospel extant show very clearly the thoroughgoing criticism 
which he thought necessary in the case of Luke’s Gospel 
(GK, i. 680-718, 1. 455-494). He was thoroughly dis- 
satisfied, not only with the details of this Gospel, which he 
could have cut out as later interpolation,—just as he had 
removed similar elements from the Pauline letters,—but 
with its whole plan and spirit as well, and so necessarily 
with its author. It is not, therefore, surprising that, in 
the single passage of Paul’s letters (Col. iv. 14; Marcion 
rejected 2 Timothy altogether) where Luke is mentioned in a 
significant manner, he cut out the words ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός, 
which expressed the author's esteem of Luke ; so that Luke 
was left in this passage, as in Philemon 24, without any 
distinguishing characterisation, in the suspicious company 
of the ill-famed Demas (GK, i. 665, 705 f., ii. 528). Unless 
we are disposed to assume a very singular coincidence in 
explanation of this omission, it proves that Marcion knew 
Luke’s Gospel, which he made the principal basis of his 
own Gospel, to be the work of Luke, the disciple of Paul, 
and that, far from attempting to dispute this tradition, 
he calumniated Luke, whom he, too, recognised to be the 
author of the Gospel current in the Church under his name. 
An oral tradition which was accepted so early and so 
universally by friend and foe alike as was the tradition 
that the Gospels used by the Church were written by 
the Apostles Matthew and John, and by Mark and Luke, 
the disciples of the apostles, hardly needs in support of 
itself a documentary tradition, which was later doubted. 
The rise of this tradition from actual facts adequate to 
explain its origin is all the more necessary, because there 
is nothing in the books themselves which would necessarily 
have given rise to the unanimous tradition regarding their 
authors. In the case of the Gospels which pass under the 
name of Matthew and Mark, the personality of the authors 


392 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


is nowhere betrayed by the use of an “I.” In Matt. ix. 9, 
x. 3, the name of the apostle to whom the first Gospel is 
ascribed occurs, but without any hint of the author's 
special interest in this apostle. The names of Mark, Luke, 
and John are not found at all in the books bearing their 
respective names. From the preface to the third Gospel 
and the “we” which occurs in several passages of Acts, it 
possibly could be inferred that this work in two parts was 
written by the disciple of an apostle, and by a man who 
was for a time a companion of Paul. But there is 
nothing in the work to lead one to suppose that the author 
was Luke rather than Titus. From several passages of the 
Fourth Gospel it is possible to infer that its author belonged 
to the apostolic circle; but, judging from our present 
knowledge of exegesis in the ancient Church, the cleverest 
scholar of that time could not have guessed that the 
author was John and not James the son of Zebedee, or 
Alphzeus, or Bartholomew, or Simon Zelotes. It follows, 
therefore, that the tradition associated with the four 
Gospels from the time when they began to circulate, which 
was not once attacked during the entire period from 
70-170 even by hostile critics, of whom these books had 
no lack even at this early date, is based not upon learned 
conjectures, but upon facts which at that time were 
incontrovertible. 

II. Origen claims to have learned as tradition that the 
four Gospels of the Church were written in the order in 
which we are accustomed to find them in our Bibles (n. 5). 
In order to estimate properly this tradition and other 
statements which possibly could seem to us ambiguous, it 
must be borne in mind that in the ancient Church the 
separate parts of the collection of Gospels were arranged in 
various orders, and that until the third century the Holy 
Seriptures were not written in book form in our sense of 
the word book, 7.e. in the form of a codex which could 
contain a large number of writings, but in rolls which were 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 393 


of limited though for the most part of quite uniform size. 
Books of the average compass of our Gospels, Acts, and 
Revelation required each a roll. The only way in which 
it was possible to indicate externally that a number of 
such writings belonged together was by placing the rolls 
belonging together in one holder or the same drawer of a 
bookease (n. 6). At the time, when this method was in 
use there could be no question about the order of the 
Gospels. The transition began to be made from the roll to 
the codex in Origen’s lifetime, and it is probable that he 
himself saw codices in which all four Gospels were written. 
But the order in which he found them seems to have been 
that which prevailed in Egypt for a long time, John, 
Matthew, Mark, Luke. Neither this nor any other 
arrangement could have had influence upon the tradition 
stated above regarding the order in which the Gospels 
were written, or upon the statements of writers before 
Origen’s time, because the codex did not come into general 
use until during the course of the third century, and then 
only gradually. What Origen gives as a tradition, without 
any thought of a divergent view, is expressed also by 
Irenzus and the author of the Muratorian fragment without 
the least indication of uncertainty (n. 7). It continued to » 
be the prevalent view in antiquity (n. 8), and it was this 
more than anything else which brought it about, that the 
arrangement of the Gospels familiar to us displaced more 
and more the other arrangements in the East from the 
beginning of the fourth century on, and after Jerome also 
in the West. But Ivenzeus makes further statements of a 
more definite character (n. 7). According to him, the time 
when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome, 
and engaged in laying the foundations of the Church there, 
Matthew, who lived among the Hebrews, issued a gospel 
writing in their language. After the death of the two 
apostles, Mark, the follower and interpreter of Peter, 
delivered to the Church in written form what Peter had 


394 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


preached. Irenzeus makes Luke’s Gospel follow that of 
Mark, but without more exact indication of the time when 
it was written. So, with reference to the Fourth Gospel, 
he says merely that John issued the same after the appear- 
ance of the other Gospels, during his residence in Ephesus. 
According to Irenzeus idea of the chronology (above, p. 76), 
the Hebrew Matthew appeared between 61-66, Mark not 
long after 66 or 67, and Luke somewhat later ; while John, 
who, according to Irenzeus (v. 30. 3), wrote Revelation 
toward the end of Domitian’s reign (died 96), and was still 
alive in the first years of Trajan’s reign, 98-117 (Iren. 
ii. 22. 5, ui. 3. 4), must have composed his Gospel some- 
time between 75 and 95. It is to be noticed, further, that 
Irenzeus had read Papias’ work (v. 33. 4), which contained 
notices regarding the origin of Matthew and Mark, and, 
according to a doubtful report, also of John. | With refer- 
ence to Mark, Papias preserved a statement of his teacher, 
John, whom Irenzeus held to be the apostle of this name, 
in which Mark is represented as having reproduced faith- 
fully in his Gospel his recollections of Peter's narratives 
($51). This statement seems to exclude the possibility that 
Mark wrote his Gospel in the vicinity where his teacher 
Peter was staying, or it seems to presuppose that Peter 
was no longer alive when Mark wrote. Since Irenseus uses, 
among other expressions of the teacher of Papias, the same 
peculiar phrase which the latter employed to express the 
relation in which Mark stood to Peter (ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου), 
it is perfectly clear that Ireneeus was aware that. his view 
regarding the time of the composition of Mark’s Gospel was 
in agreement not only with that of Papias, but also with 
that of his teacher John the presbyter, who, according to 
Irenzeus, was the apostle John. This is to be kept well in 
mind in considering a statement of Clement of Alexandria, 
which appears to be directly to the contrary (n. 9). Clement 
claims to have received from his teachers the tradition that 
the Gospels containing a genealogy of Christ were written 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 395 


before the others. Inasmuch as Clement reports, also ir 
the same connection, that John wrote last, with the incom- 
pleteness or one-sided character of the other Gospels in 
view, his chronology agrees with the only other tradition 
handed down in making Matthew write first and John 
last. But his report varies from the other tradition—if 
his short statement is to be taken literally—in represent- 
ing not only Matthew, but also Luke, which likewise has a 
chronology, to have been written earlier than Mark, which 
lacks such a chronology. In line with this variation 
would be the supposition that Clement, following some 
older source, placed the composition of Mark in the life- 
time of Peter, and not, as Irenzeus, after the death of Peter 
and Paul. This last difference would not be very consider- 
able, since, according to the older tradition, Peter’s stay in 
Rome was very brief, lasting at longest only a year 
(above, p. 165 ff.; above, pp. 68-84); and, on the other hand, 
Ireneeus manifestly means to say that Mark issued his 
Gospel soon after the death of Peter and Paul. Following 
Clement, Mark would have to be dated in 63 or 64, while, 
according to Irenzeus, it was written somewhere about 67. 
Inasmuch, also, as the tradition concerning the time and 
circumstances in which Luke’s Gospel was written was not 
so definite as that concerning Mark, the opinion that Luke 
was written before Mark could have been merely an 
inference from the close of Acts. If it was assumed, as is 
still done by numerous scholars, that Luke wrote Acts 
immediately after the close of the two years (Acts xxviil. 
30),—which would imply that his Gospel was written 
somewhat earlier,—and if the fact was also considered that 
Luke makes no note of Peter’s residence in Rome at the 
time, or if it was known from the tradition that Peter did 
not come to Rome until after Paul’s departure from the 
city (above, p. 165 f.), the conclusion must have been drawn 
that Luke wrote earlier than Mark, ».e. if the latter wrote 
his Gospel in Rome under Peter’s supervision. But closer 


396 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


serutiny of Clement’s own words shows that he knows and 
says nothing of the completion of Mark’s Gospel in Peter’s 
lifetime (§ 51). In any case, Clement’s isolated statement, 
which seems to say that Luke was written before Mark, 
must give way before the tradition which represents the 
two Gospels as having been written in the order Mark— 
Luke, not only because the witness for the latter view is 
incomparably stronger, but also because Clement’s view 
might have been the result of critical reflection, which is 
inconceivable in the case of the opposing tradition. 
Learned hypotheses, however, no matter how old they 
may be, do not deserve the name of tradition; all that 
they show is the greater or less degree of intelligence 
possessed by those by whom they are made, regarding 
which it is not the purpose of this text-book to judge. 


1. (P. 387.) Cod. B has as titles of the four Gospels and as headings of the 
columns simply κατα Μαθθαιον xrX.; 80 also δὲ in the headings of the columns, 
but in the subseriptions of Mark, Luke, John evayyehwov κατα Μαρκον κτλ. 
In the uncials the latter is the rule, only sometimes evayyeAıov is written 
once instead of twice in succession, e.g. Cod. D, ed. Scrivener, p. 262, evayyelıov 
kat Aovkav επληρωθη" apyera κατ papxov. So also in the Latin MSS. That 
the Latins did not originate their secundum Mattheum, but took it at first 
hand from the Greek MSS., is shown by the Greek form cata Marcwm, Lucam, 
ete., in the MSS. of the Old Latin version, Cyprian, Firmicus Maternus, 
Lucifer, Priscillian (GK, i. 164, n. 5; also the true Victorinus of Pettau, cf. 
Haussleiter in 7h LB, 1895, S. 194; Marius Victorinus, contra Arianos, iv. 4, 8, 
18, see note 3 below ; Jerome, in Gal. iv. 4, Vall. vii. 449 ; Onomast., ed. Lagarde, 
p. 99. 23). The same is true of the Egyptian versions. The Syrians, on 
the other hand, in all forms of their translation of the Gospel have simply 
“of Matthew” instead of “according to Matthew.” Tertullian also, who did 
not as yet have a Latin Gospel, avoided xara, secundum. 

2. (P. 387.) Faustus, in August. contra Faustum, xxxii. 2, appeals to the 
criticism which the Catholics also apply to the Mosaic law, and then in- 
quires: “Solius filii putatis testamentum non potuisse corrumpi, solum non 
habere aliquid, quod in se debeat improbari? Presertim quod nec ab ipso 
scriptum constat nec ab eius apostolis, sed longo post tempore a quibusdam 
incerti nominis viris, qui ne sibi non haberetur fides scribentibus, que 
nescirent, partim apostolorum nomina, partim eorwm, qui apostolos secuti 
viderentur, scriptorum suorum frontibus indiderunt, adseverantes secundum 
408 se soripsisse que scripserint. Quo magis mihi videntur injuria gravi 
affecisse discipulos Christi, quia que dissona idem et repugnantia seriberent, 
ea referrent ad ipsos et secundum eos hac scribere se profiterentur evangelia, 
que tantis sint referta erroribus, tantis contrarietatibus narrationum simul 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 397 


ac sententiarum, ut nec sibi prorsus nec inter se ipsa conveniant.” Quite 
similarly again xxxiil. 3. The replies of Augustine, especially xxxii. 16, 19, 
21, 22, xxxiii. 6-8, are also worth reading. Even Lagarde (Mitteilungen, 
iv. 109) could write: “The Gospels in the earliest sources bear the title, 
Gospels according to Matthew, ete.; except in the interpolated MSS., then, 
they are not given out as Gospels of Matthew,” etc. It is not surprising that 
Jews like Hamburger, Jesus von Nazareth, 1895, S. 8, go still further in the 
same direction. 

3. (P. 387.) Iren. i. 26. 2, 27. 2, iii. 11. 7, 8, 9, 14. 4; Clem. Ped. 
i. 38; Strom. i. 145, 147; Quis Diw. v; Hypotyp. on 1 Pet. v.13; 1 John i.1; 
Can. Mur. line 2 (GK, ii. δ. 21f., 140). For the old formulas of citation, ef. 
GK, i. 162f. On those in which the original significance of the κατὰ M. still 
appears (GK, i. 167, note 2), ef. also Victor. contra Arianos, iv. 18, “Idem (se. 
Christus) tamen, ut ostenderet suam preesentiam semper, κατὰ Ματθαῖον sic 
loquitur” (Matt. xxviii. 19f. follows); ¢bid. iv. 4, “colligamus igitur κατὰ 
Ἰωάννην dictum” (John iv. 24 follows). Also iv. 8, “in evangelio κατὰ 
Ἰωάννην " (Migne, viii. 1115, 1119, 1126). With regard to the conception 
of the unity of the Gospels, cf. GK, 1. 161 ff., 185 f., 477-481, 842-848, ii. 21 f., 
32f., 40f. In all transferences of this εὐαγγέλιον κατά, followed by name 
of a person, to other gospels, as κατὰ Πέτρον (Orig. tom. x. 17 in Matt.; 
Serapion in Eus. H. E. vi. 12), κατὰ τοὺς δώδεκα, κατὰ Θωμᾶν, Βασιλείδην, 
Ματθίαν (Orig. Hom. 1 in Lucam, GK, ii. 627), these names denote the 
supposed writers, not the authorities standing behind them. 

4. (P. 390.) Iren. iii. 2. 2, “apostolos enim admiscuisse ea, que sunt 
legalia, salvatoris verbis”; iii. 12. 12, “apostolos quidem adhuc que sunt 
Judezorum sentientes annuntiasse evangelium,” have to do formally and 
primarily with the oral preaching and tradition ; but, as the context of both 
passages shows (iii. 2. 1 before the words quoted, and iii. 12. 12 after), the 
intention is to show the object of the criticism directed against the Gospels 
by the heretics, and its justification from their standpoint. When Ireneus 
(iii. 1. 1) maintains, in opposition to this criticism, that the apostles did not 
preach and write the Gospel till after the resurrection of Jesus and the gift of 
the Spirit, he too connects the composition of the Gospels immediately with 
the oral preaching. 

5. (P. 392.) Eus. H. E. vi. 25. 3, says of Origen : ἐν δὲ τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν eis 
τὸ κατὰ Mardatov (al. add. εὐαγγέλιον), τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φυλάττων κανόνα, 
μόνα τέσσαρα εἰδέναι εὐαγγέλια μαρτύρεται ὧδέ πως γράφων" ‘Qs ἐν παραδόσει 
μαθὼν περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων, ἃ καὶ μόνα ἀναντίρρητά ἐστιν ἐν τῇ ὑπὸ 
τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν γέγραπται τὸ κατὰ τόν ποτε 
τελώνην, ὕστερον δὲ ἀπόστολον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Ματθαῖον, ἐκδεδωκότα αὐτὸ τοῖς 
ἀπὸ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμοῦ πιστεύσασι, γράμμασιν ἑβραϊκοῖς συντεταγμένον" δεύτερον δὲ τὸ 
κατὰ Μᾶρκον, ὡς Πέτρος ὑφηγήσατο αὐτῷ, ποιήσαντα, ὃν καὶ υἱὸν ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ 
ἐπιστολῇ διὰ τούτων ὡμολόγησε φάσκων : “ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι 
συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός μου." καὶ τρίτον τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν, τὸ ὑπὸ Παύλου 
ἐπαινούμενον εὐαγγέλιον τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν πεποιηκότα' ἐπὶ πᾶσι τὸ κατὰ 
Ἰωάννην. Cf. Origen’s introduction to the Homilies on Luke in Latin and 
Greek, GK, ii. 625, 627 ; also tom. vi. 17 in Jo., ἀρξάμενοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Ματθαίου, 
ὃς καὶ παραδέδοται πρῶτος τῶν λοιπῶν τοῖς “Ἑβραίοις ἐκδεδωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, 
τοῖς ἐκ περιτομῆς πιστεύουσιν. Cf. tom. i. 6; as ἀπαρχὴ τῶν εὐαγγελίων, John 


398 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


is written not first but last (ef. i. 2), and before it Matt., Mark, Luke write in 
the order named. 

6. (P. 393.) With regard to roll and codex, see @K, i. 60-83 ; v. Schultze 
in Greifswalder Studien, 1895, S. 149-158. For the order of the Gospels in the 
codices, ef. GK, ii. 364-375 ; for those especially in Egypt, and for Origen’s, 
ef. ii. 371 ff., 1014. 

7. (P. 393.) Iren. iii. 1. 1; in Greek, Eus. H. E. v. 8. 2: ‘O μὲν δὴ 
Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὐτῶν διαλέκτῳ καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν εὐαγ- 
γελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ρώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων pai θεμελιούντων τὴν 
ἐκκλησίαν. Μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον Μᾶρκος, ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, 
καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσύμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν. Καὶ Λουκᾶς 
δέ, ὁ ἀκόλουθος Παύλου, τὸ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βιβλίῳ 
κατέθετο. Ἔπειτα ᾿Ιωάννης, ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου, ὁ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ 
ἀναπεσών, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ τῆς ᾿Ασίας διατρίβων. The 
differences between this Greek text οἵ Eusebius and the Latin version of 
Ireneus are unimportant. The Ita Mattheus attaching to the preceding 
context (οὕτως ὁ Ματθαῖος with or without μέν and δή), Eusebius has not 
unnaturally changed. The Latin translator, on the other hand, has omitted 
the καί before γραφήν, which is contrasted with the oral preaching of the 
apostles (cf. GK, ii. 22, n.1). When later compilers (Cramer, Cat. i. 263, 264), 
following Irenzeus or Eusebius’ quotation from Irenzus, spoke of the time of 
the composition of Mark as pera Ματθαῖον or μετὰ τὴν τοῦ κατὰ Ματθαῖον 
εὐαγγελίου ἔκδοσιν, they were right. Very far from right, however, is the 
attempt to correct in accordance with this the text of Irenzus (see Eus. Hist. 
Eccles. ed. Heinichen, v. 8. 2, S. 198). The only reading which has been 
handed down, τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον, without mention of any place or locality 
which they left (ef. on the other hand, Ps. exiv. 1; Sir.xl.1; Heb. iii. 16), 
can only denote the death of Peter and Paul, ef. Luke ix. 31; 2 Pet. i. 15 (see 
above, p. 215, n. 5); Wis. iii. 2, vii.6; Philo, de Carit. iv.; Epist. Lugd. in 
Eus. H. E.v. 1. 36. It is the same as ἔξοδος τοῦ βίου. Just. Dial. ev., or τοῦ 
(nv, Jos. Ant. iv. 8.2 (189), or ἔκβασις τῆς ἀναστροφῆς, Heb. xiii. 7, or ἀνάλυσις, 
which also needs no nearer definition, 2 Tim. iv. 6 (ef. Phil. i. 23; Luke ii. 29 
=the Modern Hebrew mus). E, Grabe, on Iren. iii. 1. 1 holds that the 
departure of Peter and Paul from Rome is meant ; but, in the first place, the 
simple ἔξοδος could not be so understood by any reader (cf. Can. Mur. line 38, 
profectio Pauli ab urbe in Spaniam, Acts xviii. 1, iv. 15); and, second, so far as 
we know, Peter never left Rome at all after he had once entered the city (see 
above, p. 165ff.). For Paul, too, the period of his preaching in Rome, though 
it was not uninterrupted, came to its final close in his second imprisonment 
and execution, and not in a departure from the city (above, p. 66), Of other 
misinterpretations of the passage the present writer would mention only that 
of A. Camerlynck, St. Irenee et le Canon du NT, Louvain, 1896, pp. 27-31. In 
Camerlynck’s opinion the words τοῦ Πέτρου---ἐκκλησίαν cannot denote the 
time of composition of Matt., because this construction would require an adverb 
(p. 31). What adverb we are not told: probably ἔτι, which Camerlynck 
gratuitously introduces into his paraphrase of the preceding words (Matthieu 
encore en Judee, p. 30, which would be ἔτι ὧν ἐν τοῖς Ἑβραίοις). By ἔξοδος he 
would understand the departure of Peter and Paul to preach in the whole 
world, instead of which Irenwus mentioned the preaching in Rome by way of 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 399 


example! Whereas (tandis que, not pendant que) Peter and Paul preached 
the gospel in Rome, 1.6. in the wide world, Matthew remained at home and 
wrote a book ; and after they had set out, no one knows where, Mark did the 
same thing. Few will agree with the conclusion, Cette explication nous paralt 
tres logique. Occasion for such fancies can hardly be found in the circum- 
stance that Clement puts the composition of Mark a little earlier than 
Irenzeus (see above, p. 394 and n. 9), or that Eusebius (H. E. ii. 15), in a very 
inexact reproduction of statements by Papias and Clement, adopts the latter’s 
view of the composition of Mark during Peter’s lifetime, and seems to assign 
it to the time of Claudius along with the fable of Peter’s contest with Simon 
Magus (cf. above, p. 168f.). Eusebius, who was conscientious enough to 
report faithfully traditions concerning the chronological order of the Gospels 
from Clement (H. E. vi. 14. 5) and Origen (vi. 25. 3ff.), which were appar- 
ently or actually contradictory, also reproduced exactly the testimony of 
Irenzeus as to the composition of Mark after the death of Peter and Paul 
(H. E. v. 8. 3), though Clement’s view appealed to him more strongly (ii. 15, 
v. 14. 6). Moreover, Irenzeus’ intention in iii. 1. 1 of giving the chrono- 
logical order is so evident from the indications of time in connection with 
Matt., Mark, and John (ἔπειτα), that his other enumerations cannot be counted 
against it. The order in 11]. 9. 1-11. 6, Matt., Luke, Mark, John, which is 
repeated in iii. 11. 7, is occasioned by the desire to emphasise the two Gospels 
in which Jesus’ affirmative attitude towards the O.T. is most apparent. The 
order in iii. 11. 8, John, Luke, Matt., Mark, depends on the arrangement of 
the apocalyptic symbols. The distribution of the four animal figures of 
Ezek. i. 5, 10 and Rev. iv. 6f., which Irenzeus did not invent, but found 
as a tradition, has of itself nothing to do with the chronological order of 
the Gospels, nor with their arrangement in the codex ; cf. Forsch. ii. 257-275, 
iii, 222 ἵν; v. Schultze, Greifswalder Studien, S. 158. The two oldest and 
commonest arrangements are—(1) Matt.=man, Mark=eagle, Luke=ox, 
John=lion (so Irenzeus and the true Victorinus of Pettau; cf. Haussleiter, 
ThLB, 1895, Col. 194) ; (2) Matt.=man, Mark=lion, Luke=ox, John=eagle 
(so Theophilus Lat., Epiphanius, Jerome). 

8. (Ρ. 393.) The chronological succession of the Gospels given by 
Irenzus without any notice of divergent opinions, and by Origen as an old 
tradition (see above, p. 397 f.), is clearly indicated in Can. Mur. lines 1-16, in 
spite of the incompleteness of its beginning (GK, ii. 14ff.); also Eus. H. E. 
iii. 24. 6f.; Epiphan. Her. li. 4 (Mardaios πρῶτος ἄρχεται εὐαγγελίζεσθαι). 
6 (εὐθὺς δὲ μετὰ τὸν Ματθαῖον ἀκόλουθος γενόμενος ὁ Μᾶρκος τῷ ἁγίῳ Πέτρῳ ev 
Ῥώμῃ ἐπιτρέπεται τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐκθέσθαι καὶ γράψας ἀποστέλλεται ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου 
Πέτρου εἰς τὴν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων χώραν). 7 (Luke wrote an account of mis- 
interpretations of Mark), xii. 19 (finally, John, when more than ninety years 
old). Further, Jerome, Praf. Comm. in Matth., Vall. vii.3fl.; ef. Ver. Ill. ii. ; 
Ephrem, Expos. ev. Conc. p. 286; Chrysost. Hom. 4 i Matth., Montfaucon, 
vii. 46; August. Cons. Evv. i, 2. That John was the last to write is involved 
in every tradition that has specially to do with the Fourth Gospel. The 
remark of Tertullian (contra Mare. iv. 2), that the disciples of the apostles 
among the evangelists wrote “cum apostolis et post apostolos,” and the further 
words, “ex apostolis Joannes et Matthzeus, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus,” 
express no particular opinion as to the chronological order of the Gospels, or 


400 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


at most only the presupposition, which no one in the aneient Church disputed, 
that the earliest Evangelist was an apostle, not a pupil of the apostles. The 
old Latin prologues to the Gospels also give the order, Matt., Mark, Luke, 
John; Prol. in Luc. (N.T. Lat., ed. Wordsworth, i. 269): “Qui cum iam 
descripta essent evangelia per Mattheum quidem in Judea, per Marcum autem 
in Italia, sancto instigante spiritu in Achaix partibus hoe seripsit evangelium, 
significans etiam ipse, ante alia esse descripta.” The improbable opinion of 
Corssen (Monarchianische Prologe, 1896, S. 37), that the same writer in his 
prologue to Mark represents that Gospel as written after Luke, rests upon two 
misunderstandings. The words (Wordsworth, i. 172) “ perfecti evangelii 
opus intrans et a baptismo domini deum predicare inchoans” evidently refer 
to Mark i. 9ff. in distinction from “initio evangelice preedicationis,” Mark 
i. 1ff. The complete Gospel comes first through Christ, in distinction from 
the Forerunner, whose preaching Mark has termed the beginning of the 
Gospel. And when it is said of the physical birth, that Mark saw it in 
prioribus and therefore did not think it worth while to narrate it again, it is 
very arbitrary to supply evangelüis (sc. Matt. and Luke). The phrase prob- 
ably stands for the common ἐν τοῖς mpd τούτων, cf. for example, Orig. tom. 
ii. 1, in Jo. where to be sure but a single tomus has preceded, or ev rois 
ἔμπροσθεν, or similar expressions. The author of the prologues, which are 
hardly so old as Corssen would have them, had before him the codex in 
which Matt. i. stands before Mark i.; and he had not forgotten that accord- 
ing to his express statement Matt. indeed, but not Luke, was written before 
Mark. 

9. (P. 394.) Eusebius, H. E. vi. 14. 5 (Forsch. iii. 72), quotes from the 
Hypotyp.: αὖθις δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὁ Κλήμης βιβλίοις περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν 
εὐαγγελίων παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβυτέρων τέθειται, τοῦτον ἔχουσαν τὸν 
τρόπον" “ΠΡρογεγράφθαι ἔλεγον (al. ἔλεγεν) τῶν εὐαγγελίων τὰ περιέχοντα τὰς 
γενεαλογίας." The less supported reading, ἔλεγον, which has the presbyters 
for its subject, and in tense is quite in accord with the way in which Clement 
usually speaks of his teachers (Forsch. iii. 161, A. 1), is to be preferred to 
ἔλεγεν, instead of which one would sooner expect ἔφη, as indeed one MS. has 
it, or φησίν, or nothing at all. For τάξις ef. the old chapter title of Eus. H. E. 
iii. 24, and the writing of Galenus (ed. Kühn, xix. 49), περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν 
ἰδίων βιβλίων ; ef. GK, ii. 365, A. 5. Clement means an historical account 
of the composition of the writings, observing the chronological order. If, in 
consideration of the general currency of the tradition that the order was 
Matt., Mark, Luke, John (n. 8), one may assume that it was known to 
Clement’s teachers and to himself, it is noteworthy that their divergent state- 
ment is given without any hint of its opposition to the common view. It is 
not impossible, then, that the presbyters simply meant that Matt. was written 
before Mark and Luke before John. 


$ 50. HISTORY OF THE “SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.” 


Whoever reads the first three Gospels in order for 
the first time, with a fair degree of attention, must have 


been reminded constantly, in going through the second 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 401 


and third, that he had read essentially the same narratives 
and discourses once or twice before, partly in the same 
order, and in language which in all cases was very similar, 
and often exactly the same. Since the authors themselves 
say nothing of the sources and helps of which they made 
use, and since, further, the ancient tradition contains no 
notice of the use of the work of one evangelist by another, 
we have the so-called “Synoptic Problem,” a problem 
which has been in existence ever since the Gospels were 
read alongside. of each other. The facts have been 
very often represented to the eye by editions of the 
text designed to show the similarities and variations of 
the first three, or of all four Gospels (n. 1). ΑΒ early as 
the third century, a certain Ammonius, of whom nothing 
more definite is known, prepared an edition of Matthew 
in which the sections of the other Gospels agreeing more 
or less closely with Matthew were arranged alongside of 
the Matthew text, which was given in full, Ammonius 
gave his work the same title—Diatessaron—which the 
Syrian Tatian used earlier in the second century for his 
work, though this was of an entirely different character, 
being, in fact, a Gospel history compiled from the words 
of the four Gospels: τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιον.  Eusebius 
speaks highly of the careful scholarship of Ammonius’ 
Diatessaron, but felt the breaking up of the text of all the 
Gospels, except Matthew, into small fragments to be a 
defect. This led him to invent a new method, which left 
the text of the Gospels intact, but which divided it into 
small sections (κεφάλαια, περικοπαί), successively numbered 
in each Gospel. Then through tables preceding the text, 
in which the numbers of the corresponding sections were 
arranged together (κανόνες), and to which references were 
made by means of figures written in red on the margin of 
the text, the reader was enabled easily to find the parallels 
to any passage in any one of the Gospels (n. 1). In spite 
of the widespread use of this arrangement of the text in 
VOL, IL. 26 


402 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the Greek, Syrian, and Latin Churches, the problem under 
discussion was scarcely realised by the scholars of the 
ancient Church. The thing which caused surprise was 
not the similarity of the Gospels in form, but the differ- 
ences which existed between their contents. Attempts 
were made to explain and to harmonise these differences, 
especially where such harmonisation was demanded by 
ecclesiastical, dogmatic, or even apologetic interests (n. 2). 
With reference to the origin of the Gospels, no information 
was sought beyond that furnished by the scanty reports 
of the oldest traditions. It was only because the tradition 
reported that John wrote his Gospel later than the other 
evangelists, with their books in view and for the purpose of 
supplementing them, that this fact was recalled occasion- 
ally in connection with the discussion of single points, 
regarding which the accounts of the Gospels differed. 
Only in very isolated cases do we find similar expressions 
regarding a conscious relation of the other evangelists to 
their predecessors, made, of course, on the basis of the 
generally accepted view that the Gospels originated in the 
order in which they are arranged in our N.T. (n. 3). This 
was the case with Augustine, who was the first to be 
led, by the observation of similarities of language in the 
Gospels, to what was at least the beginning of a definite 
view regarding the origin of this phenomenon. He 
thought it could be proved that Mark was consciously 
dependent upon Matthew, which in part he repeated word 
for word, in part reproduced in abbreviated form (n. 4). 
The matter was not pursued further, either in the Middle 
Ages or at the time of the Reformation, either by the 
harmonists of the orthodox period or by the pioneers of 
a critical history of the N.T. Τὸ seems to have required 
the great revolution in the entire way of thinking about 
Christianity and its original documents, which began with 
the middle of the eighteenth century, to produce an appre- 
ciation of the problem presented by the similarities and 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 403 


differences of the first three Gospels. In what follows. 
the principal attempts made at its solution are deseribed 
briefly. | 
1. 6. E. Lessing was led, by the strife which the 
publieation of the Wolfenbüttel fragments produced, to 
propound what was really a “new hypothesis” concerning 
the manner in which the synoptie Gospels originated (n. 5). 
Starting with the fact that the earliest Christians were 
called Nazarenes (Acts xxiv. 5),—a name retained by the 
Jewish Christians of Bercea until Jerome’s time,—and the 
various names which the Gospel, or rather the Gospels, of 
the Jewish Christians bore in the confused reports of the 
Church Fathers, he conjectured that the root of the entire 
Gospel literature, the original Gospel, was the Aramaic 
Gospel of the Nazarenes, the kernel of which originated in 
the time immediately following Jesus’ death, and which 
underwent a number of changes in the early Christian 
period. By means of a bold interpretation of Eusebius’ 
account of the origin of Matthew (H. E. τ. 24. 6), Less- 
ing arrived at the conclusion that when Matthew left 
Palestine to preach among the Greeks or Hellenists, he 
made an abstract of the original Aramaic Gospel in Greek 
for the benefit of his new hearers, which abstract is our 
canonical Matthew. That Matthew’s name was trans- 
ferred to the original also should not be considered 
surprising. By a similar handling of Papias’ testimony 
(§ 54), it was made to appear that numerous individuals 
translated excerpts from this original Gospel into Greek, 
just as Matthew had done, always from their own points of 
view and for different purposes. Among these translators 
belong the many writers of Luke i. 1,—in particular, Luke 
himself, and Mark also. “In a word, Matthew, Mark, 
and Luke are nothing but translations, partly different, 
partly the same, of the so-called original Hebrew Matthew, 
which each made as best he could” (Lessing, § 50). 
We possess only two Gospels,—a Gospel of the flesh ἴῃ ἃ 


404 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


threefold Greek recension, and a Gospel of the spirit, that 
according to John. This unelaborated thought of Lessing 
contained suggestions which were bound to develop. | 
While Lessing left it to the reader to apply his 
hypothesis for the explanation of the varied way in which 
the Gospels agree at one point and then differ from each 
other again, J. G. Eichhorn in Göttingen (n. 6) reversed the 
method, beginning with the fact that in forty-four sections 
the three synoptic Gospels are in essential agreement, in 
content, form, compass, and point of view. This is not to 
be explained on the supposition that one Gospel was used 
in the composition of another, but only on the hypothesis 
that all are dependent upon a common source. This source 
he declared to be an Aramaic Gospel, written as early as 
the year 35 by a disciple of one of the apostles, containing 
a biography of Jesus which covered the time from the 
appearance of the Baptist to the resurrection. During the 
decades which followed, this Gospel was frequently recast, 
enlarged, and abbreviated, first in Aramaic and then also 
in Greek. The Gospels which originated in this manner 
between 35 and 60—practically countless in number— 
constitute in their manifold combinations the sources from 
which were drawn the Gospels accepted by the Church, as 
well as the various Gospels used by Jewish Christians and 
Gentile Christian heretics, Justin’s citations, and Tatian’s 
Diatessaron. On this point Eichhorn accepted in the main 
the tradition regarding the origin of the Gospels in use by 
the Church. It was, in fact, through this tradition that he 
came to suppose, in opposition to it, that the Greek trans- 
lator of the Aramaic Matthew, compiled as it was by the 
apostle Matthew from a number of sources, modified the 
same by important additions of his own, some. thirty-five 
in number, smaller and greater, e.g. chaps. 1-1, which 
he prefixed to the Gospel. | The artificiality of Eiehhorn’s 
hypothesis, and the impossibility of proving the numerous 
accessory hypotheses upon which it was based, led inevit- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS: AND ACTS os 


ably to attempts in the opposite direction. It was not 
Eichhorn’s hypothesis, but Lessing’s idea, which Eichhorn 
appropriated without acknowledgment, that continued to 
live, and that was revived later (see below, No. 7). 

2. In 1783 and later, J. J. Griesbach, working in the 
spirit of Lessing’s genuine historical method, and in con- 
scious agreement with him,—in fact, differing from him 
only in his results,—and in strong opposition to Eichhorn 
and his followers, advanced a hypothesis the simplicity of 
which seemed especially to commend it (n. 7). | According 
to this view, the apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel in 
Greek from his own acquaintance with the facts, and with- 
out the use of earlier sources; Luke composed his on the 
basis of his investigations of the oral tradition still un- 
crystallised, and with the help of Matthew ; Mark’s Gospel 
was made up of excerpts from Luke and Matthew. Mark’s 
own additions—in all not more than twenty-four verses— 
show that in his home in Jerusalem he had heard much of 
the history, related with more vividness and in greater 
detail than he found in the narratives of Matthew, which 
he made the basis of his work, or in Luke, which he em- 
ployed as a help. He designed his book to serve as a 
handy compendium of the Gospel history for readers un- 
acquainted with Jewish conditions and views, and without 
interest in much that Matthew had recorded. The tradi- 
tion, according to which a close relation exists between 
Mark’s Gospel and the discourses of Peter, is a conjecture, 
and simply an invention of Papias.. Also the opinion that 
Matthew wrote in Hebrew is an improbable conjecture, 
since even Mark had a Greek Matthew before him. While 
the tradition regarding the authors of the Gospels is to be 
preferred to all modern hypotheses, all the reports of the 
ancient Church which go further, and purport to give an 
account of the origin of the Gospels, are worthless fables. 

3. At about the same time G. Chr. Storr and G. Herder 
declared Mark to be the oldest of the extant Gospels (n. 8) 


406 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Starting with the name “Gospel,” which as a matter ot 
fact no one of our evangelists gave his own work, but 
which was applied by the Church to the Gospels in the 
second century, Herder postulated as the common basis of 
the entire gospel literature a Gospel existing at first in an 
unwritten form, which was, nevertheless, quite thoroughly 
fixed. In content it was limited to a definite series of 
narratives and discourses, covering the period from the 
baptism of John to the ascension of Jesus (Acts i. 1 f., 22), 
and was a compendium of the historical content of the 
missionary preaching intended especially for the guidance 
of the missionary preachers of the second order, the evan- 
gelists, or ‘‘ ministers of the word” (Luke i. 2). This 
Gospel, which originated in Palestine between 35 and 40, 
and which was thought out and, so to speak, composed in 
Aramaic, was communicated orally to the helpers engaged 
in preaching, of whom Mark was one, but committed by 
them to writing for their own convenience, and probably 
at once. In this way a multitude of private writings 
arose. Several decades later Mark published his copy, 
essentially unchanged, probably in Rome, and accordingly 
reproduces for us in a Greek form, but nevertheless faith 
fully, the original unwritten Gospel which originated 
under the eyes of Peter, James, and John. In 60, or 
somewhat later, a fuller Gospel in Aramaic was prepared 
in Palestine on the same basis, and was immediately pub- 
lished. In. modified form this Gospel survived in the 
Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, and in ‘the Greek 
Matthew, which was not written until after 70. | Finally, 
Luke, who wrote his historical work not for the Church, 
but for an individual belonging to the upper classes, used 
this elaborate Aramaic Gospel, which was afterwards recast 
in the Greek Matthew as an auxiliary souree. He also 
used, in addition, the outline of the apostolic preaching 
which he had had in hand for the twenty years that he 
had been engaged in assisting with the preaching work, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 407 


and also the information which he had gathered from per- 
sons who had heard and seen Jesus. While Herder left it 
undecided whether any one of the three Synoptists had in 
hand the work of the other two, Storr, who was gifted 
with less imagination than Herder, confined himself strictly 
to given data, and explained the similarities among the 
Gospels on the supposition that the two later evangelists 
used the work of the earlier one. According to his view, 
the Gospel of Mark, which was drawn chiefly from Peter’s 
narratives, was written in Jerusalem at a very early date, 
before Mark became engaged in foreign missionary work. 
This oldest Gospel the apostle Matthew did not hesitate to 
make the basis of his own Gospel, which otherwise was 
based upon independent knowledge of the facts, and was 
written from a peculiar point of view. Mark was worked 
over also by Luke, who, however, was unacquainted with 
Matthew. 

Later, Chr. G. Wilke (1838), Bruno Bauer (1841), and 
G. Volkmar (1870) undertook to prove that Mark was the 
original Gospel, but in a sense differing entirely from that 
of Herder and Storr (n. 9). Although Wilke left the 
tradition entirely untested, and made no attempt whatever 
to explain and thereby to remove its errors, and. although 
he omitted all discussion of the leading thoughts of the 
separate Gospels and of the historical conditions under 
which they were written, he believed that in his volu- 
minous work he had established for all time, from the 
agreements and variations of the texts of the synoptic 
Gospels, the fact that our Mark is the original Gospel, 
except for a number of interpolations, part of which ‘he 
believed could still be removed by the application of 
commonly accepted critical principles. This original 
Gospel was worked over in an arbitrary way in Matthew 
and Luke, supplemented by the addition of later legends 
and adapted to serve particular ends. The agreements 
between Matthew and Luke in passages not derived 


408 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


from Mark is to be explained on the ground that, in 
addition to his prineipal source Mark, Matthew also used 
Luke. 

4. Fully recoonising that the solution of the synoptic 
problem is to be sought through a study of the documents 
in their historical connection, but at the same time making 
the tradition of the ancient Church regarding the origin of 
the Gospels and the order in which they were written his 
starting-point, J. L. Hug (n. 10) undertook to show that 
Mark had in his possession and made use of Matthew. 
The same was true of Luke in relation to Mark and 
Matthew, while John had and used all three Synoptics. 
In all cases the sources employed were supplemented and 
corrected by independent information. Regarding the 
sources used by Matthew, there is no necessity of inquir- 
ing; only it was natural that a person so accustomed to 
writing, as was the tax-collector Matthew, should have 
noted down at a very early date the discourses and sayings 
of the Master to aid him in his own work as a teacher, 
and also that he should have made use of these collections 
of his own in the elaboration of his Gospel, traces of which 
are actually to be found in it (Zinl.® i. 179). Whether 
and to what extent Luke used others of the writings 
which he mentions in Luke i. 1, and the oral tradition in 
addition to Matthew and Mark, we are no longer able to 
determine (op. cit. 8. 186). Hug accepts the tradition as 
correct’ at every point, with the exception that he holds 
the unanimous tradition of antiquity by which Matthew 
is represented as having been written in Hebrew to be a 
scholastic fable. 

5. Opposed to Eichhorn’s hypothesis of an original 
written Gospel which originated early in the apostolie age, 
is that’ of J. €. L. Gieseler (n. 11), which makes the 
common basis of all three Synoptics, as well as of numerous 
apocryphal Gospels of the second century, an original 
Gospel which was entirely oral. The silence of the other 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 409 


N.T. writings and of the oldest post-apostolie literature 
regarding the use of written Gospels, the way in which 
the words and deeds of Jesus are introduced in this litera- 
ture, further, the fact that comparatively little writing 
was done in the apostolic age (S. 35, 60 ff.), and the simple 
character of the culture possessed by the early Christians 
in Palestine, render it impossible that records of the Gospel 
should have been made so soon, also that such documents, 
after they originated privately, should have been circulated 
so widely and have had so much influence in the Church. 
Material for the construction of Gospels was drawn from 
the oral tradition until within the second century ; still 
more in the apostolic age was the tradition fixed enough to 
make the use of written helps seem unnecessary. Entirely 
without design, frequent repetition produced a fixed form of 
the narrative and an outline of the Gospel history from the 
appearance of the Baptist on, in which the most important 
events and sayings were reproduced with the greatest 
uniformity by all narrators and teachers. The history of 
the liturgy and of the creed, which were unwritten for so 
long, anecdotes from the history of the ancient Church, 
and analogies from the history of heathen religions and of 
Jewish Rabbinism, should enable us moderns to form a 
conception of the tenacity of memory which, under condi- 
tions of ancient culture, characterised groups of like-minded 
men, especially in cases where the sayings were regarded 
as sacred, and where the things recalled were of an his- 
torical nature. When the Gospel passed from Palestine 
to the Greeks, it necessarily took on a Greek form, but 
continued oral. Though so flexible that the order, em- 
phasis, and application could be changed according to 
varying necessities, this Gospel was still able, in spite of 
all these modifications, to survive in its original stereo- 
typed form. Here belong, e.g. among other things, 
passages quoted freely from the O.T. Comparison of 
1 Pet. ii. 6 f. with Rom. ix. 88 proves that the recurrence 


410 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of such eitations in several different writings is not to be 
explained by supposing that one is dependent upon another, 
or both of the extant writings upon an original now 
lost (p. 260, n. 12). It is easy to see that this and many 
other of Gieseler’s proofs are inconclusive; but for all 
that it is not to be denied that Geiseler made a more 
serious attempt than did Herder to treat the problem 
from a thoroughly historical point of view, and that he 
called attention to facts which deserve more consideration 
than the doubtful speculations of a critique which does 
not get beyond counting words, and which does not have 
even a perverted historical sense. G. Wetzel (n. 11) 
called his theory an improvement upon Gieseler’s “tradition- 
hypothesis.” Unlike Gieseler, who accepted the tradition 
regarding the origin of the Gospels, Wetzel rejected it 
altogether ; and without any attempt to explain its origin 
he replaced it with the following imaginary picture. The 
necessity came to be felt in the mother Church of giving 
the Hellenists (Acts vi. 1) who came to Jerusalem from 
outside Palestine, and who were therefore unfamiliar with 
the Gospel history, regular instruction in the same. This 
task was entrusted to the former tax-collector, Matthew, 
who was especially proficient in Greek. After this in- 
struction had been continued for years, it took on a fixed 
form, which was partly memorised by the hearers, and 
finally was committed to writing by not a few of them. 
In this way the numerous books of Luke i. 1 origin- 
ated, of which three have been preserved to us. This 
explains the agreements among the Gospels; the differ- 
ences, on the other hand, are exactly such as exist at 
the present time among the notes made of academic 
lectures. Even the most industrious student at times 
absents himself from lectures, and not every student com- 
prehends with entire correctness what he hears. Recently, 
K. Veit (n. 11), who rejects Wetzel’s “improvement,” has 
supplemented Gieseler’s hypothesis. in several points 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 411: 


Thus, he brings the analogy of rabbinic methods of teach- 
ing to bear with greater definiteness upon the problem as 
to how the disciples were taught by Jesus Himself, and 
how the apostles and other missionary preachers and the 
teachers in the local Church instructed the new converts. 
Further, he attempts to show, through numerous examples, 
how the tradition-hypothesis can be applied, not without 
trenchant critical remarks about current criticism of the 
Gospels. 

6. Fr. Schleiermacher’s analysis of Luke (n. 12) was 
not planned to answer the whole question regarding the 
origin and relation of the synoptic Gospels, though this 
work is based upon a complete view of the problem. [0 
made little impression, for the simple reason that Schleier- 
macher’s fundamental idea, which involved a discussion 
also of Acts, was only incompletely worked out in this first 
publication upon the subject, and because the exposition. 
of the general theory from the detailed observations, and 
even a discussion of the same in relation to Luke’s preface, 
was for the time being postponed, According to Schleier- 
macher, the bond of connection among the Gospels—the 
basis and the beginning of the entire Gospel literature— 
was neither an oral nor a written Gospel, nor the use of 
earlier Gospels in the composition of later ones, but a large 
number of short written narratives. Schleiermacher’s new 
interpretation of Papias’ testimony regarding Matthew 
and Mark had more effect. That up to the year 1832 no 
one had doubted that Papias meant our Matthew and 
Mark, Schleiermacher found incomprehensible. ΑἸ] that 
Papias knew of Matthew was a collection of Jesus’ sayings 
which Matthew wrote down in Hebrew.  Papias’ says 
nothing of a translation of Matthew’s Gospel into Greek, 
but speaks only of a number of recensions of this collec- 
tion of sayings,—the Aöyıa, so celebrated later. One of 
these recensions is preserved in our Matthew, and others, 
as for example the different Gospels used by the Jewish 


412 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Christians, are known to some extent from several reports 
of the Church Fathers. Of Matthew, chaps. v.-vii., x., 
xiii, 1-52, xviil. 23-25 belong to the collection of say- 
ings. Besides these chapters, there are other scattered 
fragments not so easy to separate from their context. 
Nor was Papias acquainted with our Mark, which does 
not suit his description, but with a writing of Mark much 
less complete, and showing much less order. This writing 
of Mark was worked over by a later hand into our Mark, 
apparently also by another hand into the apocryphal 
Gospel of Peter. Thus Schleiermacher discovered an 
original Matthew and an original Mark, which opened the 
way for new combinations for the solution of the synoptic 
problem. 

7. After the question raised by D. F. Strauss’ Leben 
Jesu (1835-36) as to whether the whole body of tradi- 
tions gathered in our Gospels was essentially mythical 
or historical; had awakened wide theological interest, 
F. Chr. Baur (n. 13), dissatisfied with the dogmatism 
of Strauss as well as of his opponents, also with the 
“ quantitative method” of Wilke, and all attempts to 
solve the problem in an artificial manner, undertook ‘to 
conceive the relation of the Gospels to one another as 
something which grew up naturally, the working out of a 
principle of inner development.” So long as the relation 
of the narrative to the consciousness of the narrators—the 
dominating idea, the tendenz of each one of the Gospels— 
is not made clear, “the discussion remains vague and un- 
certain.” Baur began with the Fourth Gospel, which pre- 
supposed the historical material of the Synoptists, but 
which nevertheless was subordinated and accommodated 
to the new conception of Christ as the eternal Logos by 
the selection of such parts of the same as were suited to 
the author's purpose. From John he proceeded to: the 
consideration of Luke, which was certainly older than 
John. Luke was edited, according to Baur, about 150, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 413 


on the basis of an original Luke written in the spirit 
of Paul and retained by Marcion in his Church. Matthew 
was also used in its preparation, against which Gospel the 
original Luke was also supposed to have polemicised—the 
purpose of the redaction being to remove the sharp op- 
position between the extreme Paulinism of Marcion and 
the surviving Jewish construction of the Gospel, so far as 
this was possible from the point of view of a modified 
Paulinism. The only sources employed by, Mark, who 
proceeds from the opposite, originally Judaistic point of 
view, and who represents less a harmonising tendency than 
the disposition to remain actually neutral with reference 
to the great conflicting tendencies of the apostolic age, 
were Matthew and Luke, or the original Luke. The small 
amount of new material which Mark introduces, and the 
numerous small additions which he scatters here and there 
throughout his book, are merely amplifications, and have 
no historical value, being due partly to the author’s mis- 
understanding of his predecessors, and being partly in- 
ventions of the author, intended to create the impression 
of independent knowledge. Of the canonical Gospels, 
Matthew is the most original. It presents a picture of 
Christianity as it existed while still under the dominance 
of national ideas, which is the original form of Christianity 
as it emerged from Judaism. But the Gospel itself appears 
not to have been edited until during the Jewish rebellion 
under Hadrian, between 130 and 134, and is the result of 
a long process of literary development, the single steps of 
which can no longer be distinguished. The immediate 
predecessor of Matthew was a Hebrew Gospel which the 
Church tradition ascribed to the apostle Matthew, and 
which in a great variety of forms and under changing 
names was the only Gospel in existence until toward the 
middle of the second century. To use a short inaccurate 
expression, this was the (Gospel of the Hebrews. Like 
Schwegler, Baur declined to refer the particularistie Jewish 


4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


features of Matthew to the Hebrew Gospel, and to assign 
the words and narratives universal in tone to the redactor 
of the Gospel, on the ground that even the Hebrew Gospel 
may have contained “purer elements” and because’ the 
principle by which “the apparently disparate elements ‘of 
Matthew” could be united was to be found in early 
Christianity itself (Unters. der kan. Evv. 8. 578 f., 613 ff). 
Hilgenfeld, on the other hand, undertook to distineuish in 
our Matthew an original apostolic document written in 
a thoroughly Jewish spirit, which he supposes to have 
been worked over in a more universalistic spirit by a 
Hellenist, apparently in Egypt, after the year 70 (n. 13). 
At first Hilgenfeld rejected the ancient tradition of ἃ 
Hebrew Matthew as purely legendary, holding even the 
original document to have been a Greek work, which was 
the basis also of the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews. 
Later, however, he became convinced of the original 
character of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which he then 
made the real original Gospel. While Mark, which Baur 
treated so contemptuously, is, to be sure, wholly dependent 
upon the Greek Matthew, it is nevertheless to be restored 
to its old place between the Greek Matthew and Luke. 
This is also the opinion of C. Holsten, who abandoned all 
effort to determine more exactly the character of the 
document at the basis of the canonical Matthew, which he 
also assumed, and attempted to explain the origin of the 
synoptic Gospels from the conflicting dogmatic tendencies 
of the apostolic age (n. 13). 

8. Without any knowledge of Wilke’s work, which 
appeared at about the same time, Chr. H. Weisse (n. 14), 
who was influenced by Strauss’ Leben Jesu to make a new 
investigation of the sources of the Gospel history, under 
took to show that our Mark is none other than the work 
commented upon by Papias and the presbyter John. 
Though at this particular point Weisse rejects entirely 
Schleiermacher’s interpretation of Papias’ testimony, and 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 415 


does not leave uncriticised his interpretation of what 
Papias says regarding Matthew, he appropriates, never- 
theless, the essential result of Schleiermacher’s critique, 
namely, his discovery of the collection of Jesus’ sayings in 
Aramaic from Matthew's hand. From these two original 
works Luke, the disciple of Paul, compiled his Gospel 
without’ much independent knowledge of the tradition, 
while somewhat later the Greek redactor of the original 
Matthew enlarged the collection of sayings into our 
Matthew by the use of material borrowed from Mark. 
After the number of those accepting the originality of 
Mark and its priority to Matthew had become greater, and 
after A. Ritschl had broken with his master Baur, in his 
view of the Gospels, as in other points, and gone over to 
the Mark hypothesis, H. J. Holtzmann, following up this 
hypothesis, was courageous enough to describe minutely 
the sources from which the synoptic Gospels are supposed 
to have been put together,—their character and compass,— 
and also to attempt practically a verbal restoration of the 
same (n. 14). One of the original documents at the basis 
of all three Gospels, employed by each of the evangelists 
without the knowledge that the others had used it, is pre- 
served in our Mark in practically complete form and 
throughout in its proper order. This we may call the 
original Mark: since the only changes which the author 
made in his original was to abbreviate the same at the 
beginning, i. 1-13, and at certain other points, and to 
omit certain passages, such as the Sermon on the Mount 
and the account of the centurion (Luke vi. 20-vii. 10) after 
Mark iii. 19 (no one knows why), and, because of its objec- 
tionable character, the narrative found in John vn. 53—viil. 
11, which Hitzig places after Mark xu. 17. Also a large 
part of the material peculiar to Mark, which is not great, 
is taken from the original Mark—particularly the accounts 
of healing, Mark vii. 31-37, viii. 22-26, but also many of 
the little details which enliven Mark’s narratives. Unless 


INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


interpreted too strictly, Papias’ testimony regarding Mark 
suits this original Mark in a general way. Also what 
Papias says of a collection of sayings by Matthew meets 
the requirement of the hypothesis, and gives a show of 
appropriateness to the expression Adya, chosen to desig- 
nate the second principal source, the use of which on the 
part of Matthew and Luke is supposed to explain agree- 
ments between these two Gospels which are not. due to 
their common dependence upon the original Mark. This 
remarkable book contained only a number of the dis- 
courses, for the most part the shorter discourses, of Jesus, 
Moreover, these discourses, part of which were provided 
with titles and short historical introductions, belonged ex- 
clusively to the later Galilean ministry, and were subse- 
quent to the call of Matthew, and the choosing of the 
apostles (Holtzmann, Synopt. Hvv. 1863, 8. 252, ef. 8. 
8651}. But the very first long discourse, which is sup- 
posed to have followed the choosing of the apostles in the 
original Mark, was wanting in the Matthew Logia. In 
contrast to the original Mark, this did not begin with the 
testimony of the Baptist concerning Jesus, but with his 
doubting question (Luke vii. 18-35 ; Matt. xi. 2-19), and 
ended with a series of parables; at the very close stood 
probably the saying which we find in Matt. xiii, 52. As 
in the case of the earlier Galilean ministry, so from the 
period, of Jesus’ activity in Jerusalem and the Passion the 
author preserves no sayings. He is extremely careful in 
other respects, also, not to repeat anything already con- 
tained in the original Mark. Although we are able to 
form a much better idea of the arrangement and original 
wording of the Logia from Luke than from Matthew, 
still, without exception, the apostolic Church transferred 
Matthew's name from the Logia, of which he was the 
author, not to Luke’s Gospel, but to Matthew. Material in 
Matthew and Luke, derived neither from the Logia nor 
from the original Mark, was produced for the most part 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 417 


by the evangelists themselves, being either put into 
writing by them for the first time from the oral tradition, 
as Matt. xvii. 24-27, or worked over on the basis of older 
and shorter documents—as the genealogies and several 
parts of the Sermon on the Mount—or pure invention—as 
the sending out of the Seventy (Luke x. 1), which Luke 
fabricated because he did not want the same commission, 
which he found in both his sources, to be addressed twice 
to the same hearers. These are the main features of the 
hypothesis. Later modifications of details by Holtzmann 
himself, Weizsäcker, and others cannot be presented here. 

9. Finally, the independent view of B. Weiss, which, 
during an entire generation, its author, with great persist- 
ence, has worked out in all its details, deserves notice (n. 15). 
The original Gospel, so vainly sought since Eichhorn, is a 
book written by the apostle Matthew in Aramaic, but 
very soon translated into Greek. Though consisting for 
the most part of discourses and sayings of Jesus, naturally 
with the indispensable historical setting, this document 
contained also a considerable number of narrative pieces, 
even groups of such, and so in its original form was a 
work very much like our Gospels, covering the period from 
the appearance of the Baptist to the beginning of the 
history of the Passion, concluding somewhere about Matt. 
xxvi. 2-13. The question arises at once why the history 
of the Passion, where, so far as we can see, the narratives 
in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are related to each other in 
essentially the same way as in the preceding parts of the 
history, should have been omitted from the original 
apostolic document. Practically the only answer which 
Weiss gives to this question is the statement that a 
presentation of the Passion history, differing so radically 
from that of the Fourth Gospel as do all three synoptic 
accounts, could not have originated from an apostle. The 
original document, already translated into Greek, was one 
of the sources used by Mark; the others were the oral 

VOL, II, 27 


INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


narratives of Peter. The author of the canonical Matthew 
used as sources the original Gospel and Mark. Mark had 
therefore always the choice between two apostolic author- 
ities, one written, the other oral; whereas the author of 
the canonical Matthew must select between the statements 
of an apostolic document and the work of a disciple of one 
of the apostles. The reason for this entire theory is the 
observation that sometimes Matthew, sometimes Mark, 
gives the impression of the greater originality ; for this is 
supposed to be explained by assuming that in some cases 
Matthew preserved the original apostolic document more 
faithfully than Mark, while in other instances he followed 
Mark’s account. Finally, Luke, who knew nothing of the 
canonical Matthew, and who, therefore, could not possibly 
have used the same, made copious use of the original 
apostolic document in addition to Mark, which he made 
the basis of his Gospel, and another source, probably 
written, which can no longer be distinguished with exact- 
ness. Particularly in vi. 20—viii. 8, and ix. 51—xvin. 14; 
large sections of the original documents were adopted by 
Luke; and, so far as we are able to make comparisons with . 
Matthew, these are reproduced for the most part in a more 
original form. 

Up to the present time no one of the investigations of 
the synoptic problem can be said to have produced results 
which ‘have been generally accepted, or that can lay well- 
grounded claims to such acceptance. In one point only is 
there agreement, namely, that it is impossible to set forth 
the history of the origin of the first three Gospels in a 
satisfactory manner on the basis of reliable reports and 
trustworthy observations ; that, rather, gaps remain in our 
knowledge based upon these two classes of data, which 
must be filled up by conjecture. There is no hope that 
the question as to which one of the conjectures made here- 
tofore or to appear in the future comes nearest to the 
truth will be decided by a new display of cleverness on 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 419 


the part of representatives of one of these hypotheses 
in working it out in detail, so that it shall appear to 
all capable judges to be the simplest solution of the 
problem. On the other hand, there is no reason to despair 
of a solution, at least not on the part of one convinced of 
these two sets of given facts, which can be ascertained 
without the help of hypotheses, namely, (1) that the 
tradition regarding the origin of the Gospels goes back to 
the time of their origin, (2) that the three books in our 
possession are as yet far from being adequately under- 
stood and estimated. With reference to the tradition, the 
boldest of the critics, with a few unhappy exceptions, have 
shown enough historical sense to seek support for their 
hypotheses in the oldest notices regarding the origin of the 
Gospels, though, to be sure, for the most part selecting 
arbitrarily what suited their own purposes. Thanks also 
to fortunate discoveries and the investigations stimulated 
by such discoveries, we are in possession of more thorough 
knowledge of the Gospel literature of the second century 
than was possible for Lessing and Herder, Schleiermacher 
and Baur, Credner and Bleek. We really know more than 
did these investigators about Marcion’s Gospel, Tatian’s 
Diatessaron, the Gospel “according to the Hebrews,” 
and the Gospel “ according to Peter.” Nevertheless, it is 
true that many critics do not seem to have kept abreast. of 
the advances in knowledge indicated above. Besides, very 
often it has not been appreciated that the tradition is 
either to be accepted as a whole, or the error of such parts 
of the same as do not deserve acceptance plausibly shown. 
With reference to the second point mentioned above, 
namely, the proper valuation of the Gospels as literary 
products, it is true that serviceable work in this direction 
has been done. But little use has been made of these 
results in the investigation of the origin of the Gospels, 
because of a one-sided tendency in this investigation to 
make conjectures regarding the sources supposed to be at 


420 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT . 


the basis of the Gospels, without adequate knowledge of 
the characteristics of each separate Gospel. On the other 
hand, the method of a comparative interpretation of the 
general content of the synoptic Gospels—a method em- 
ployed in the earlier period by Calvin and Gerhard, and 
among the pioneers of the new criticism of the Gospels used 
and recommended especially by Griesbach, and absolutely 
demanded by Wilke—had a positively harmful effeet with 
reference to this question, tending especially to confuse and 
to bewilder those beginning the investigation for the first 
time. How is it possible to understand an author when he 
is interrupted after every third word! How «an one writ- 
ing be compared with another when each is not known by 
itself as its author intended, and consequently not under- 
stood in its details! Irenzeus speaks of teachers who read 
to their hearers from unwritten books, and ealls such a 
procedure “making ropes out of sand” (i. 8. 1). In our 
time we have commentaries on books, the existence of 
which, to express the matter mildly, can be proved only 
by means of conjecture. 


1. (P. 401.) In connection with Burgon’s pioneer investigation in The 
Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, 1871, pp. 126-131, 295-312, the writer has 
carefully discussed the Diatessaron of Ammonius, Forsch. i. 31-34, ef. S. 1, 
99, 101-104, 293; ThLb, 1896, S. 3f. Cf. also Schmidtke, Die Evv. eines 
alten Uncialcodex, 1903, S. xxxii. ff. The only direct source of our knowledge 
of the work of Ammonius is Eusebius’ introduction to his edition of the four 
Gospels—an introduction composed in the form of a letter to Carpianus, and 
arranged according to the method developed in the Gospels themselves. 
This is printed in many editions of the N.T., eg. the Tischendorf-Gregory 
edition, Prol. p. 145. The κανόνες, arranged by Eus.—i.e. catalogues, tabular 
statements (Grundriss, 6f.), are ten in number; the first embraces the 
sections which are common to all four Gospels, 2-4 those which, are 
contained in three Gospels, 5-9 those contained in two Gospels, and 10, in 
four subdivisions, those which are found in but one Gospel. The κεφάλαια 
or περικοπαί (Eusebius uses both expressions), which were long mistakenly 
called sectiones Ammoniane, are 355 in Matt., 233 in Mark (later inereased 
to 241 or 242 in consideration of the spurious additions), 342 in Luke, 
and 232 in John, in all 1162—a number which is given also by Epiphanius 
in his Ancorites, chap. 1., and Cesarius in his Dialogue, i. 39; cf. Gregory, 
143. Eusebius reckoned 74 sections which were found in all the Gospels, 
111 only in Matt., Mark, Luke; 22 in Matt., Luke, John; 25 in Matt, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 421 


Mark, John ; 82 only in Matt., Luke ; 47 only in Matt., Mark ; 7 in Matt. 
John; 13 in Mark, Luke; 21 in Luke, John; 62 in Matt.; 19 in Mark. 
72 in Luke; 96 in John alone. The so-ealled Gospel harmonies, at the 
head of which stands Tatian’s Syriac Diatessaron, were primarily for eccles- 
iastical use, and not for scholarly purposes, like the works of Ammonius and 
Eusebius ; ef. PRE?, v. 653-661. That of J. Clericus, however (Harmonia 
Evangeliorum, Amstelod. 1699, reprinted without the Greek text, Lyon, 
not Leyden, 1700), forms a transition to the synopses, in so far as it prints 
the text of the four Gospels in parallel columns. The real beginning 
in this direction was made by J. Griesbach, Synopsis Evangeliorum Matth. 
Marc. Luc. 1776, which was intended to serve as a basis for exegetical lectures 
on these three Gospels, which were then called synoptic Gospels. Among 
many subsequent works should be mentioned the Synopsis Evangelica of 
Tischendorf, first published in 1851, in which the entire text of the fourth 
Gospel is again included ; that of Anger (1851), which takes from John only 
the few real parallels to the text of the first three Gospels, and is, moreover, 
distinguished by a wealth of citations and parallels from the apocryphal and 
patristic literature of the second century (a book which deserves as do few 
to be reissued, with such alterations and extensions as time demands); and, 
finally, the handsomely printed Synopticon, An Exposition of the Common 
Matter of the Synoptic Gospels, by W. G. Rushbrooke, London, 1880, and a 
supplementary volume (without mention of the year) with appendices—(a) 
The Double Tradition of St. Matthew and St. Luke ; (b) The Single Tradition 
of Matthew ; (c) The Single Tradition of Luke. Finally, A. Wright, The 
Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, with various readings and critical notes, 
2nd ed., London, 1903. 

2. (P. 402.) Famous examples of the harmonistics of the ancient Church 
are the discussions of the Last Supper in the Easter controversies about 190 ; 
Africanus’ letter to Aristides on the genealogies of Matt. and Luke ; Eusebius’ 
work, de Evangeliorum διαφωνίᾳ (Jerome, Vir. Ill. Ixxxi.; Eus. Quest. ad 
Stephamum, ad Marinum) ; the unfortunate attempts of Epiphanius in many 
places in his writings, especially in his article on the Alogi (Her. li.) ; and 
Augustine, de Consensu Evangeliorum. 

3. (P. 402.) When Eusebius remarks that one evangelist supplements 
another (e.g. in a Syriac fragment in Mai, Nova P. Bibl. iv. 1. 279 : “ What 
Matthew omitted and did not say Luke relates, and what the latter does not 
tell the former does”; cf. pp. 229, 265 f.), he simply states the actual condi- 
tions, not the conscious procedure of the evangelists. Epiphanius does speak 
of the supplementing of each Gospel by the one following, but it is the Spirit 
which “compels” the writers to all their work, and to this connection with 
their predecessors (Her. li. 7, 12, cf. 6). Chrysostom, who emphasises the 
chronological succession of the Gospels, is the first to explain the brevity of 
Mark as designed in view of the already extant, fuller, and in many ways 
exhaustive presentation of Matt., though he gives it also as an additional 
reason that Mark depended on Peter, a man of few words, while Luke 
reproduced the fuller current of Paul’s speech (Hom. iv. in Matt., Mont. 
vii. 46). He has no thought of an actual use of the earlier Gospel in the 
composition of the later ; on the contrary, he finds the little discrepancies 
between them a valuable proof that they were not written according to some 


422 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


questionable agreement, but that each evangelist told the simple truth to the 
best of his knowledge (Hom. i. p. 5f.), Augustine (de Consensu Ev. i. 2. 4) 
goes further: “ Et quamvis singuli suum quemdam narrandi ordinem tenuisse 
videantur, non tamen unusquisque eorum velut alterius precedentis ignarus 
voluisse scribere reperitur vel ignorata pretermisisse, que scripsisse alius 
invenitur, sed sicut unicuique inspiratum est, non superfluam cooperationem 
sui laboris adiunxit. Nam Matthaus suscepisse intelligitur incarnationem 
domini secundum stirpem regiam et pleraque secundum hominum preesentem 
vitam facta et dicta eius. Marcus eum subsecutus tamquam pedissequus 
et breviator eius videtur. Cum solo quippe Joanne nihil dixit, solus ipse 
perpauca, cum solo Luca pauciora, cum Mattheo vero plurima, et multa pene 
totidem atque ipsis verbis, sive cum solo, sive cum ceteris consonante (al. 
-ter). Lucas autem, etc. §5: Non autem habuit tamquam breviatorem 
coniunctum Lucas, sicut Marcum Matthzeus. Et hoc fortasse non sine aliquo 
sacramento,” etc. With regard to Matt., Mark, Luke (iii. 4. 13): “Tres 
igitur isti eandem rem ita narraverunt, sicut etiam unus homo ter posset cum 
aliquanta veritate, nulla tamen adversitate.” Mark’s close connection with 
Matt. is often further mentioned, eg. iii. 4. 11. For the understanding of 
this work (written about 400) it is essential to bear in mind that, as Burkitt 
has shown (The Old Latin and the Itala, 1896, pp. 59, 72-78; ef. ThLb, 1897, 
col. 374), Augustine had before him Jerome’s revision of the text of the 
Gospels, which was furnished with the Eusebian canons and sections. This 
arrangement of the Gospels, introduced by Jerome among the Latins, was 
plainly used by Augustine in his harmonistie work, as in Books um. and ım. 
he compares Matt. with the parallels by means of the double figures noted 
upon it and Canons i.-vii., and then in Book ΤΥ. goes through the portions 
peculiar to each Gospel according to Canon x. When he says of Mark (see 
above), cum solo Joanne nihil dixit, it is not the result of study, but simply of 
the fact that in Canons v.-ix. Eusebius provided for all possible combinations 
of two Gospels except Mark-John. Also, the remarks which follow were 
written with reference to the canons of Eusebius, or rather to a codex of the 
Gospels in the Vulgate, which lay open before him, and at the beginning of 
which he found Jerome’s letter to Damasus and the canons which it explained. 
This very circumstance is a new proof that Augustine used the Vulgate as 
the basis of his de Consensu Evangeliorum. 

4. (P. 402.) Calvin in the argument of his commentary on the harmony 
of the synoptic Gospels (ed. Tholuck, i. p. 6), besides an incorrect statement 
about Jerome and an unfair judgment of Eusebius, delivers, quite without 
proof, his own opinion that Mark never saw Matt. and that Luke never saw 
Matt. or Mark. Much sounder was the judgment of H. Grotius, who wrote 
of the title of Matt. (ed. Windheim, i. 13); “Sicut autem Marcus usus est 
Matthzi Ebrao, ni fallor, codice, ita Marci libro Graco usus mihi videtur, 
quisquis is fuit, Matthei Grecus interpres.” On this R. Simon (Hist. du Teate 
du NT, 1689, p. 108) remarked that only conjectures were possible. 

5. (P. 403.) Lessing, Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten als bloss 
menschliche Geschichtschreiber betrachtet, 1778; first published 1784 in Theol. 
Nachlass. Werke, ed. Lachmann-Maltzahn, xi. 2. 121-140. 

6. (Ρ. 404.) Eichhorn first developed his view in 1794 in the Allgemeine 
Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur, v. 759ff., then in amended form in his 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACIS 423 


Einleitung, i. 1804, 2te Aufl. 1820. In the latter was included a defence 
against hypotheses which had appeared meanwhile. Aside from the arti- 
ficiality and pettiness of the treatment, which contrasts strongly with the 
broad conception of Lessing’s sketch, one is painfully impressed by two 
particulars—first, the statement of the advantage of “this discovery of the 
original Gospel ”in the “simplification of Christian doctrine for which German 
theology has been so earnestly striving for fifty years” (Einl. 2te Aufl. i. 445) ; 
and, secondly, an absolute silence with regard to Lessing, from whom Eichhorn 
derived the best of his material. After Herder (Vom Erlöser der Menschen, 
1796, S. 174) had explained the true state of the case, it was not so much 
in order to herald Eichhorn as the founder of modern Gospel criticism, as 
to lament, with Herder, that Lessing did not work out his hypothesis 
himself. 

7. (P. 405.) J. J. Griesbach first set forth his view briefly at the end 
of the Jena Easter Program for 1783 (Griesbachii Opusc. Acad., ed. Gabler, 
ii. 241-256: “Inquisitio in fontes, unde evangeliste suas de resurrectione 
domini narrationes hauserint”), and then developed it in detail in two 
Programs, 1789 and 1790: “ Commentatio, qua Marci ev. totum e Matthei et 
Luc» commentariis decerptum esse monstratur.” A revision, with a defence 
against criticisms which had been made meanwhile, appeared in Velthusen, 
Kuinoel, Ruperti, Comm. Theol. i. (1794), and was reprinted in Gabler, op. cit. 
358-425. For his attitude toward Lessing, cf. S. 425. 

8. (P. 405.) G. Herder, Vom Erlöser der Menschen nach den drei ersten 
Evv. 1796, 4 Abschnitt, S. 149-233 ; with more detail and definiteness in Von 
Gottes Sohn, der Welt Heiland nach Johannes’ Ev. 1797, 5. 303-416 (Herder’s 
Werke, ed. Suphan, xix. S. 194-225, 260 f., 380-424). The theory is presented in 
brilliant and yet shifting lights, which make a brief and accurate restatement 
difficult. For instance, it is not clear how Herder could decide so positively 
against an original writing no longer extant (xix. 417), and yet hold that the 
primarily oral evangelium commune was at once written down by many, if only 
for private use (xix. 205, 207 f., 394f., 408f.). He seems also not to have 
determined definitely in his own mind what part was to be assigned to 
Matthew in the first writing of the original Hebrew Gospel, or of the later 
Palestinian Gospel, written about 60, which underlay the Greek Matt. and 
even the last form of our present Matt. (xix. 205, 401). The later discussion 
no longer speaks of the original unwritten Gospel as a “sacred epic,” as does 
the earlier (199—in distinction from myth, 2 Pet. i. 16), nor of the evangelists, 
whose narrations are in part oral, as rhapsodists (214, 217). Herder’s protest 
against the idea of an “apostolic gospel-oflice” in Jerusalem (209f.), and 
much of what he says of the character of the individual Gospels, is excellent. 
G. Chr. Storr (1746-1805), Ueber den Zweck der ev. Geschichte und der Briefe des 
Johannes, 1786 ; De Fonte Evv. Mat. et Luc. 1794. F. Hitzig, Ueber Johannes 
Marcus wnd seine Schriften, 1843, should be named here rather than among 
those mentioned in note 9. Without attempting to solve the synoptic pro- 
blem, he undertook the defence of Mark against the unfavourable criticism 
which began with Griesbach, and by means of the supposition that 2 Cor. 
viii. 18 refers to Mark as the author of a Gospel, and that 1 Cor. vii. 10 
presents a citation of Mark x. 1-12, was able to maintain that Mark had 
already begun to be circulated in 57 a.p., from which it then followed 


424 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


naturally that it served as a source for Matt. and Luke (37-62, 167-173) 
The chief object of the book was to show that John Mark was the writer not 
only of the Gospel, but of Rev. also. 

9. (P. 407.) Chr. G. Wilke, Der Urevangelist oder exeg.-krit. Untersuchung 
über das Verwandschaftsverhältnis der drei ersten νυ. 1838. The number of 
those who have had the patience to read through this large book—almost 700 
pages in extent—is probably not great. In its lack of historical perspective 
and vital ideas, as well as in its crude and self-sufficient spirit, which Wilke 
first introduced into the Gospel inquiry, it has not been without successors. 
Its only service is its opposition to Gieseler’s hypothesis (26-152). The short 
sections peculiar to Mark which he wished to excise as later interpolations 
(672 ff. ; cf. 323 ff., 463 ff., 552 f.) are for the most part the very ones which 
show us the individuality of Mark. Others are set aside in the most violent 
fashion. In Mark i. 13 the words πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ σατανᾶ are an inter- 
polation from Luke iv. 2 and not proper to Mark; the interpolators were 
“clever enough,” however, to write the Markan σατανᾶς instead of the Lucan 
(e.g. 12) διάβολος (664 f.). “We give our hand and seal for all eternity that 
our result is correct” (684). Thus Wilke thought “to win the applause of 
impartial investigators of truth,” which he states (694) to be the object of his 
work. Bruno Bauer, Kritik der ev. Geschichte, Bde. i.-iii. 1841-42, 2te Aufl. 
1846. G. Volkmar, Die Evv. oder Marcus und die Synopse, 1870, and a supple- 
ment with continuous paging, Die kanon. Synoptiker in Uebersicht mit Randglossen 
und das Geschichtliche vom Leben Jesu, 1876. ‘The Gospel books are allegorical 
narrative elaborations of the one Gospel of Jesus and the apostles” (S. vii). 
The chronological summary (viii) is quite convenient: (1) Mark, circa 73; 
(2) Genealogus Hebreorum, circa 80; (3) perhaps Evangelium Pauperum, 
Essenorum, cirea 80; (4) Luke, circa 100; (5) Matt. (the last of the Synoptists, 
as shown by Wilke, S. xi), circa 110 ; (6) Gospel of Peter, circa 130; (7) Marcion, 
138 ; (8) Gospel of the Nazarenes according to the Twelve Apostles, circa 150 ; 
(9) Gospel of the Logos according to John, circa 155 ; (10) Gospel of the Egyptians, 
160-170. On the other hand, Primitive Matt., Primitive Mark, Primitive 
Luke, Book of Maxims, ete,, are mere fancies. 

10. (P. 408.) J. L. Hug (1765-1846), after an uncompleted first attempt 
which the present writer knows only from the preface of 1808, published his 
Einleitung entire in that year, 3te Aufl. 1826, on the Gospels, ii. 1-248. 

11. (P. 408, 410.) J. ©. L. Gieseler, Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die 
Entstehung und die frühesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Eve. 1818 ; substantially 
published in 1817 in Keil and Tzschirner’s Analekten, vol. iii, To illustrate 
the evangelists’ accuracy of memory, Gieseler adduces (105 f:) Plato, Phedrus, 
p. 380; Cesar, Bell. Gall. vi. 14 (the Druids and their pupils); August. 
Doctr. Christ. i. 4 (St. Anthony) ; Gregor. Magn. Dial. iv. 14. He also calls to 
mind (60) the Rabbinic method of teaching before the writing of the Mishnah ; 
ef. Schürer, ii. 321-325, (Eng. trans.) ii. 1. 323-326. On the possibility of 
the oral perpetuation of whole books, ef. also Spiegel in ZDMG, ix. 178 ff. 
Wilke’s criticism (see note 9 above) appealed particularly to the Johannine 
parallels of the synoptic Gospels (John vi. 1-21, xii. 1=xiii. 30, xviii, 1-xx, 23), 
but also to the materials peculiar to John, which show that neither in the 
choice of materials nor in the form of their presentation had any such fixed 
and uniform type of narration been developed among the apostles as a com- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 4325 


parison of the three synoptie Gospels on the supposition of their mutual 
independence would indicate to be their common basis. The Gospel frag- 
ments in Paul (1 Cor. xv. 3-7 and xi. 23-25 compared with the corrected 
text of Luke xxii. 15-20 and with Matt. xxvi. 26-29, Mark xiv. 22-25) afford 
similar evidence (see above, p. 380 ff.). Wilke was also right in observing 
(119) that from Papias’ comments on the discourses of Peter (Eus. H.E. 
iii, 39. 15) one obtains a very different idea of the Gospel narratives of an 
apostle from that involved in an unwritten primitive Gospel. G. Wetzel, 
Die synoptischen Evv. eine Darstellung und Prüfung der wichtigsten über die 
Entstehung derselben aufgetretenen Hypothesen mit selbständigem Versuch zur 
Lösung der symopt. Evangelienfrage, 1883. K. Veit, Die synopt. Parallelen 
und ein alter Versuch threr Enträtselung mit neuer Begründung ; two parts in 
one volume, 1897, Part I. the text arranged in an interlinear. synopsis, 
Part m. an elucidation of the synoptic parallels. 

12. (P. 411.) Fr. Schleiermacher, Ueber die Schriften des Lucas, ein krit. 
Versuch, first part (only), 1817; Werke, Zur Theol. vol. ii. 1-220. . Schleier- 
macher began with Hugand Eichhorn, who, in his opinion, admirably refuted 
each other ; before concluding he also noticed Gieseler’s work in its earliest 
form (note 11). He left uncertain especially whether and how far Luke 
found the single narratives already combined in larger groups, and so used 
collections which came into existence before our Gospels (S. 13=10). In the 
lectures on introduction, also (Werke, Zur Theol. iii. 233, 239), we are left in 
the dark as to how these detached fragments and the incomplete collections 
arising from them were related to the ‘‘combining Gospels,” of which, accord- 
ing to his prologue, Luke must already have known several. More im- 
portant is “ Ueber die Zeugnisse des Papias von unsern beiden ersten Evv.,” 
ThStKr, 1832, 8. 735-768; Werke, Zur Theol. ii. 361-392. 

13. (P.412,414.) F.Chr. Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanon. Evv., 
thr Verhältnis zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung, 1847 ; Das Marcusev. 
nach seinem Ursprung und Charakter, 1851 ; Christentum und Kirche der drei 
ersten Jahrhunderte, 2te Aufl. S. 23 ff., 73ff. In several respects Baur depended 
on the preliminary work of his pupils, such as Schwegler, Nachapostol. Zeit- 
alter, 1846; A. Ritschl, Das Ev. Marcions und das kanon. Lucasev. 1846, and 
various dissertations by E. Zeller. Following Baur, Hilgenfeld (Die Evv. nach 
ihrer Entstehung und ‘geschichtlichen Bedeutung, 1854) sought to lessen the 
emphasis on the ecclesiastical and dogmatic tendency of the Gospels, and to 
push their origin further back, the document underlying Matt. about 50-60 
(S. 115), our Matt. about 70-80 (103), Mark shortly before 100 (148), Luke 
about 100-110 (224). The discussions in which he developed and _ partly 
modified his view are indicated in his Hinl. 462. While Dr. Fr. Strauss in 
his new Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk, 1864, S. 98 ff., and Th. Keim, Gesch. 
Jesu von Nazara, i. 1867, S. 44-103, agreed substantially with Baur’s view 
and Griesbach’s conclusion with regard to Mark, Hilgenfeld did Mark 
more justice, and also recognised the traditional account in so far as he 
allowed that Mark was written in Rome “under the influence of Petrine 
tradition,” and even held it possible that, if Mark was still living at the time 
when the Gospel named for him was written (in the early part of Domitian’s 
reign, say 81-85, Hinl. 517), he was, not perhaps its author, but its author’s 
sponsor (Einl. 518). C. Holsten, Die drei ursprünglichen, noch ungeschriebenen 


426 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Ew. Zur synopt. Frage, 1883 ; Die synopt. νυ. nach der Form ihres Inhalts, 
1885, again undertook to explain the dissimilarity of the first three Gospels 
wholly on the basis of the dogmatic principles which dominated the apostolic 
time, and their agreement in material and form on the theory that Mark 
remodelled Matt. and that Luke worked over Matt. and Mark together. The 
three forms of the unwritten Gospel are: (1) the Jewish-Christian, which 
Peter preached until he lapsed into Judaism, a.p. 52-53 ; (2) that of Paul; 
(3) the anti- Pauline Gospel of the Judaisers. Our Matt. corresponds 
throughout with the first. Only Matt. v. 17-19 comes of a Judaising spirit 
foreign to that of Matt., perhaps from a Greek adaptation of the Aöyıa of 
which Papias speaks, or from the original Gospel of Matt. or Gospel of the 
Hebrews, which was written at the time when Judaism was dominant in 
Jerusalem (53-70 a.p.), perhaps as early as 55, and apparently by the 
apostle Matthew (op. cit. 1883, 5. 63, A. 2; 1885, S. 174 ff). How and 
where the original Petrine Gospel maintained its existence after Peter’s own 
lapse, so as to be revived after the destruction of the temple and reduced to 
writing in our Matt.; how the fertile author of this much more anti-J udaistic 
than anti-Pauline book could commit the folly of putting crass Judaism and 
the bluntest condemnation of lawless Paulinism in the mouth of Jesus, in 
only one passage, to be sure, but so significant a passage as v. 17-19; how 
the name of Matthew became affixed to a Gospel which with respect to the 
discourses of Jesus stands in sharp contrast to Matthew’s Judaistic collection, 
and betrays its dependence on such a source in but one passage ; how as early 
as 100 not this Petrine Matt. but Mark was connected with Peter,—these and 
other questions are not even raised. Matt. would be unacceptable to the 
Gentile Christian Churches, which would not abandon Paul’s Gospel. To 
leave room for this, Mark is composed about 80 from the material of Matt. 
In place of the legal Sermon on the Mount appears the διδαχὴ καινή, Mark 
i. 27, ae. the Gospel of Paul, while ix. 30-32 betrays the opinion that by their 
failure to understand Jesus’ death on the cross the first apostles were hampered 
in any complete understanding of the Gospel as a whole. At the beginning 
of the second century, when, through the simultaneous use of Matt.and Mark, 
Jewish Christian as well as Pauline ideas had struck root in the Churches, 
Paulinism had weakened, and circumstances called for the union of all 
Christians, a typical representative of these conditions worked Matt. and 
Mark into one, making use also of the oral tradition, which was not yet quite 
spent. This is the origin of Luke. 

14, (P. 414,415.) The more important works referred to under No, 8 above 
(p. 414 f.)are : Chr. H. Weisse, Die ev. Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bear- 
beitet, 2 Bde. 1838 ; Die Evangelienfrage in ihrem gegenwirtigem Stadium, 1856. 
A. Ritschl, “Ueber den gegenwärtigen Stand der Kritik der synopt. Evv.” 
in the Theol. Jahrbb. of Baur and Zeller, 1851, S. 481-538. H.J. Holtzmann, 
Die synopt. Evv., ihr Ursprung wnd geschichtlicher Charakter, 1863 ; he also 
pursued the subject in a number of later essays, and gave a convenient 
summary in his Hand-Commentar’, 1. 1892, S.1-13. C. Weizsiicker, Untersuch- 
ungen über die ev. Geschichte, ihre Quellen und den Gany ihrer Entwicklung, 
1864. In independent acceptance of the “two source theory,” Wendling, 
Urmarkus, Versuch einer Wiederherstellung der ältesten Mitteilungen über das 
Leben Jesu, 1905, has recently undertaken an analysis of Mark according to 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 427 


which three elements are to be clearly distinguished: (1) M!=a collection 
of sayings of Jesus in a brief but distinct narrative setting, beginning with 
i. 9, 16 (ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Naf. τ. Tadv\aias καὶ παράγων κτλ.) and ending with 
xv. 34, 37 (καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ Spa ὁ ᾿Ιησοὺῦς ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐξέπνευσεν) 
(2) M?=narratives of miracles of Jesus in extended description, which is in 
part highly poetical, beginning with i. 4, closing with xvi. 8; (3) additions 
of the editing evangelist, e.g. i. 1-3, 14, 15, iii. 6-30, iv. 10-25, etc., naturally 
also xiii, 3-27. 

15. (P. 417.) B. Weiss first developed his view in ThStKr, 1861, S. 29 ff., 
“Zur Entstehungsgesch. der drei synopt. Evv.”; JbfDTh, 1864, S. 49 ff. 
“Die Redestücke des apostolischen Mt.”; vbid. 1865, S. 319, “Die Erzäh- 
lungsstücke des apostolischen Mt.”; then in his commentaries: Das 
Marcusev. und seine synopt. Parallelen, 1872; Das Matthäusev. und seine Lucas- 
Parallelen, 1876, and in his comprehensive works, e.g. in his Einl.® 1897, 
S. 453-560. 


$ 51. THE TRADITION REGARDING MARK AND HIS 
GOSPEL. 


John, with the surname Mark (n. 1), was the child 
of a Christian household in Jerusalem. In this home a 
large body of Christians were gathered for prayer at the 
time of the Passover—probably on the night of the Pass- 
over feast in the year 44 (Acts xii. 12). Since Mark’s 
mother, Mary, is mentioned as the owner of this house, it 
may be regarded as certain that his father, whose name 
we do not know, was no longer living. Mark must have 
been grown up at the time and a member of the Church, 
since Paul and Barnabas, who visited Jerusalem shortly 
afterward, took him with them to Antioch, evidently with 
the intention of making use of his services in their work 
(Acts xii. 25). According to the usage of the apostolic 
age, the characterisation, “my son,” employed by Peter 
some twenty years later (1 Pet. v. 13), can hardly mean 
anything else than that Mark was converted through 
Peter's influence, and possibly also baptized by him (n. 2). 
With this agrees the express statement of Papias, that 
Mark did not hear the Lord’s preaching, nor accompany 
Him as a disciple, but that he sustained a relation of this 
kind only to Peter (see below in text, and n. 14). This 


428 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


proves that the view which appeared in the fourth century, 
according to which Mark was one of the Seventy (Luke 
x. 1),is a fable (n. 3). If the statement which Paul makes 
incidentally, to the effect that Mark was a cousin of Bar- 
nabas (Col. iv. 10), is to be taken to mean that they were 
cousins on their fathers’ side, Mark, like Barnabas, was 
a Levite (Acts iv. 36), and, from this point of view, there 
would be nothing to prevent us from accepting the ancient 
tradition that Mark cut off his thumb in order to make 
himself ineligible to priestly service. The nickname 
“stump fingered,” given Mark on this account, was com- 
monly known at the beginning of the third century in 
Rome, where we should most naturally expect to find 
genuine traditions concerning Mark (n. 4). In this same 
quarter, according to the most probable emendation and 
interpretation of the beginning of the Canon Muratori, 
we meet the report that Mark had become acquainted 
with a number of the facts recorded by him through 
personal experience, though in general he had not heard 
Jesus’ words nor witnessed his deeds (n. 5). The Frag- 
mentist adds that Mark also presented these facts as he 
learned them. When we reflect how slightly noticeable 
the traces of first-hand knowledge in Mark really are,—if 
indeed they exist at all,—further, how late and with how 
much uncertainty it came to be suspected that the author 
was concealed in xiv. 51 (n. 6), and, finally, how little 
inclination and capability the commentators of the ancient 
Church showed in following up hints of this character in 
the N.T., it must be regarded as extremely improbable 
that the definite statement of the Fragmentist is the result 
of clever exegesis. It is far more likely to have been a 
reproduction of a tradition still current in Rome about 
the year 200. | And, then, what is there to prevent the 
gon of a Christian household in Jerusalem, who, in 44, 
was perhaps thirty or thirty-five years of age, from having 
witnessed some of the scenes in Jesus’ life in the year 30, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 429 


without his having been at the time one of those: who 
heard and believed Jesus’ preaching’ According. to 
another tradition (n. 7), the beginnings and development 
of which are as yet only imperfectly cleared up, Jesus 
celebrated His last Passover with His disciples (Mark xiv. 
14) in the home of Mark and his mother (Acts xi. 12), 
where also the apostles were gathered with the women on 
the day of the ascension (Acts i. 13), and where the Spirit 
was poured out (Acts 11. 2). Without any legendary help 
concerning the place where these events occurred, this 
combination might have been made by a comparison of 
the texts, beginning with Acts xii. 12 and going backwards 
in the accounts. But this furnishes no occasion for 
suspecting the tradition of the Canon Muratori or the 
interpretation of Mark xiv. 51 ἢ, which identifies the 
individual there mentioned. with the evangelist. [ἢ 
the stories about the house of Mark the latter is occasion- 
ally identified with the person referred to in xiv. 13, but 
not with the youth in Mark xiv. 51 (n. 7). 

If Mark came to Antioch in 44 with his cousin Bar- 
nabas and Paul, and if they took him along on their first 
missionary journey perhaps in the year 50 (Acts xiii. 5), 
we may assume that he helped them during the intervening 
years in their work as missionary preachers and teachers in 
the Church of Antioch (Acts xi. 26, xiii. 1), just as he did 
on the first missionary journey. He is not mentioned in 
Acts xii. 1 among the teachers and prophets of the 
Antiochian Church, nor is he characterised in ΧΙ]. 5 as a 
preacher of the gospel having the same rank as Paul and 
Barnabas, but as one helping these two missionaries in 
their preaching in a comparatively subordinate position. 
He had a part in the work of missionary preaching (Acts 
xv. 38; Philem. 24), but as a servant of the missionaries, 
who “took him with them” (Acts xv. 37f.). The repre- 
sentation of Mark’s relation to the missionaries in Acts 
differs manifestly from the manner in which the part 


430 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


taken in Paul’s preaching by Silvanus and other helpers 
is described in Acts xvi. 6, 10, 13, 82, xvii. 4,2 Cor. i, 
19; 1 Thess. 1. 5 ff. On the other hand, it is in very 
striking agreement with what Paul says of Mark shortly 
before his own death, ἔστιν γάρ μοι εὔχρηστος eis διακονίαν 
(2 Tim. iv. 11, above, p. 371). The best way in which to 
explain this peculiar relation is to suppose that Mark, the 
spiritual son of Peter, and the son of a Christian house- 
hold in Jerusalem in which a part of the mother Church 
was accustomed to assemble, could supply something which 
Paul lacked and which Barnabas, who left Jerusalem and 
entered the foreign missionary work much earlier than 
Mark, did not possess in the same measure, namely, a 
treasure of narratives from the lips of Peter and of other 
disciples of Jesus, who were accustomed to come and go 
in his mother’s house. This knowledge of the details of 
the Gospel history (τῶν περὶ τοῦ ’Inood, above, p. 377, n. 2) 
must have been an invaluable help to the missionaries. 
Mark was better suited to be their ὑπηρέτης than were 
others, but appears to have lacked the dash and courage 
for the prosecution of the missionary work. When it was 
decided to press forward from Cyprus into Asia Minor, he 
separated himself from the missionaries and returned to 
his mother in Jerusalem (Acts xi. 13), apparently from 
Paphos. A year later, however, we find him again in 
Antioch, though it is not indicated who it was that 
induced him to return thither (Acts xv. 37-39). Here a 
separation took place between Paul and Barnabas on 
Mark’s account, Paul holding that his conduct on the first 
journey showed him to be unfitted for missionary service, 
and construing Barnabas’ milder judgment in the case as 
due to his partiality for his cousin. In consequence, Paul 
took Silas and went to Asia Minor, while Barnabas and 
Mark returned to Cyprus, Barnabas’ home. Here we lose 
trace of them; in fact, we do not hear of Barnabas again 
(vol. i, 433, n. 5). In the year 62 or 63, Mark appears 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 431 


again in Rome as one of the two Jewish missionaries, the 
method of whose work gave the apostle joy, in contrast to 
that of the other Jewish missionaries there (Col. iv. 10; 
vol. 1. 450, n. 4). Paul is able to count him among 
his fellow-workers in Rome (Philem. 24). All traces of 
a strained relation between the two men has vanished. 
Since Mark had planned for some time to travel to the 
Fast, and on the occasion of this journey to visit also the 
interior of Asia Minor, Paul had commended him to the 
kindly reception of the readers of Colossians, to whom 
Mark had remained personally unknown, even before the 
letter was despatched in which the commendation is re 
peated (Col. iv. 10). We have no reason to doubt that 
Mark actually made this journey. A year or two later he 
is again in Rome along with Peter (1 Pet. v. 13). The 
fact that, with the exception of the greeting from the 
whole Roman Church to the Christians in Asia Minor, 
Mark’s is the only greeting which Peter sends, proves that 
in the interval between his two residences in Rome, Mark 
had become acquainted with at least part of the Churches 
in Asia Minor. Whether he made his second journey to 
Rome in company with Peter, and whether he left Rome 
again after Peter’s death in consequence of the Neronian 
persecution, we do not know; but that he did both it is 
only natural to conjecture (above, p. 161 f.). At all events 
he was again in the East, apparently in Asia Minor, in 66, 
when Paul wrote his last letter to Timothy, in which he 
commissioned him to bring Mark with him to Rome, 
thinking that he could make further use of his services, 
even in his present condition (2 Tim. iv. 11). The tradi- 
tion, according to which Mark preached the gospel in 
Egypt and became the first bishop of Alexandria, is ancient 
and very little contradicted, so that it is to be given a 
certain amount of eredence ; though its date and cireum- 
stances cannot be determined with exactness (n. 8). 

In two passages of his Hypotyposes which are mutually 


432 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


supplementary, Clement of Alexandria gives us an account 
of the origin of Mark’s Gospel with numerous details, 
which he had learned, probably, from one of his teachers 
(n. 9). Although one of these reports is only a Latin 
translation and the other is preserved only in indirect 
discourse, still they suffice to show the inaccuracy of an 
account of Eusebius (n. 10) for which the latter quotes the 
authority of Clement and also of Papias. According to 
Clement, during the time that Peter was engaged in 
publicly preaching the gospel in Rome, persons of eques- 
trian rank belonging to the royal court, who had heard 
Peter's preaching, requested Mark to write down what 
Peter had spoken, inasmuch as he had been associated with 
Peter from an early date, and therefore had his discourses 
in memory, in order that they too might impress the same 
upon their memories, and when the Gospel was completed 
to give the same over to those who had made this request 
of him. When Peter learned of this he neither hindered 
nor encouraged Mark in the undertaking. Notwithstand- 
ing this attitude of Peter, Mark complied with the request 
and wrote his Gospel, following Peter's narratives. On the 
other hand, according to Eusebius’ presentation, Peter 
learned of the matter through a special revelation, where- 
upon he expressed his gratification at the zeal of those 
with whose wishes Mark complied, and, finally, approved 
of the Gospel after its completion, formally appointing it 
to be read in the Churches (n. 10), In contrast to this 
account of Eusebius, that of Clement is especially notice- 
able, on account of the very indifferent attitude which it 
makes Peter take toward the committing of his Gospel to 
writing by Mark. Eusebius’ presentation belongs to the 
time when the word “ Gospel” suggested at once a book, 
and when no effort was spared to exalt the authority of 
the written word ; whereas Clement’s account is in harmony 
with the spirit of an age when the unwritten form of the 
Gospel was dominant, and when the beginnings of a written 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 433 


Gospel in existence at the time were scarcely noticed ($ 48). 
Further, according to Clement, Peter’s judgment did not 
have reference to the book after its completion, but to Mark’s 
work in its inception. Even if it were possible grammatie- 
ally to take Clement’s account to mean that Peter did not 
learn of the matter until after Mark had written his Gospel 
and placed it in the hands of those who had requested its 
composition (n. 9), what is said of Peter’s attitude is en- 
tirely against this construction of the passage. After a 
book has been composed and published it is possible to 
commend or to blame the person responsible, but not to 
hinder (κωλύειν) or encourage him (προτρέπεσθαι). What 
Peter noticed or learned from others were the transactions 
between those who heard his preaching and his disciple 
Mark leading up to the composition of a Gospel by Mark, 
and besides this, at most, the inception of the work by 
Mark. Then it was possible for Peter either to forbid the 
writing of such a book, or to add his request to that of his 
hearers and encourage Mark to compose a Gospel. He did 
neither, but let things take their own course. 

So understood, this account is not in irreconcilable 
contradiction with the statement of Irenzeus, that Mark 
published or gave his Gospel to the Church after the 
death of Peter and of Paul (pp. 393 f, 398, n. 7). 
Although the expression which Irenzeus uses with reference 
to Mark (τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν mapa- 
δέδωκεν) does not indicate so clearly as what he says 
about Matthew (γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν evayyediov) and John 
(ἐξέδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον), the publication of the completed 
Gospel, still this is in every respect the most natural way 
in which to understand his words. It may therefore very 
well be the case that Mark was requested to write his 
Gospel during Peter's stay in Rome, which possibly did 
not cover an entire year, and actually began the prepara- 
tion of the work during this time, and that he did not 


complete it until three years later, or, if the book was 
VOL. II. 23 


434 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


never finished (§ 52), that he did not decide until then te 
publish it, ze, did not direct or allow the multiplication 
of copies for wider circulation. Irenzeus does not say 
expressly that Mark was written in Rome, but he takes 
for granted that this fact is known; for only on this pre- 
supposition can we understand why he sets its date after 
the death of the two apostles who laboured in Rome. At 
any rate, the tradition that Mark was written in Rome is 
not an invention of Clement or of his authorities. Evi- 
dently Papias had already borne witness to this fact 
(above, p. 163, and below, n. 10). This, for good reasons, 
was accepted generally (n. 11). The same is true of the 
connection between Mark’s Gospel and the narratives of 
Peter. The earliest witnesses for this connection are not 
Irenzeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, and later authors 
(n. 11), but, as will be shown immediately, it is attested 
as early as the close of the first century. Moreover, it is 
misleading to judge of this relation from short, incidental 
references, which because of their fragmentary character are 
easily misunderstood, instead of from the oldest accounts 
concerning it. What Clement says is not to the effect 
that Mark wrote down the sermons which Peter preached 
in Rome; any attentive hearer, who was able to write, 
could have done that equally as well as Mark. The reason 
why the request was made of Mark especially was rather 
because, unlike the Romans, who had become followers of 
Peter only recently, he had been his disciple for a long 
time, de. at a much earlier period had been associated 
with him, and had had abundant opportunity to hear and 
have impressed upon his memory Peter’s narratives. "This 
account is not, therefore, in any way contradictory of 
Mark’s personal history, according to which from 44 on 
he was constantly in the company of Paul or Barnabas, 
and, so far as we know, was not again in the constant 
companionship of Peter until 63 or 64 in Rome. In spite 
of this separation, he was and continued to be a “son ” of 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 435 


Peter, as it is quite possible that for a decade prior to his 
entrance upon foreign missionary service he had heard 
Peter’s narratives and addresses in his mother’s house 
(Acts zu. 12-17 5 ef. 1. 42, 46, v. 42). When he was 
privileged, two decades later, to rejoin Peter in Rome, all 
these recollections of his earlier years must have been re- 
newed, and of this experience his presentation of the Gospel 
facts must show traces, if the narrative was written in 
Rome at that time. The designation of the Gospel speeifi- 
cally as the Gospel of Peter, to be found as early as the 
time of Justin (n. 12), and employed by numerous writers 
of Tertullian’s time, was an abbreviated expression for this 
relation of Mark’s Gospel to Peter’s preaching and narra- 
tives. This form of expression did not, however, become 
established in the usage of the Church, and disagrees 
entirely with the oldest testimony concerning Mark, 
namely, that of Papias and of his teacher John, or simply 
“the Presbyter,’ as Papias calls him in the passage where 
he reproduces his opinion concerning Mark. 

The question, so long disputed, as to the identity of the 
presbyter John—whether he is the apostle John, as Irenzeus 
thought, or, as Eusebius claims to have discovered, a person 
bearing the same name, but to be distinguished from the 
apostle John—cannot be decided here in this incidental 
connection (n. 13). Every reader of Papias’ fragments, and 
everyone acquainted with the other traditions regarding 
the apostle, the author, and the teacher John, may be asked 
to give unconditional assent to the following statements : 
(1) Until toward the close of the first century there was 
living in Ephesus a John, who had attained an extreme old 
age, and who enjoyed the greatest distinction in the Church 
of the province of Asia, exercising a decisive influence upon 
its development. (2) Prominent among the personal dis- 
ciples of the same were Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, 
who likewise lived to a very great age, and was put 
to death by burning on the 23rd of February 155 ; and 


436 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, who lived at least until 
Hadrian’s time (117-138), and who apparently in his 
extreme old age, somewhere about the year 125, wrote 
his work, entitled λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις, in five volumes. 
(3) According to the unanimous tradition— whether this be 
biographical, having relation to his disciples; or of a 
literary and historical character, dealing with writings 
attributed to him ; or legendary, concerning his own person, 
—this teacher of Polycarp and of Papias was the only 
person bearing the name of John who, during the last 
decades of the first century, was in any way distinguished 
in the Churches of Asia Minor. Eusebius attempted to 
prove that, in addition to the apostle and evangelist John, 
whom with all the older tradition he identifies with the 
John of Ephesus and the teacher of Polycarp, there lived in 
Asia Minor a presbyter John, who was not an apostle, but 
the teacher of Papias. However, he went only half way 
with his criticism. The single John of Ephesus, whom the 
tradition knows, cannot be divided into two : the teacher of 
Polycarp cannot be separated from the teacher of Papias. 
Whether, on the other hand, the one John of Ephesus 
was one of the twelve apostles, 2.e. the son of Zebedee, or 
whether, in consequence of the similarity of name, he had 
been confused with him by the entire tradition before 
Eusebius’ time, cannot be decided merely by the interpre- 
tation of a fragment of Papias’ preface. The tradition of 
the Church concerning John of Ephesus is always open to 
different. interpretations, so that it must be left out of 
consideration, and the question decided primarily from the 
testimony of the writings themselves which are ascribed to 
this John (Part X.). (4) Asis shown by the very first men- 
tion of his name in Papias’ preface (ὁ πρεσβύτερος ᾿Ιωάννης, 
Bus. H. 45. iii. 39. 4; twice repeated by Eusebius in this 
form, §§ 7, 14, not ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ πρεσβύτερος), and still more 
elearly in Papias’ statement concerning Mark (καὶ τοῦτο ὁ 
πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε), the John to whom Papias refers was so 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 437 


commonly called “ the elder” among his disciples that this 
expression, used as a title of honour for the aged teacher, 
could at times be employed instead of his own name. This 
fact is confirmed by the greetings of 2 John and 3 John; 
and the case is entirely analogous to that of Clement of Alex- 
andria, who was in the habit of citing one of his teachers— 
all of whom were dead, and whom he designates collectively 
as “the Elders”—simply as ὁ πρεσβύτερος or ὁ μακάριος 
πρεσβύτερος, without name or other definite designation. 
(5) The John of Papias, like a certain Aristion whom 
Papias mentions in the preface together with John, and 
who is frequently cited with him in the course of the work 
as authority for various traditions (op. cit. §§ 4, 7, 14), was 
a μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου. As is self-evident, this expression does 
not mean “a Christian” or “a true Christian,” but a 
personal disciple of Jesus. This is made clear beyond all 
doubt by the context; for immediately preceding is a 
list of names, beginning with Andrew and ending with 
Matthew, the whole concluding with the words 4 τις ἕτερος 
τῶν τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν. This is the only interpretation 
which corresponds to the usage of the second century. 
The reason why Papias does not call even Andrew and 
Peter apostles, is the fact that their significance for him— 
namely, their confirmation of the Gospel tradition as those 
who had heard and seen Jesus—had nothing to do with 
their apostolic office; for him, Aristion, who was not one 
of the apostles, was just as important a witness as the 
apostle Thomas, or indeed more so, since Papias had had 
no opportunity to see or hear Thomas, as he had Aristion. 
His point of view is that of one seeking trustworthy 
tradition concerning Jesus ; consequently he makes no dis- 
tinction between those who were apostles and those who 
were not apostles, but designates those who had seen and 
heard Jesus μαθηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου or πρεσβύτεροι respectively, 
according as he thinks of them in relation to Jesus or in 
relation to himself and the generation in which he lived. 


438 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


The individual in question is therefore a Palestinian 
Jewish Christian settled in Asia Minor, and called John— 
in other words, according to the unanimous tradition of 
the second century, the apostle John, whose statements 
Papias cites in numerous passages of his work, partly as 
he heard them from John’s own lips, partly as they had 
come to him through other disciples of his. 

One of these citations made by Papias reads as follows : 
“ This also the Presbyter said (or, was accustomed to say), 
‘Mark, who was (or, who became) an interpreter of Peter, 
wrote down accurately all that he remembered of what the 
Lord had said or done, though this was not (set forth) in 
order’” (n. 14). Not only the formula with which the 
words of the Presbyter are introduced (καὶ τοῦτο ὁ πρεσ- 
βύτερος ἔλεγε), but also the way in which the Presbyter 
introduces Mark’s name (Μᾶρκος μέν), shows that in the 
preceding account by Papias there were other sayings of 
the Presbyter, which while dealing with related topies, 
having reference possibly to earlier records of Jesus’ 
sayings, did not concern Mark in particular. He is intro- 
duced in contrast to what precedes. The understanding 
of the concise opinion of the Presbyter is rendered some- 
what easier by the explanatory remarks which Papias 
adds directly after his teacher's words. These would be 
of still greater use to us if Eusebius had copied also the 
passage preceding the citation from the Presbyter, to 
which Papias refers expressly in this passage. Papias 
says as follows: “ He (Mark) neither heard the Lord nor 
followed Him (as a disciple); but later, as remarked 
(he heard and followed) Peter, who constructed the dis- 
courses which he used in teaching as necessity required, 
but not as he would have done in preparing a written 
account of the Lord’s sayings. So, then, Mark made no 
mistake when he wrote down some things as he remem- 
bered them, since he was concerned only for one thing, 
namely, to omit nothing that he had heard, and not 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 4365 


to say anything in his account that was false” It 
is elear from the words of John, as well as from the 
explanation which Papias adds, that unfavourable 
opinions had been expressed concerning Mark’s book 
in the cirele to which Papias and John belonged. Only 
the purpose to counteract such opinions enables us to 
understand John’s ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν and Papias’ οὐδὲν 
ἥμαρτεν. What had been particularly noticed in John’s 
vicinity, what John himself admitted in the words οὐ 
μέντοι τάξει, and what Papias apologised for at lenoth, 
was the lack of order. Variation from the order of 
another Gospel cannot be here meant; for in this case 
the point of criticism and defence would have to be the 
contradiction between Mark and the recognised authority 
of another evangelist, and not want of order in general, 
more specifically, as Papias’ apology shows even more 
clearly than John’s statement,—want of an order such as 
might be expected in the case of one who had been a 
witness of Jesus’ words and deeds. The John who spoke 
with his disciples concerning Mark was such an αὐτόπτης 
καὶ αὐτήκοος. Whether or not at this time he himself had 
already written a Gospel, or wrote one later, his disciples 
at all events were accustomed to hear his narrative con- 
cerning Jesus’ words and deeds. Judged by this standard, 
Mark’s book seemed to them to lack plan, and to present 
things out of their proper chronological order. That a 
personal disciple of Jesus, in speaking of the correct order 
of Jesus’ words and deeds, could mean no other order than 
that in which he remembered them, is self-evident. If a 
book were the standard by which a man of letters, ancient 
or modern, judges another book for himself and his 
readers, he could not fail to cite such a work, whether it 
was his own or that of another. The lack in Mark’s 
Gospel, which John and Papias both admit, they explain 
and condone by pointing out that Mark was not a disciple 
of Jesus, but a disciple of Peter; on this account he was 


440 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


not able to narrate what he himself had seen and heard, 
but was bound by Peter's discourses, which from their 
very nature were not adapted to give a connected and 
chronological view of Jesus’ work as a teacher, consisting 
as they did always merely of separate stories, intended, as 
the case might be, for instruction or edification. Even 
though we do not possess the preceding section of Papias’ 
work, to which he refers in ὡς ἔφην, and in which he had 
spoken, probably, of the origin of Mark’s Gospel in 
Rome (n. 10), we see that Papias is not thinking here 
of Mark’s relation to Peter as that of a missionary 
helper, but as that of a disciple under the instruction of 
his master, as shown by the fact that he does not speak of 
Peter’s preaching, but of the discourses delivered by him 
in teaching. The memory upon which Mark draws goes 
back to his youth. He owes it to the relation in which 
he stood to Peter prior to his entrance upon foreign 
missionary work, a relation the existence of which we 
infer from 1 Pet. v. 13 and from Acts xii. 12-17, and 
which is noticed also in Clement’s account (above, p. 
431) Now Papias does not say that Mark wrote down 
Peter's oral Gospel word for word, as might possibly 
be inferred from Irenzeus, Clement, Origen, and Eusebius 
by a prejudiced interpretation of their statements (above, 
p. 398; below, n. 11). According to Papias, the responsi- 
bility of authorship is entirely Mark’s; and this responsi- 
bility he is able to bear, if only unreasonable demands 
be not made of him, and if it be borne in mind that 
he was not a disciple of Jesus, but only a disciple of 
Peter. 

Papias expressly limits the dependence of Mark’s 
Gospel upon the discourses of Peter to some portions of 
the Gospel. Papias’ judgment, οὐδὲν ἥμαρτε Μᾶρκος, οὕτως 
ἔνια γράψας, ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν, has been interpreted to mean 
that he is attempting to defend Mark against the charge 
of having reported only part of the Gospel history in his 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 441 


book; but this has against it not only the wording of the 
passage which emphasises odrws—ostand not ἔνια, but com- „ 
mon sense as well. At the time when John xx. 30, xxi). 
25 was written, or shortly afterward, and in the circle 
of Papias, who, dissatisfied with the information supplied 
by the Gospel literature already in existence, was con- 
stantly searching for traditions that were as yet unwritten, 
the eriticism of a single Gospel on the ground that it was 
incomplete would have been laughed out of court. What 
Papias defends is the method of Mark’s presentation. It 
is not the account of one who saw and heard Jesus, but 
that of a disciple of one of the apostles, dependent upon 
the discourses of one who was an apostle and an original 
witness. More than this, the discourses upon which he 
was dependent were not designed to give an historical 
survey of Jesus’ life, but were intended for an entirely 
different purpose. With reference to these is to be judged 
also the one purpose which, in positive and negative form, 
Papias indicates Mark to have had in view. Under 
similar circumstances an unscrupulous author might have 
yielded to the temptation to add to the discourses which 
he heard all sorts of invention of his own, with a view to 
rendering the stories more interesting or pleasing, or in 
order to remove also single features which might make an 
unfavourable impression. Mark did neither, but repro- 
duced Peter’s discourses, naturally in so far as he recorded 
them at all, accurately, without leaving anything out or 
making additions of his own. Incidentally, however, we 
learn that in Papias’ opinion this close dependence upon 
Peter's narratives was to be noticed in some passages of 
Mark’s Gospel. | This observation is of a character exactly 
similar to that of the Canon Muratori (above, p. 428 f.), to 
the effect that here and there in Mark’s account there are 
passages which might lead one to suppose that he narrated 
as an eye-witness of certain events, which he had experi- 
enced. When Papias claims that Mark was not a disciple 


442 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of Jesus, but a disciple of Peter, he does not deny this 
„ gbservation and claim of the Fragmentist ; quite as little 
“does Papias’ opinion that in numerous passages Mark 
appears to be dependent upon the discourses delivered 
by Peter in teaching invalidate the observation of later 
eritics that he is largely dependent upon an older docu- 
ment containing an account of the Gospel history. © In 
the light of Papias’ full explanation is to be understood 
also the statement of his teacher John, which is so brief as 
to be enigmatical. According to John also, Mark drew upon 
his memory, and in his opinion, as in Papias’, this must 
have been his recollection of Peter's narratives. When 
John praises the accuracy of all that Mark remembered of 
what he had heard Peter say, and when in his closing 
sentence Papias declares with reference to this accuracy 
that Mark was careful not to omit or arbitrarily to change 
anything that he heard, their words do not in turn imply 
that Mark’s book contained nothing else than reproductions 
of Peter's narratives. On the contrary, John hints that 
where this source of memory failed him Mark’s presenta- 
tion actually shows want of accuracy. For this very 
reason he fails to reproduce exactly the order of events in 
the Gospel history. John does not mention expressly 
whose the account was in dependence upon which Mark 
wrote his accurate narratives, which would be incompre- 
hensible, if he had not thought that this point was clear 
to his followers from the words ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος. 
This very omission on John’s part is of itself decisive proof 
that the expression does not mean that on Peter’s mission- 
ary tours Mark acted as his interpreter, a misunderstanding 
which comes to light in a half uncertain way for the first 
time in Jerome, who is the only writer in antiquity to 
advocate the view (n. 12 end). Furthermore, if this were 
the meaning of the words, it would be incomprehensible 
that Papias, in his comparatively full explanation of the 
words of his teacher, should not refer in any way to this 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 443 


office of Mark, or say anything about the language in 
which Peter taught, and the na into le Mark 
translated the words of Peter, either orally or in writing, 
but that he should speak only of the close connection 
between Peter's narratives and Mark’s account of the 
same, and of Mark’s relation of discipleship to Peter as 
explaining this close connection. The same is true of all 
those who after Papias’ time repeat John’s expression 
(ἑρμηνευτής, interpres), namely, Irenzeus, Tertullian, and 
Jerome (above, p. 398, and below, n. 12). Equally note- 
worthy is the fact that Clement, Origen, and also Eusebius, 
to whom we are indebted for John’s testimony, never say 
anything about Mark’s being Peter's interpreter, and 
especially when speaking of the dependence of Mark’s 
Gospel upon Peter, they avoid the word ἑρμηνευτής ; and, on 
the other hand, always emphasise the one fact that Mark’s 
relation to Peter was that of a disciple (n. 12). Ancient 
scholars were safe against this error, because they knew 
that, except for his work among the ‘ Hebrews” ‘in 
Palestine, Peter, like Paul, needed only the Greek language 
in all the places to which the ancient tradition represents 
him to have gone—Palestine, Antioch, and Rome. Inas- 
much as he was proficient in this language, they knew also 
that he did not need an interpreter, which was actually 
the case (vol. 1. pp. 34-72, 112 f.; above, p. 112). Even 
though Mark, who had lived since the year 44, where 
Greek was the dominant language, may have acquired 
greater readiness in the use of the Greek idiom than Peter, 
— of which, however, his Gospel in comparison with 2 Peter 
shows no evidence, —the idea that Mark performed ‘the 
office of an interpreter, translating Peter’s Aramaic dis- 
courses into Greek, or what is still more impossible, his 
Greek sermons into Latin, cannot be held by anyone 
having any knowledge at all of language conditions in the 
apostolic age. For this reason, therefore, this view is not to 
be attributed to the presbyter John. With his disciples, 


444 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


who did not need to be informed by him, to begin with, 
what language Peter used in Antioch and Rome, or what 
the personal relation was in which Mark stood to Peter, 
John could speak of Mark’s reproduction of Peter’s narra- 
tives figuratively, and say that it was by virtue of the 
composition of his book he became Peter’s interpreter 
(n. 15). To those who had not heard Peter tell the 
story concerning Jesus, he supplies these narratives. 
Herein lay the strength of Mark’s Gospel, but likewise its 
pardonable weakness. 

Of greater weight even than this estimate of Mark’s 
writing by a disciple of Jesus is the fact that, between the 
years 75 and 100, a book dealing with the words and 
deeds of Jesus, and written by a disciple of Peter, was in 
existence in the province of Asia, and had attracted the 
attention of Christians in that region. This is attested 
also by other facts. Our Fourth Gospel, which originated 
in this same region, and which is assigned by the unanim- 
ous tradition to John of Ephesus, shows clear traces of 
its author’s acquaintance with Mark (§ 66). Furthermore, 
there is a credible tradition that Mark was the favourite 
Gospel of the school of Cerinthus, who lived in Ephesus in 
John’s old age (n. 16). Finally, it is self-evident that 
there was no doubt in Papias’ mind as to the identity of 
Mark’s book, of which he had heard his teacher speak, with 
the one used in the Church of Asia Minor at the time 
when he wrote (125 A.D. or somewhat later). Papias’ testi- 
mony and the wide circulation which the above-mentioned 
facts show that Mark had among the Christians in and 
about Hphesus even before the close of the first century, 
exclude the possibility that in the interval between the 
days of John and the time when his opinion was recorded 
by his diseiple Papias, Mark had been recast into what was 
practically another book, and the original edition replaced 
by this modified form of the Gospel after the former had 

en already widely circulated without this change having 


THE FIRST THREE: GOSPELS AND ACTS 445 


been noticed. John’s judgment has reference, therefore, to 
the canonical Mark. 


1. (P. 427.) Acts xii. 12, Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἐπικαλουμένου Μάρκου, ef. xii. 25, 
xv. 37, might mean that at the time of the composition of Acts, and in the 
eirele for which Acts was written, Mark regularly bore this Roman preenomen 
as a cognomen, while at the time of the events here related, and especially 
in Jerusalem, he was known only as John. In Acts xiii. 5, 13 the Hebrew 
name corresponding to that early period would be retained, while in Philem. 
24, Col. iv. 10, 2 Tim. iv. 11, 1 Pet. v. 13, the Roman name is used which was 
given him later, and was the only one current among the Gentile Christians. 
But as ἐπικληθέντα has the weight of evidence in Acts xii, 25, the present in 
xii. 12, xv. 37 cannot be pressed, but is to be regarded as an imperfect parti- 
ciple. Moreover, the name Mark is too unimportant to receive later an 
additional name, as in Acts iv. 36. John, then, doubtless bore a Latin name 
along with his Hebrew name from the beginning, like Joseph Barsabbas, 
surnamed Justus (Acts i. 23), Jesus—Justus (Col. iv. 11), Silas—Silvanus 
(vol. i. 31f., 207 f.), Saul—Paul (vol. i. 69f.). The attempts to distinguish 
two Marks in the N.T. hardly need refutation in these days; οἵ, Schanz’ 
Kom. über Mk. 8. 2. 

2. (P. 427.) 1 Pet. v. 13, Μᾶρκος ὁ υἱός pou; ef. 1 Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim. i.2; 
Tit.i. 4; Philem. 10 ; 1 Cor. iv. 15, 17. 

3. (P. 428.) Adamantius, Dial. contr. Marcion (ed. Bakhuyzen, p. 10, 
written circa 300-313; ZfKG, ix. 238), in opposition to the Marcionites, 
includes Mark and Luke among the seventy or seventy-two disciples. So 
Epiph. Her. xx. 4 (with Justus, Barnabas, Apelles, Rufus, Niger); with 
reference to Mark, in particular, ef. Her. li. 6, with the further embellish- 
ment that Mark was one of those disciples who, according to John vi. 66, 
deserted the Master, but was afterwards reconverted by Peter. 

4. (P. 428.) Hippol. Refut. vii. 30, says, in an argument against Marcion : 
τούτους (τοὺς λόγους) οὔτε Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος οὔτε Μᾶρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος 
ἀνήγγειλαν---τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται--- 
ἀλλὰ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς. It is ποῦ a sufficient explanation of the designation of 
Mark as Κολοβοδάκτυλος to say that by its use Hippolytus indicated the 
incompleteness of Mark’s gospel,—the lack of an introductory history and a 
proper ending,—and at the same time accounting for the mutilated gospel 
of Mareion. This is the view of Duncker and Schneidewin «ad loc., who also 
accept a biographical tradition concerning the meaning of the epithet ; also 
of Bartlet (JThS, 1904, Oct. pp. 121-124) in the sense that this passage of 
Hippolytus was the source of the later legends. Hippolytus assumed that 
the Gospel of Mark was, like Paul, an authority on which Marcion relied, 
and so held, mistakenly, that Marcion’s Gospel, which depends on Luke, was 
an adaptation of Mark. So it is not the fact that Marcion, as Wordsworth is 
inclined to suppose (N.T. Lat. sec. ed. Hieron. i. 173), once called Mark stump- 
fingered, in order to characterise him as indolent or cowardly ; on the 
contrary, Hippolytus gives him this title, as he gives Paul the title of apostle, 
as an honour. ‘he incidental way in which this is done presupposes about 
230 in Rome a general acquaintance with this epithet of Mark’s. This may 
be read in the old prologue to Mark (Wordsworth, M.T. Lat. sec. ed. 8S. Hier- 


446 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


onymi, i, 171; Corssen, Monarchianische Prologue, 1896, S, 91.): “Marcus 
evangelista dei et Petri in baptismate filius atque in divino sermone dis- 
eipulus, sacerdotium in Israhel agens, secundum carnem Levita, conversus 
ad fidem Christi evangelium, in. Italia scripsit . . .” (p. 172 1... “ Denique 
amputasse sibi post fidem pollicem dieitur, ut sacerdotio reprobus haberetur, 
sed tantum consentiens fidei praedestinate (Corssen, S. 10, 16, preedestinata) 
potuit electio, ut nec sic in opere verbi perderet, quod prius.meruerat, in 
genere; nam Alexandriz episcopus fuit.” According to the Targum on Ps, 
exxxyil. 4, to which Nestle calls attention Z/NTW, 1903, S. 347, the Levites, 
tore off their thumbs with their teeth, and said : “How shall we sing a hymn 
of thanksgiving to Yahweh on foreign soil.” The thumb and especially that 
on the right hand (Ps. exxxvii. 5) is as essential for playing the accompani+ 
ment of a hymn on a harp or zither (Ps. exxxvii. 2; 1 Sam. xvi. 23 ; 1 Kings 
x, 12; Jos. Ant. vii. 12. 3), as is the tongue for singing. Both.duties were 
laid upon the Levites. Moreover, ef. the story of the hermit Ammonius 
(Hist. Laus. ed. Butler, p. 33), who cut off his left ear in order that, in 
accordance with the Jewish law, he might incapacitate himself for the office 
of bishop. The account about Mark, which is found in essentially the same 
form in Arabic MSS. (ZDMG, viii. 586, xiii. 475) is not incredible, Har- 
nack’s appeal (ΖΗ͂Ν ΤΊΓ, 1902, 8. 165 ἢ.) to ἱερέων Acts vi. 7 (see vol. 1. p. 66, 
n. 12), which is textualiy doubtful, signifies little. It is, moreover, possible 
that κολοβοδάκτυλος was originally applied as an epithet to Mark, because of 
a congenital shortness of the fingers or a finger, which was noticeable, and 
then later was explained as referring to an intentional mutilation. The 
matter is thus represented in an old MS. of the Vulgate in Toledo (Words- 
worth, p. 171): ‘Marcus, qui et colobodactilus est nominatus, ideo quod a 
cetera (ad ceteram) corporis proceritatem digitos minores habuisset.” ΟἿ, 
concerning James “the less” and Barsabbas Justus “with the flatfoot,” 
Forsch. vi. 345 f., 349 f. 

5. (P. 428.) The only words which remain of the account of Mark in Can. 
Mur. (line 1, “quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit”) express the idea above 
mentioned, if we read [ali]quibus (GK, ii. δ, 15-18, 140). . Even without 
assuming that the words used (line 6) with reference to Luke, “ dominum 
tamen nec ipse vidit in carne,” compare him with Mark and not with Paul 
(cf. per contra, GK, ii. 30), we may infer that the Fragmentist knew the older 
tradition, according to which Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, and conclude 
from tamen that he repeated it, and maintained, on the other hand, “ali- 
quibus tamen interfuit,” 

6. (Ὁ. 428.) With regard to the fleeing youth, Mark xiv. δ] f., various 
opinions were current even in early times, (1) Some would see in him the 
apostle John. So, without any justification, Ambrose (on Ps. xxxvi., ed. 
Bened,,i, 801) and Peter Chrysologus (Sermo, 78, 150, 170, Migne, 52, col. 
421, 600, 645). That this view originated on Greek soil is evident from the 
opposition of an anonymous writer in the Catena Patr. Grac., ed. Possinus, 
p. 327. Epiph. Her. lxxviii. 13, in a more precise reference, shows that he 
was acquainted with this view, and accepted it as correct as a matter of 
course. The lack of clearness in his statement, however, led to a misunder- 
standing as early as the Middle Ages, and also in the first edition of this 
Introduction, namely, that he identified the fleeing youth with James, the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 447 


Lord’s brother. His meaning is rather that James, who is said to have worn 
only linen clothing, is to be compared in this particular with the sons of 

Zebedee; and he appeals to Mark xiv. 51 for support, assuming as well known 
that the youth there mentioned was one of these latter; cf. Forsch. vi. 231. 
This cannot be an original tradition, for it is plain that the young man is not 
one of the circle of apostles. At the same time the view, in this form, can 
hardly have arisen through mistaken exegesis; for the old tradition that 
John was the youngest of the apostles (cf. the writes Acta Jo. CXXVili., 
exxxiv.; also Theod. Mops. In Ev. Jo., ed. Chabot, pp. 3, 15), and a combination 
of this tradition with the word νεανίσκος, is not a sufficient explanation. On 
the contrary, we cannot avoid the conjecture that the evangelist John Mark 
has here been confused with the evangelist and apostle John, as has happened 
in other cases also (see note 7 below). (2) The. original tradition, which is 
found in Epiphanius and Ambrose, but obscured by this confusion, presents 
the view that John Mark, who did not belong to the Apostolic circle, was the 
fleeing youth. The same is presupposed in Can. Mur. (see above, note 5)... It 
is instructive to notice, in this connection, that the Cyprian monk Alexander, 
of the sixth century, who had access to many old books, in his encomium on 
Barnabas (Acta SS. Jun. tom. ii. 440, § 13), gives it as an old tradition that 
Mark was the man with the pitcher of water, Mark xiv. 13, whereas the 
monk Epiphanius (ed. Dressel, p. 36) states that in the opinion of many the 
master of the house, Matt. xxvi. 18, was the apostle John. (3) The idea that 
the young man was James the Just, the Lord’s brother, is mentioned. by 
Theophylact and Euthymius (Migne, 123, col. 657 ; 129, col. 693), and rests, 
as is particularly plain in Theophylact’s case, simply on the misunderstanding 
of Epiphanius of which we have already spoken. (4) According to Cat. ın 
Ev. sec. Marcum, ed. Possinus, p. 326, Victor of Antioch commented on Mark 
xiv. 51: ἴσως ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης, ἐν 7) τὸ πάσχα ἔφαγον, καὶ οὐδὲν ξένον. 
Casaubon, Exerc. ad Baronii Ann. (1663), p. 524, made use of this statement, 
and argued from the young man’s singular costume that he must have risen 
from his bed, comparing appropriately Dionys. Alex. in Eus. H. E. vi. 40. 7: 
μένων ἐπὶ τῆς εὐνῆς, fs ἤμην γυμνὸς ἐν τῷ λινῷ ἐσθήματι, τὴν δὲ λοιπὴν 
ἐσθῆτα παρακειμένην αὐτοῖς dpeyov. Of. Herodotus, ii. 95, ἢν μὲν ἐν ἱματίῳ 
ἐνειλιξάμενος evön (sc. ὁ ἀνὴρ) ἢ σινδόνι. 

7. (P. 429.) The complicated tradition concerning the house mentioned 
in Acts xii. 12 is carefully investigated in the article on “ Die DormitioS. 
Virginis und das Haus des Johannes Markus” in the NKZ, 1899, 8. 377-429 
(also published separately, Leipzig, 1899). According to Epiphanius, De 
Mens. et Pond. 14, a small Christian church stood in the time of Hadrian on 
the plot of ground before what is now the Zion Gate, a portion of which was 
presented by the Sultan to Emperor William 11.; and transferred by him to 
the German Catholics on October 31, 1898. On its site a larger church was 
built, probably about 340, which Cyril, about 348, called “the church of the 
apostles in the upper city” (Catech. xvi. 4), but which by the end of the 
same century was usually known as ἡ ἁγία Σιών. According to numerous 
testimonies from the period 380-420, this was regarded as the place, (1) of the 
institution of the Lord’s Supper, the cenaculwm (Mark xiv. 14-25), (2) of 
the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts ii. 2), (8) of the appearances of the risen 
Christ in Jerusalem (John xx. 19-28; Luke xxiv. 36 ff.), (4) of the gathering 


448 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


in Acts i. 13f., and also (5) as the regular meeting-place of the primitive 
Church under its first bishop, James. Not till the pilgrim Theodosius, about 
525 (Itin. Hieros., ed. Geyer, p. 141. 7, “ipse fuit domus sancti Marei evan- 
geliste”), and the monk Alexander, several decades later (Ensom. in Barn. 
§§ 12, 13; see the preceding note), do we find the identification of the 
“Holy Zion” with the house of Mary the mother of Mark (Acts xii. 12), but 
it appears then not as a conjecture, but as an unquestioned tradition. Only 
after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 was the opinion 
gradually, and at first quite timidly, advanced among the patriarchs and 
festival preachers of Jerusalem, that the “Holy Zion” was rather the house 
of the apostle John, in which he received his adoptive mother, Mary the 
mother of Jesus (John xix. 26). Apart, too, from the disagreement of older 
traditions with regard to the dwelling of the mother of Jesus and the house 
in which she died, it is clear that after 614 the evangelist and apostle John 
and his adoptive mother began to displace the evangelist John Mark and his 
own mother. 

8. (P. 431.) Eusebius, A. E. ii. 16, notices as a report that Mark was a 
preacher in Egypt of the Gospel which he had already committed to writing 
(according to ii. 15, in Rome), and the first to found Churches in Alexandria. 
Cf. Jerome, Vir. Il. viii. In Chron. ad anno Abrah. 2057, Eusebius also refrains 
from calling him bishop outright, though he begins the succession in that 
city with Mark (anno Abrah. 2077; H. E.ii. 24). Nothing more than this is 
affirmed by Theophilus in John Malalas, lib. x. p. 252, ed. Bonn., who is 
perhaps no other than the old Antiochian bishop and apologete about 180 (cf. 
Forsch. ii. 6 £., iii. 58 f.). According to Eusebius, Theoph. iv. 6, ed. Gressmann, 
p. 20 Greek, p. 174 according to Syriac; ef. the Hypothesis of Victor or of 
Cyril in Combefis, Auet. Noviss. i. 436 ; Cramer, Cat. in Matt..et Marc. p. 265 ; 
as well as Epiph. Her. li. 6, Nicetas in Combetis, op. cit. 431, and others, Peter 
sent Mark as his substitute from Rome to Egypt. The tradition which brings 
him to Alexandria without touching Rome sounds still less historical (Acta 
Barnabe, xxvi., ed. Tisch. 73; Acta Marci, Migne, 115, col. 164f.; the 
Armenian Bibles, ef. Conybeare in Exp. 1895, Dee., p. 419). 

9. (P. 432, 433.) Clem. Hypotyp. on 1 Pet. v. 13 (Forsch. iii. 82 f.; this 
portion is unfortunately lacking in the Troyes MS.) : “Marcus, Petri sectator, 
predicante Petro evangelium palam Rome coram quibusdam Cesareanis 
equitibus et multa Christi testimonia proferente, petitus ab eis, ut possent 
que dicebantur memorize commendare, scripsit ex his que Petro dicta sunt 
evangelium quod secundum Marcum vocitatur.” In immediate connection with 
the words from Eusebius, H. E. vi. 14. 5, transeribed above, p. 400, note 9 (7.6. 
if ἔλεγον is admitted as the correct reading, and we have a statement of the 
presbyters put by Clement and not first by Eusebius into oratio obliqua), we 
read further: τὸ δὲ κατὰ Μᾶρκον (sc. εὐαγγέλιον) ταύτην ἐσχηκέναι τὴν oiKo- 
voniav' τοῦ Πετροῦ δημοσίᾳ ἐν Ῥώμῃ κηρύξαντος τὸν λόγον καὶ πνεύματι τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον ἐξειπόντος, τοὺς παρόντας πολλοὺς ὄντας παρακαλέσαι τὸν Μᾶρκον, 
ὡσὰν ἀκολουθήσαντα αὐτῷ πόρρωθεν καὶ μεμνημένον τῶν λεχθέντων, ἀναγράψαι 
τὰ εἰρημένα, ποιήσαντα δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μεταδοῦναι τοῖς δεομένοις αὐτοῦ" ὅπερ 
ἐπιγνόντα τὸν Πέτρον προτρεπτικῶς (Vales. conj. προφανῶς) μήτε κολῦσαι 
μήτε προτρέψασθαι. πόρρωθεν is, of course, to be wnderstood temporally, not 
spatially (Rufinus, olim. ; Niceph. Call. ἐκ πολλοῦ) ; πάλαι or ἄνωθεν might 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 449 


be substituted for it. The words ποιήσαντα to αὐτοῦ, which Rufinus omitted 
are to be construed as subordinate to παρακαλέσαι, and not as a co-ordinate 
statement of the reporter. Aside from the logical grounds stated above, 
pp. 432 f., the latter construction is inadmissible, because we ought in that 
case to have τὸν δὲ Μᾶρκον or τοῦτον δὲ ποιήσαντα, and instead of the pre- 
sent τοῖς δεομένοις, something like τοῖς παρακαλέσασιν': αὐτόν. The Cweswream 
(Καισαριάνοι, Epic. Diss. i. 19. 19, iii: 24. 117, iv. 13.22, or καισάρειοι, Dio Cass. 
1χ 14. 1, 16. 2, 17. 5, 31. 2, Ixix. 7. 4) are not in themselves eqiites also (cf. per 
contra, Dio Cass. 1xxviii. 18. 2: οὐχ ὅτι δοῦλοι καὶ ἐξελεύθεῤοι Kal Καισάρειοι, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱππεῖς, βουλευταί Te καὶ γυναῖκες τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων). But many 
of these court attendants were raised to equestrian rank. Onejis reminded of 
Phik iv. 22; Act. Pauli, ed. Lipsius, 105. 8 (vol. i. p. 550,m. 1). According 
to the Acts of Peter, that apostle had to do with much more distinguished 
company ; ed. Lipsius, 54. 33, 73. 33, 84. 15, 86. 2. But»aside from this, we 
are not to think that Clement derived his account from the Acts of Peter, 
however natural the conjecture may be in some ways. In the Hypotyposes 
Clement cites the Acts of John (Forsch. iii 87, 97), which are from the same 
hand as the Acts of Peter (above, p..73, note 7), and the cool attitude toward 
the written Gospel which the Peter of the legend. assumes (ed. Lipsius, 
p. 66f.; GK, ii, 849) would fit im with Peter’s hesitancy with regard to 
Mark’s undertaking in Clement’s story. But in. the legend the Gospel which 
the Roman Christians read is already in, existence when Peter comes to 
Rome, and in the unbroken progress of the narrative, from his arrival in 
Rome to his death, there is no mention of the origin of a Gospel nor of the 
person of Mark. | 

10. (Pp.432, 434,440.) In connection with the account of Peter’s contestwith 
Simon Magus in Rome, Eus. in H. E. ii. 15 (Forsch. iii. 72) writes: Τοσοῦτο 
δ᾽ ἐπέλαμψεν ταῖς τῶν ἀκροατῶν τοῦ Πέτρου διανοίαις εὐσεβείας φέγγος, ὡς μὴ 
τῇ εἰσάπαξ ἱκανῶς ἔχειν ἀρκεῖσθαι ἀκοῇ, μηδὲ τῇ ἀγράφῳ τοῦ θείου κηρύγματος 
διδασκαλίᾳ, παρακλήσεσι. δὲ παντοίαις Μᾶρκον, οὗ τὸ. εὐαγγέλιον φέρεται, ἀκόλ- 
ovdov ὄντα Πέτρου, λιπαρῆσαι, ὡς ἂν καὶ διὰ γραφῆς ὑπόμνημα τῆς διὰ λόγου 
παραδοθείσης αὐτοῖς καταλείψοι διδασκαλίας, μὴ πρότερόν τε ἀνεῖναι ἢ κατερ- 
γάσασθαι τὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ ταύτῃ αἰτίους γενέσθαι τῆς τοῦ λεγομένου κατὰ Μᾶρκον 
εὐαγγελίου γραφῆς. Tvovra δὲ τὸ πραχθέν. φασι τὸν ἀπόστολον ἀποκαλύψαν- 
Tos αὐτῷ τοῦ πνεύματος ἡσθῆναι τῇ τῶν ἀνδρῶν προθυμίᾳ κυρῶσαί τε τὴν γραφὴν 
εἰς ἔντευξιν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. Κλήμης ἐν ἕκτῳ τῶν ὑποτυπώσεων παρατέθειται 
τὴν ἱστορίαν" συνεπιμαρτυρεῖ δ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ Ἱεραπολίτης ἐπίσκοπος ὀνόματι 
Παπίας, τοῦ δὲ Μάρκου μνημονεύειν τὸν Πέτρον ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ ἐπιστολῇ, ἣν καὶ 
συντάξαι φασὶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς Ῥώμης, σημαίνειν τε τοῦτ αὐτόν, τὴν πόλιν τροπι- 
κώτερον Βαβυλῶνα προσειπόντα διὰ τούτων᾽ “ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς ἡ ἐν. Βαβυλῶνι 
συνεκλεκτὴ καὶ Μᾶρκος 6 vids μου. Rufinus translates the last sentence: 
“Simile dat testimonium etiam Hieropolites episcopus nomine Papias, qui 
et hoe dieit, quod Petrus in prima epistola, sua, quam de urbe Roma scripsit, 
meminerit Marci, in qua tropice Romam Babyloniam nominarit.” Eusebius 
did not, write very clearly here ; but probably Rufinus was right in supposing 
that everything that follows Papias’ name was taken by Eusebius from 
Papias, for this cannot be discovered in Clement (see above, 163 n. 3). The 
supposition that the words KAnuns—Harias form a parenthesis, alter which) 
the report continues, and that φασίν following συντάξαι, is a resumption of 

VOL. II. 29 


450 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the first φασίν after πραχθέν, has against it : (1) that there is then no reason 
why Eusebius broke off his account which was almost finished with an 
appeal to his two witnesses, instead of placing this appeal at the end of the 
entire report. (2) That in this case Eusebius would surely have used the 
second φασίν immediately after he had resumed the account, perhaps after 
μνημονεύειν, and not in a relative sentence dependent upon it. It therefore 
remains probable, that following Papias, who gave the tradition in connection 
with 1 Pet. v. 13, and explained it by a figurative interpretation of the name 
Babylon, Eusebius reported that this letter which was often cited by him 
(Eus. H. £. iii, 39.16) had been written in Rome. Furthermore, in the same 
connection he probably in all essentials confirmed (eminaprupei) the account 
of Clement, also concerning the origin of Mark’s Gospel in Rome. Papias,in 
his testimony with reference to Mark, which has been preserved for us in its 
general meaning (see below, n. 14) refers to an earlier passage of his work, 
in which he had already expressed himself concerning the relation of Mark’s 
Gospel to the addresses of Peter. Consequently in that passage which in its 
wording has not been preserved, he probably stated what according to Hus. 
ii. 15 he in all probability said concerning 1 Pet. v. 13 and the Roman origin 
of Mark’s Gospel. That Eusebius does not repeat the account of Clementi 
unchanged is shown not only by a comparison with Clement’s own words 
(above, πὶ 9), but also in the phraseology of Eusebius himself ; for at the 
point where his account begins to go beyond Clement (γνόντα de τὸ πραχθέν 

. ἀποκαλύψαντος κτλ.) he introduces a formula (φασί) which points to 
an uncertain tradition ; and, furthermore, he does not make Clement respons- 
ible for all the details which are given (as, for example, in ii. 23. 19, iii. 19), 
but merely in a very general expression says that he included the ἱστορία 
in question in his Hypotyposes. Eusebius’ unhistorical account was repeated, 
and in some respects still further exaggerated, eg. Jerome (Vor. JU. viii.) : 
“Quod cum Petrus audisset, probavit et ecclesiis legendum sua auctoritate 
edidit”; Alexander Mon. Fneum. Barnabe, cap. xx. (Acta SS, Jun. ii. 443). 
In Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, i. 50, 118) the influence of Peter on the 
Gospel of Mark and on the ecclesiastical use of the Gospels in general appears 
still more noteworthy. 

11. (P. 434.) Rome is named as the place of composition by Papias (sce 
preceding note), and in addition to him Clement Alex. expressly (n. 9), 
Eusebius (H. E. ii. 15), Epiph. (Her. li. 6; see above, p. 400), Jerome (Vir. 
IU. viii.), Ephrem Syr. (Expos. Ev. Conc. p. 286, ef. Forsch. i. 54f.; Prol. Lat. 
in Ev. Marci (N.T. Lat., ed. Wordsworth, i. 171, “evangelium in. Italia 
seripsit ”); Alexander Mon. op. cit. cap. xx. p. 443. The statement of Chry- 
sostom (Hom. i. in Matt., Montf. vii. 7), that Mark wrote his Gospel in Egypt 
at the request of hearers there, stands quite alone. The fable that he wrote 
the Gospel in Latin appears first in Ephrem, Expos. Hv. Cone. p. 286, and 
elsewhere among the Syrians also, e.g. Wright, Catal. p. 70; in a Peshito MS. 
of the 6th century ; among the Armenians, Forsch. v. 149; also in several 
Greek minuseules (Tischendorf, i. 410); later in the West; defended by 
3aronius, Annales, anno 45, xli. 

12. (Pp. 435, 442,443.) After Papias, the first witness to be considered for 
the relation of Mark to the preaching of Peter is Justin, Dial. evi: καὶ τὸ 
εἰπεῖν μετωνομακέναι αὐτὸν Πέτρον, ἕνα τῶν ἀποστύλων, καὶ γεγράφθαι ἐν τοῖς 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 451 


ἀπομνημονεύμασιν αὐτοῦ γεγενημένον καὶ τοῦτο μετὰ τοῦ καὶ ἄλλους δύο ἀδελ. 
φοὺς υἱοὺς Ζεβεδαίου ὄντας, μετωνομακέναι ὀνόματι τοῦ Βοανεργές, ὅ ἐστιν υἱοὶ 
βροντῆς κτλ. According to Justin’s regular usage, αὐτοῦ cannot refer to 
Yhrist, but only to Peter, ef. GK, 1. 510 ff. ; and, further on in this note, the 
phraseology of Eusebius, Dem. iii. 5.89, 95. Mark iii. 16 f. is the basis of the 
statement. Connected with this is the representation in the Acts of Peter, 
according to which Peter was associated with other apostles in the composi- 
tion of the Gospel book (see above, p. 390). Iren. iti. 1. 1 follows (see above, 
p. 398), ef. iii. 10. 6: “Quapropter et Marcus, interpres et sectator Petri, 
initium evangelice conscriptionis fecit sic, ‘Initium evangelii Jesu Christi,’” 
ete. Further, Clemens Alexandrinus (see above, p. 449); Tertullian, contra 
Mare. iv. 5: *Licet et Mareus quod edidit (se. evangelium) Petri affirmetur, 
enius interpres Marcus; nam et Luce digestum Paulo adseribere solent.” 
Origen in Eus. vi. 25. 5 (p. 397, above) : δεύτερον δὲ τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον, ὡς Πέτρος 
ὑφηγήσατο αὐτῷ ποιήσαντα. Out of this, later writers like pseudo-Athanasius, 
Synops. (Montf. ii. 202), made a ὑπαγορεύειν =to dictate. Further, Victor- 
inus of Pettau (circa 300), according to the original text of his cominentary 
(Haussleiter, ThLb, 1895, eol. 194): “ Marcus interpres Petri ea que in 
munere docebat commemoratus conseripsit, sed non ordine.” He had read 
Papias therefore, for Eusebius’ Ohurch History was not yet written. | Husebius, 
H. E. iii. 24. 14, refers to the information from Clement and Papias, which 
he had already given and elaborated somewhat (ii. 15 ; see above, p. 449, 
n. 10). Quite definite also is Dem. Ev. iii. 5. 89: τούτου Μᾶρκος γνώριμός 
καὶ φοιτητὴς γεγονὼς ἀπομνημονεῦσαι λέγεται τὰς τοῦ Πέτρου περὶ τῶν πράξεων 
τοῦ Ἰησοῦ διαλέξεις ; οἷ. §§ 91-94, 95: Μᾶρκος μὲν ταῦτα γράφει, Πέτρος δὲ 
ταῦτα περὶ ἑαυτοῦ μαρτυρεῖ" πάντα γὰρ τὰ παρὰ Μάρῤκῳ τῶν Πέτρου διαλέξεων 
εἶναι λέγεται ἀπομνημονεύματα. Similarly in Theophamia Syr. v. 40. Only 
hints exist in Epiphanius, Her. h. 6; Chrysostom, Hom. i. im Matt. 
Jerome, Vir. Ill. i.: “Sed et evangelium iuxta Marcum, qui auditor eius 
et interpres fuit, huius (se. Petri) dieitur.” A statement regarding the 
pseudo-Petrine writings follows, as the first of which stands the Gospel of 
Peter, ef. Vir. Ill. viii.: “Mareus, discipulus et interpres Petri iuxta quod 
Petrum referentem audierat, rogatus Rome a fratribus breve seripsit evan- 
gelium.” As to what follows, cf. p. 450, above, n. 10. | Further, ef. Jerome, 
Ep. Iii. 9, exx. 11 (of Paul: “Habebat ergo Titum interpretem, sicut et 
beatus Petrus Marcum, cuius evangelium Petro narrante et illo seribente 
compositum est”). With regard to the equivocal use of the term vnterpres in 
the latter passage, ef. GK, i. 881f. It is very significant that im the only 
place where Eusebius uses the expression “ Marcus evangelista, Petri inter- 
pres” (Chron. ad anno Abrah. 2057), there is no reference to his activity in 
Peter’s company, for it is his independent activity in Egypt which is ‘re- 
ported. Eusebius has no thought of an interpreter’s service rendered to Peter. 
Mark became his interpreter by writing the Gospel, and also by preaching as 
his representative in Egypt. See below, n. 15. 

13. (P. 435.) What the present writer maintained and attempted to 
prove in a somewhat youthful essay on Papias of Hierapolis (ThStKr, 1866, 
S. 649-696 ; 1867, S. 539-542), and occasionally in other connections (Der 
Hirt des Hermas, 8. vi-x ; Acta Joannis, pp. eliv-elxxii ; Forsch. iii. 157 ff. ; 
GK, i. 155, 800, ii. 33), with regard to Papias’ “ presbyter” named John, he 


452 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


has again set forth briefly in an essay on “Apostel und Apostelschüler in 
der Provinz Asien” (Forsch. vi. 1-224, especially 112-147), in a wider con- 
nection and, he hopes, in a more convineing way. This hypothesis does not 
at, all suit Mommsen, who (Z/NTIV, 1902, S. 156 ff.) is of the opinion that 
Eusebius, controverted Irenweus “in his thorough way.” Also dissatisfied 
with Harnack’s and Corssen’s interpretations, he strikes out (on the basis of 
the Syriac Version) κυρίου μαθηταί, the inconvenient characterisation of both 
of Papias’ teachers, against all Greek MSS., as also against the testimony of 
Jerome (Ver. Ill. xviii.) and of Rufinus (who only freely and wrongly trans- 
lates the words by ceterique discipuli). Concerning the essays by Τὸν Schwartz, 
see below, ὃ 64, n. 2. To what has been said in the text (p. 4861.) the 
present writer will add here but three, remarks—(1) the use of οἱ 
πρεσβύτεροι, Which we find in Papias, is the same in form as that which 
occurs in Irenzus,and Clement, and occasionally also in Origen and Hippo- 
lytus. The term, which of itself may denote the men of the distant past 
(Heb. xi, 2, οἱ mpeoBvrepor=i, 1, of πατέρες -- Matt. v. 21, οἱ ἀρχαῖοι), comes to 
signify the teachers of the next preceding generation only when the speaker 
characterises those to whom he applies it as his own personal instructors. 
The succeeding generation calls them the old men or the fathers when their 
ranks begin to, be thinned, and also after they have altogether given place to 
the younger. Jn concreto, of course, they are very different persons, accord- 
ing to the period of the respective speakers, (2) That the πρεσβύτεροι, from 
whom Papias claims personally to have received, much information, were 
themselves personal disciples of Jesus, not only follows from the fact that he 
calls his teachers, Aristion and John, disciples of the Lord,—just as he does the 
apostles Andrew, Peter, Thomas, etc.,—but is at once evident to every sound 
sense of interpretation from the disposition of his sentence: εἰ δέ mou καὶ 
παρηκολουθηκώς τις τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἔλθοι, τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀνέκρινον 
λόγους" τί ᾿Ανδρέας ἢ ri, Πέτρος εἶπεν, ἢ τί Φίλιππος ἢ τί Θωμᾶς ἢ Ἰάκωβος ἢ τί 
Ἰωάννης ἢ Ματθαῖος. ἤ τις ἕτερος τῶν τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν, ἅ τε ’Apıorlov καὶ ὁ 
πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης (al. οἱ) τοῦ κυρίου μαθηταί, λέγουσιν. The indireet question 
(τί εἶπεν) and the co-ordinate relative clause (ἅ τε---λέγουσεν) explain τοὺς τῶν 
πρεσβυτέρων Aöyovs. The text was so understood by the early and entirely 
competent translators, the Syrian about 350, Rufinus about 400, and Jerome 
(Vir. Ill. xviii.). But the classical witness for the correctness of this inter- 
pretation is Eusebius himself, who disputes it. In order to show, that 
Papias was not himself a disciple of the apostles, he says (§ 7);, “ Papias 
acknowledges that he received the words of the apostles from their diseiples 
(τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων λόγους παρὰ τῶν αὐτοῖς παρακολουθηκύτων), but claims 
that he was a hearer οἵ Aristion and the presbyter John.” That is, he 
substitutes τοὺς τῶν, ἀποστόλων λόγους for the τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων 
λόγους οἵ Papias, and αὐτοῖς referring back to τῶν ἀποστόλων, for the, τοῖς 
πρεσβυτέροις of Papias, Thus Eusebius suppresses the obvious, ἴδοι that 
Papias spoke first of such traditions as he received from the presbyters 
directly (or from the apostles, as Eusebius puts it)—déoa more mapa τῶν 
πρεσβυτέρων καλῶς €uabov—hetore saying that he also inquired concerning 
the words of the presbyters (“apostles”) in case he fell in with, others who 
like him had been their disciples. (3) The mention of a presbyter and 
disciple of Jesus named John between James and Matthew, and again a 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 453 


presbyter and disciple of Jesus named ‚John after Aristion, on which Eusebiue 
based his self-contradictory interpretation, is indeed remarkable. The 
conjecture suggested by Renan (L’Antechrist, 1873, p. 562) and ingeniously 
argued by Haussleiter (7hLb, 1896, col. 467), that the words ἢ ri Ἰωάννης in 
the enumeration of apostles were interpolated in the text of Papias before 
Eusebius’ time, is venturesome and inadmissible since it is needless, The 
questions which Papias at the time of his investigations in the course of his 
earlier years was accustomed at every opportunity to ask (ἀνέκρινον) of visit- 
ing disciples of the apostles fall into two classes, which are distinguished 
even in the formation of the sentence. The inquiries, ri εἶπεν, he asked of 
such as had lived in Palestine for a long time and had had there opportunity 
to hear many apostles and other disciples of Jesus: the inquiries, ἅ re λέγουσιν, 
he made of such, like Papias himself, as had had for a time intercourse with 
the disciples of Jesus, then living in the province of Asia, or also still had 
intercourse with them, while it was denied him. The apostle Jolin belonged 
to both groups of the disciples of Jesus, whose words Papias wished to 
ascertain from their own disciples. This accounts for the double mention 
of the name. There remains only a certain clumsiness, rhetorically con- 
sidered, on Papias’ part. 

14. (P. 438.) After Eusebius (H. E. iii. 39. 14) has referred the reader to 
Papias’ work for other traditions of Aristion and John the presbyter, he 
continues: ἀναγκαίως viv προσθήσομεν ταῖς προεκτεθείσαις αὐτοῦ φωναῖς 
παράδοσιν, ἣν περὶ Μάρκου τοῦ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον γεγραφύότος ἐκτέθειται διὰ 
τούτων ‘Kai τοῦθ᾽ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν: Μᾶρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου 
γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ 
ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου (al. Χριστοῦ) ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσε 
τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δὲ ὡς ἔφην Πέτρῳ, ὃς πρὸς τὰς 
χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν 
ποιούμενος λογίων (al. λόγων). ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτε Μᾶρκος, οὕτως ἔνια γράψας 
ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν" ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσε παρα- 
λιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ 
Μάρκου. Only the words Μᾶρκος pev . . . πραχθέντα constitute the state- 
ment of the presbyter John: what follows (at once distinguished by its 
fulness from the enigmatical conciseness of the preceding sentence) is from 
Papias. ὡς ἔφην is decisive on this point. That Eugebius, in his quotation 
from Papias’ book, transcribed these words also, although he does not give 
his readers the earlier passage to which they refer, simply testifies to the 
faithfulness of his copy. One need not even call to his support the fact that 
ii. 15 in all probability alludes to the earlier passage in Papias to which 
Papias himself here refers (see above, p. 449f.,n.10). On the other hand, it is 
inconceivable that Papias, who did not have a book by John before him, but 
drew upon his recollection of John’s oral instructions, should have set down 
a portion of what the presbyter John said about Mark, and should have 
sought to characterise it as a fragment of some record by a parenthetic ὡς 
ἔφην. How one can assert, in view of the concluding words of Eusebius 
(not, “This was the presbyter John’s opinion of Mark, according to Papias,” 
but, “This is what Papias reports about Mark”), that he took all of what 
he transcribes to be the language of the presbyter, the present writer does not 
understand (Link, ThStKr, 1896, S. 414). The ἔλεγε which introduces the 


454 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


words of the presbyter (not εἶπε or ἔλεξε) shows that Papias is ποῦ giving a 
stenographic report of a discourse delivered at some time by John, but 
that, from his recollection of his conversations with his teacher, he means to 
report fully what John wsed to say about Mark as he had occasion. It is 
the more certain that this is the meaning of the imperfect here, since no 
long address follows and no situation is being described. Cf. Kühner-Gerth, 
i. 143 f.; Blass, N.T. Gr. § 57. 5 (Eng. trans. § 57.5); more specially a remark 
of Birt (Das antike Buchwesen, 483 ; GK, i. 872; and, in general, the whole 
discussion, 871-889), which is largely dependent on Klostermann, Das Mar- 
cusev. 1867,—by far the most important work on this Gospel,—326-336. 

15. (P. 444.) The right interpretation of &punveurns Πέτρου γενόμενος which 
almost alone found favour in the early Church (above, pp. 442 f., 450 f., n. 12) is 
represented by Michaelis, Ein!. 1052; Fritzsche, Ev. Marci, xxvi; Thiersch, 
Versuch, 181; Klostermann, 329, with whom the present writer expressed his 
agreement ; @K, i. 878-882. The older view, again contended for by Th. 
Mandel, in opposition to the present writer, Vorgeschichte der öffentlichen 
Wirksamkeit Jesu, 1892, S. 325-332, namely, that Mark, as Peter’s interpreter 
in Rome, translated his sermons into Latin, rests upon untenable premises 
which cannot be indicated here in passing. What had this office of interpreter 
on the part of Mark, which lasted for only a few months, to do with his 
Gospel, concerning which “the presbyter John” speaks? This also has 
weight against the view of Schlatter (Die Kirche von Jerusalem vom J. 70-130, 
s. 52) that Mark in Jerusalem, 1.6. before the year 44, interpreted into Greek 
the Aramaic discourses of Peter for the Hellenistic portion of the Jerusalem 
Church. To the opposition to the writer’s view by A. Link, ThStKr, 1896, 
S. 405-436, it may be briefly replied : (1) Since John, using ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου 
γενόμενος Without the article, does not say that Mark was the interpreter of 
Peter, but that he was or became an interpreter, Link’s remark (410) that Mark 
was by no means the only channel of acquaintance with the narratives of Peter, 
and hence could not be called Peter’s interpreter outright in the sense which the 
present writer maintained, is little to the point. John’s statement leaves room 
for ten other interpreters besides Mark, and also for the fact that in numberless 
instances Peter spoke in public without the help of any interpreter whatever, 
One hesitates to refer to such passages as Eph. iii. 7; Col. i, 23, 25; Gal. 
iv. 16. (2) The remark (411) that on the writer’s interpretation the words in 
question, “become perfectly useless and meaningless,” seems of no greater 
value. For without them the following ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν hangs in the air, as 
no man could guess what or whom Mark remembered in his writing. He 
might just as well have been a disciple of Jesus, the lack of order (τάξις) 
would remain unexcused, and the praise which accompanies the admission of 
this deficiency would be unjustified. Even if one adopts (as does Link, 414) 
the impossible construction which makes Papias’ added explanation the words 
of John, John’s first complete sentence is still meaningless without ἑρμηνευτὴς 
Πέτρου γενόμενος rightly understood. (3) As to the claim that the words in 
question, on the writer's interpretation, should follow the main proposition 
(413), he must decline to discuss the point with a scholar who thinks it neces- 
sary (413, note 1) to inform him that in Acts i, 24 (προσευξάμενοι εἶπαν) the 
praying is indicated as the medium of the saying! See examples in Kühner- 
Gerth, i. 197 £., 199, n. 8, and Blass, § 58. 4 (Eng. trans. § 58. 4). (4) When, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 455 


in GK, i. 879, the writer questioned whether Mark of Jerusalem would have 
been a suitable interpreter for the Galilean Peter, he intended, of course, 
that everyone acquainted with the subject should recall that a knowledge 
of Greek was at least as general, and probably much more general, in 
Galilee, with its large non-Jewish population, than in Jerusalem and 
Judea. To be confuted with the information (Link, 419) that the differ- 
ences between the Aramaic dialect of Galilee and that of Judea were in- 
significant, is something of a surprise. (5) The idea that Mark accompanied 
Peter as interpreter on all his missionary journeys (418, 426 ff.) is inconsistent 
with the little that we know. Until about the year 63, Peter was, so far as 
we know (pp. 165-172, above), a preacher of the circumcision in the Holy 
Land and the neighbouring regions, and certainly went no farther than 
Antioch, and there only on a visit. Mark, on the other hand, after 44, was a 
missionary helper in the company, first, of Paul and Barnabas, then of Bar- 
nabas alone, and then again of Paul; and it is highly improbable that he was 
ever long in Peter’s company before 63, when Peter came to Rome. The 
expressions παρηκολουθηκώς τινι (Papias in Eus. iii. 39. 15, in relation to 
Jesus or Peter; cf. xxxix. 4, 7; Just. Dial. ciii.), or ἀκολουθήσας τινι (Clement 
in Eus. vi. 14. 6, p. 448, above), or ἀκόλουθός τινος (Kus. ii, 15, p. 449, above), 
or ἀκόλουθος γενόμενός τινι (Epiph. Her. li, 6)=sectator (Iren. iii, 1. 1, 10, 6; 
Clem. (Latin trans.), p. 448, above), denote, not a travelling companion but 
a disciple, who has for some time enjoyed the instruction of a teacher and 
lived in familiar intercourse with him, and are occasionally replaced by μαθητής 
(Iren. iii. 1. 1; Chrysost. Hom. i. in Matt.), akovorns (Iren. v. 33. 4), γνώριμος 
καὶ φοιτητὴς γεγονώς (Bus. Dem. iii. 5. 89), and similar expressions. But when 
such a disciple imparts the instructions of his teacher to others, he becomes 
his interpreter, because through him the absent or departed teacher addresses 
those who would otherwise not hear or understand him. This conception, 
which is presented by the real signification of the word (Xenophon, Anab. ii. 
3. 17, ἔλεγε πρῶτος Τισσαφέρνης dv ἑρμηνέως), is everywhere adhered to, 
whether the term is applied to the disciple who hands on the instruction of 
his teacher, to the poet in relation to the Muse, or the prophet in relation to 
the Pythia or to Apollo, or to Hermes the messenger and interpreter of the 
gods, or, as among us, to the musical performer, the actor, and the reciter in 
relation to the composer and the poet (GK, i. 878 ff.). (6) What Clement, 
Strom. vii. 106, says of the founders of sects who appeared in the post-apos- 
tolic time is undoubtedly instructive: καθάπερ ὁ Βασιλείδης, κἂν Τλαυκίαν 
ἐπιγράφηται διδάσκαλον, ὡς αὐχοῦσιν αὐτοί, τὸν Πέτρου ἑρμηνέα: ὡσαύτως δὲ 
καὶ Οὐαλεντῖνον Θεοδᾷ διακηκοέναι φέρουσιν, γνώριμος δὲ οὗτος γεγόνει Παύλου. 
With regard to the text, cf. Forsch. iii. 125. When Link (432) claims, in 
opposition to the present writer, that Glaukias is called the interpreter of 
Peter, not by the Basilidians but by Clement, this also must be considered 
an error; for after κἂν ἐπιγράφηται, which already shows that Basilides 
claimed Glaukias as his teacher in order to recommend his doctrines, ὡς 
αὐχοῦσιν αὐτοί would be quite redundant, if it referred to the same rela- 
tion. The phrase serves, therefore, to introduce the following τὸν Πέτρου 
ἑρμηνέα. Moreover, Clement does not omit to show by αὐτοί, which other- 
wise would be meaningless, that they do indeed boast that this Glaukias was 
the or an interpreter of Peter, but that he for his part by no means cares to 


456 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW “TESTAMENT 


guarantee the claim. Mark, too, is never so designated by Clement (p. 448, 
above). The Παύλου γνώριμος of the Valentinians with reference to Theodas 
(Forsch. iii. 122-126) corresponds to the ἑρμηνεύς of the Basilidians ‘regard- 
ing Glaukias. Now it is evident that both these alleged disciples of the 
apostles are brought forward as bearers of a secret tradition, and that’ this 
can be brought into rational connection with Glaukias’ possible service as 
interpreter to Peter, even less readily than the composition of a Gospel can be 
connected with Mark’s supposed service in a similar capacity. Here too, 
then, ἑρμηνεύς is figuratively meant. It cannot be an accident, however, 
that the term is applied to the medium of the secret tradition between Petér 
and Basilides, and not to Theodas who stands similarly between Paul and 
Valentinus. In the school of Basilides, as in that of Valentinus, there was a 
peculiar Gospel (GK, ii. 748, 771). Neither was ascribed to an apostle, but 
each school believed that it could appeal to a disciple of Peter, or a disciple 
of Paul, as the transmitter of Gospel narratives, just as well as the Church 
could. Theodas 'eorresponded to Luke, and Glaukias to Mark. ‘The 
Basilidians, who boasted that their Glaukias was the or an interpreter of 
Peter, knew the Church tradition of Mark’s relation to Peter, and imitated 
it. In another way this was done about 150 a.p. by the author and ad- 
ınirer of the εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Térpov, in which Peter does not use an inter- 
preter, but speaks in his own person (Grundriss, S. 30 f.). en 

16. (P. 444.) Iren. iii. 11. 7: “Qui autem Jesum separant a Christo, et 
impassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum vero Jesum dicunt, id quod 
secundum Marcum est preferentes evangelium, cum amore veritatis legentes 
illud, corrigi possunt.” Comparing i. 26. 1 (ef. iii. 11. 15 vol. 1. 515, n. 4), 
there can be no doubt that the Cerinthians are meant ; and it is obvious why 
they preferred the Gospel of Mark, which begins with the baptism. The 
misunderstandings which have been occasioned by Epiphanius, Her. xxviii. 
5, xxx. 3, and Philaster, Her. xxxvi., who in this instance depends on 
Epiphanius, require no discussion here’ (cf. @K, ii. 730 ; Hümpel, De Errore 
Christolog. in Epist. Jo., 1897, p. 68 ff.). 


8 52. TITLE, PLAN, AND CONCLUSION OF MARK’S 
GOSPEL. Fon 


The words ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (τ: 1), 
with which the author of the Gospel according to Mark 
begins his book, are of such a charaeter that they must 
have given rise to the attempt, even at a very early date, 
to construe them as the subject or predicate of a sentence 
concluded in vy, 2-3, or, if ver. 2 was taken parenthet- 
ically, in ver. 3, or, in case the whole of vv. 2-3 was 
treated as a parenthesis, in ver. 4. The very number of 
such attempts to construe the words argues against them 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 457 


all. Further, while it must be admitted that the Greek 
of the Gospel is far from elassical, it must nevertheless be 
regarded as improbable that an author, who in the rest of 
his book does not show any inclination to write periodic 
sentences, should, without any apparent necessity, begin 
the same with such an ambiguous and at best extremely 
clumsy construction. A decisive argument against all - 
these attempts is the fact that they are based upon the 
impossible presupposition that εὐωγγέλιον can be used to 
desionate the Gospel history, and that not in the sense of 
“a recording or accounting” of the facts (historia), but 
of “recorded facts” (res geste). The baptism and preach- 
ing of John the Baptist might possibly be treated as the 
beginning of the gospel history in the latter sense, namely, 
as the first one of the facts which it was the business of 
the Gospel, ze. the Christian preaching, to report and to 
proclaim (Acts x. 37, xii. 24; cf. § 48). But it could 
never be considered the beginning of the proclamation of 
those facts. But the latter is the only sense in which 
εὐαγγέλιον was used in the apostolic age. 

It may therefore be considered as certain that the 
first five words of the Gospel are to be taken independ- 
ently, and to be treated as a title prefixed to the book by 
the author; since to suppose that Mark meant to say, 
“Herewith I begin the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” involves 
a whole tangle of anachronisms. It is a well-known fact 
that among the Latins, the Greeks, and the Syrians, it 
was a habit among the scribes of the Middle Ages to mark 
the transition from one document to another in the same 
codex by inserting ἐτελέσθη or ἐπληρώθη (explicit) and 
ἄρχεται (incipit) before or after the customary title (n. 2). 
That in this case the ἄρχεται or ἀρχή, which means the 
same thing, was not the author’s own statement, requires 
no proof. Leaving out of account the fact that these 
formule are not found in the oldest MSS. extant, they 
presuppose the binding together of separate writings in 


458 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


one codex. In the present case, however, it is not a 
question of the particular way in which a copyist indieated 
the fact that a new book was, begun at a certain point, 
but, if we may accept the unanimous tradition, we are 
dealing with words which were always a part of Mark's 
Gospel. But to suppose that an author should have begun 
his book by saying to his readers, “ Here my book begins,” 
or “Now | begin,” would be an absurd conjecture. Such 
an idea is also impossible, because then Mark would have 
called his book not only ὦ Gospel, but the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ. Even if he had said “‘a@ Gospel” it would have 
been an anachronism, because the name εὐαγγέλιον was not 
used to designate a writing, or a number of writings, 
until after the beginning of the second century, certainly 
not in the apostolic age (above, p. 387f.). But even 
granting that here the individual author may have antici- 
pated the general development of ecclesiastical language, 
or that Mark i. 1 was not written until 120, still, in 
designating his work “the Gospel,” 4.6. the only Gospel 
which exists or has a right to exist, and, more than this, 
in calling it “the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” the author 
would make himself guilty of a presumption which is in- 
comprehensible. The title which Mark gives his book is not 
εὐαγγέλιον I, Xp., but ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ; for 
it is entirely self-evident that, if the words are to be taken 
as a title, they have reference to the whole book and not 
to any one of its chapters, be it longer or shorter. | Aside 
from the fact that the title applies very inappropriately to 
what follows it immediately (i. 2-13), if the title covered 
only part of the book, we should expect a number of 
chapters, each with its own special title ; this, however, 15 
not what we find. Accepting the words as a title, they 
are not to be compared with titles like Bereshith or Γένεσις 
κόσμου at the beginning of the first book in the ΟἹ, 
which were invented at a late date by learned editors 
or ignorant seribes. It is rather to be ascribed to the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 459 


author himself, or perhaps to the redactor or editor ot 
our Mark, like the titles of the prophetie books of the 
O.T., of the Proverbs, of Revelation, of the Antiquities 
of Josephus, and of the work of Irenzeus against. heresies. 
In the case of such titles it does not matter at all whether 
or not the author mentions his own name in the title, or 
whether a name which may occur in the title be that of 
the real or only of an alleged author, or whether it is only 
represented as such. It must be taken for granted that 
such a title characterises rightly the content of the book, 
and indicates the subject which the author intended to 
discuss, at least when he began his work; only, of course, 
due allowance must be made for the ὦ potiora fit denoma- 
natio in a title designed to sum up in a word the varied 
contents of a comprehensive work. 

Mark purposes, therefore, to set forth in his book the 
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since his work 
is in the form of a narrative, ἀρχή cannot be meant in the 
sense of “cause, principle, ground” (Prov. 1. 7, vii. 22; 
Sirach xxix. 21; Col. i. 18; Rev. iii. 14), but is to be 
understood only in the usual sense of “ beginning.” The 
conception of origin is, however, involved ; for how is it 
possible to describe the beginning of a thing without 
indicating its origin? An ἀρχή is always an ἀρχὴ γενέσεως 
(Wisdom of Solomon vi. 23, vii. 5). In his account he 
intends to answer the question how the Gospel of Christ 
began, and therewith also the question how the Gospel of 
Christ originated. In a certain sense the question is 
answered at the outset by the very terms which Mark 
chooses to designate the Gospel, for Gospel of Jesus Christ 
means in this passage, as everywhere else in the N.T., the 
message of salvation brought into the world by Jesus, 
which was preached by Him first, and which now, when 
it is no longer proclaimed by Jesus Himself but by His 
ambassadors, bears upon it the seal of its author (above, 
p. 377 f.). A fuller answer of the same character is to be 


460 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


found in Heb. 1. 3; the Gospel began with its first pro- 
elamation by Jesus, the Apostle of God (Heb. iii. 1), and 
after He ceased to speak to men directly it was continued 
by those who had heard the preaching of the great original 
Evangelist. This same idea, which is common to the 
whole of the N.T., is given noteworthy expression in Acts 
i. 1, where all of Jesus’ work and teaching set forth in the 
third Gospel is characterised as the beginning of a con- 
tinuous work. ' The same thought is to be found in Acts 
x. 36f., though presented from a different point of view, 
—the beginning of the proclamation of the good tidings 
which God sent to the people of Israel was not through 
John and his preaching, but after the baptism and preach» 
ing of John, through Jesus Christ, the original Evangelist 
(cf. Eph. 11. 17). This is exactly Mark’s thought: In the 
apostolic preaching there was never wanting some reference 
to Jesus’ forerunner ‘and something showing the relation 
between Jesus and John, who in his turn was connected 
with the O.T. revelation. Nor could this backward refer- 
ence be omitted in an historical account of the beginning 
of this preaching. Itis wanting in no one of our Gospels ; 
but what Mark says about the Baptist in i. 2-8, and his 
notice, showing the connection between Jesus’ history and 
the work of the Baptist in i. 9-13, is so outlinear and so 
brief that it cannot possibly be the form in which the 
tradition was used for the instruction of converts and in 
the missionary preaching. He makes it so, because what 
he set out to portray was not the preliminaries, but the 
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus. 

The discussion of the subject proper’ begins in 1. 14 
with the sentence, “After John was delivered up, Jesus 
came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God, and 
saying, ‘The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God 
is at hand, repent ye and believe the Gospel.” This 
sentence, which gives an outline view of Jesus’ entire 
ministry, is in keeping with the title of the book, and 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 461 


goes to confirm the interpretation of the same given above, 
Jesus’ mission is represented to be the proclamation te 
men of God’s good tidings, and He Himself urges''upon 
them faith in this message. While it is true that, accord- 
ing to other traditions, Jesus in quoting from Isawlxi. 1 
makes use of the word translated by the Greek εὐαγγέλιον 
or of the corresponding verb (Luke iv. 18, vil. 22 ; Matt. 
xi. 5), nevertheless, in comparison with similar passages in 
the other Gospels, Mark’s use of the word in his description 
of Jesus’ life-work (ver. 14) and in the summary which he 
gives of the essential contents of Jesus’ preaching (ver: 15), 
also the comparatively frequent recurrence of the word in 
the further course of this Gospel (n. 3), all go to prove 
that in using it Mark had in mind always the purpose of 
the book indicated in its title. This is to be seen also in 
the separate narratives which show how the program indi- 
eated in 1. 14 was carried out. In contrast to the brevity 
which characterises the sketch that precedes the verse in 
which Jesus’ ministry is outlined,—a brevity which renders 
single passages in the same so obscure as to be scarcely 
intelligible (especially 1. 13),—from 1. 16 on the narratives 
are remarkable for their graphic clearness and for a fulness 
of detail which is certainly not essential (n. 4). Even if 
such a conclusion were not necessary from a comparison of 
Mark’s account with the presentation of the same facts in 
the other Gospels, the careful reader would still’ be com- 
pelled to admit from a comparison of Mark’s style with 
that of accounts presenting different material —as for 
instance the Fourth Gospel or Josephus—that Mark has 
not only a predilection for vivid and clear narrative, but 
possesses distinguished ability in this direction. His de- 
scription of the features and movements of those speaking 
or acting, the constant use of direct discourse in reporting 
chance remarks and replies, the use of numerous synonyms 
in the discourses, repetition in full of words repeated in 
spoken discourse, and the use of elliptical expressions 


462 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


customary in conversation but not in written discourse,— 
all tend to give Mark’s style a dramatic quality.: If all 
this is artificial and not natural, then certainly Mark was 
an adept at artem arte celure, That this was the case 
is, however, quite improbable, in view of the thoroughly 
clumsy way in which Mark uses language. These little 
touches never make the impression of being designed; to 
write in this way is the author's second nature. What he 
did keep clearly before himself, however, was his purpose 
to set forth the history of the beginning of the gospel. 

In the first section (1. 16-45) we see how the preaching 
which Jesus declared to be His essential vocation (i. 38 f.) 
was accompanied from the first by miracles which attested 
the effective power of His word, and which contributed 
much to the spread of the conviction throughout all Galilee 
that Jesus was a teacher with full authority from God, and 
that His teaching, in contrast to the instruction of the 
rabbis based upon the traditions, was a new and powerful 
doctrine (i. 22, 27 £.). At first Jesus alone is the preacher; 
He silences the demons who proclaim Him the Holy One 
of God (i. 24f., 34, ef. ii. 11f.), and forbids the man 
whom He has healed to publish what had been done for 
him (1. 44). But just as He Himself discloses, at the very 
beginning (i. 16-20), His intention of winning helpers in 
His ministry, so He is totally unable to hinder those who 
have been helped by Him from becoming at once tireless 
proclaimers of His deeds (i. 45, ef. vil. 36). Every word in 
the concluding sentence of this first section is consciously 
chosen—*#pEaro, which is not altogether without significance 
(ef. v. 20, also i. 1); κηρύσσειν, everywhere else used of the 
preaching of the gospel (cf. 1. 14, 38, 39, ii. 14, v. 20, vi. 
12, xiii, 10, xiv. 9, ef. i. 4,7); the added πολλά, which in- 
dicates that when the preaching is begun it is not to end 
at once; and, finally, τὸν λόγον without any addition, used 
elsewhere of the gospel (ii. 2, iv. 14-33), to describe the 
report which the man who had been healed circulated where- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 463 


ever he went. The second section (ii. 1-iii. 6) shows how 
Jesus’ preaching, attested as it was by His works, especially 
His proclamation of the forgiveness of sins, and the free- 
dom of His life and teaching from asceticism and slavish 
observance of the law, induced constant opposition on the 
part of the religious teachers whose influence had been 
dominant up to this time, and made Him more and more 
the object of their deadly hatred. The third section 
(iii. 7-vi. 13) begins with a general description of the 
spread of Jesus’ fame throughout all Palestine and the 
adjoining regions, and of the effect which this had in 
widening the circle of those among whom Jesus had to 
work (iii. 7-12). This seems to have influenced Jesus to 
make free choice from among His hearers of twelve, with 
a view to sending them out as preachers (iii. 13-19). 
The section thus begun is concluded in a general way with 
the aecount of the first mission of these twelve (vi. 7-13). 
It is noteworthy that in both these accounts the name 
apostle, which is only used by Mark once (vi. 30), is 
avoided ; also, that the commission of the disciples here 
deseribed is expressly declared to be the first of its kind, 
and is called the beginning of the sending out of twelve 
preachers. Finally, in the account of their choosing, the 
fact is not to be overlooked that, while its ultimate purpose 
is indicated to be their later commission to preach, and 
though they engaged in this work at once (vi. 12), the 
immediate purpose and the one first mentioned is that 
they may be constantly with Jesus (iii. 14, ἵνα ὦσιν per’ 
αὐτοῦ καὶ ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν). Through their 
intereourse with the first preacher of the gospel they 
were to be trained for their future vocation as preachers. 
Thereby Jesus intends to make true in the case of these 
men the words He had spoken to some at the beginning 
of His preaching in Galilee (i. 17). What is recorded 
between the choice of the apostles and their first com- 
mission to preach, shows how Jesus trained the Twelve in 


464 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW 'PESTAMENT 


that independence of judgment and knöwledge requisite 
for the exercise of their calling: When on one occasion 
His relatives, apparently His nearest kinsmen, expressed 
the opinion that the immoderate zeal with which He gave 
Himself to His work was deranging His mind, and His 
opponents declared Him to be possessed by am evil spirit 
(i. 21, cf. ver. 30); He declares’ those to be His true 
relatives\ who, notwithstanding’ ‘these opinions, cive heed 
to His word (ii. 31-85); and, while He preaches the 
secret of the kingdom of God to the multitude in parables, 
to His disciples—among whom, as is evident from the 
peculiar wording of iv. 10, the Twelve primarily are meant 
—He not only interprets the individual parables spoken to 
the people (iv. 14-20, 34), but declares them to be those 
chosen; ones to whom this secret is entrusted (iv. 11). 
This secret they are to learn, to understand, even when it 
is concealed in figurative, language (iv. 13), and: one, day 
are to reveal it to the world (iv. 21-25). 

Of the parables spoken on, this, particular day, the 
great number of which is referred to repeatedly (iv. 2, 33), 
three are recorded, among them one that is peculiar to 
Mark’s Gospel (iv! 26-29). The first, parable explains the 
differing reception which the word—-used thus alone, and 
referring, therefore, to the gospel preached by Jesus and 
to be preached by the apostles—receives among men as 
due to the different qualities of heart to be found in the 
hearers. The second parable shows that the kingdom of 
God, once it has been brought into. the world through 
Jesus’ preaching, has within itself germs which will develop 
to the harvest, and that, too, without direct intervention 
on His part. The third parable shows that the small 
beginnings of this kingdom. are no reason for! doubting 
that ultimately it will compass the entire world. | In the 
narratives which follow, iv. 35—vi. 6, the relation το the 
apostles and their future calling remains in the back- 
ground, though attention is called repeatedly to their 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 465 


presence or participation in the work (v. 31, 37, vi. 1, 
otherwise in Matt. ix. 22-26, xii. 54). Not until the 
account of the commission and instruction of the Twelve 
(vi. 7-11) is the reader again reminded that the “being 
with Jesus,” which was their special privilege (iii. 14) and 
which was denied to others, without their being forbidden 
on this account to make known the grace that they had 
received (v. 18-20), was intended primarily to prepare 
the disciples for their vocation as preachers of the gospel. 
This relation of the history to the apostles and their 
future calling comes out more clearly in the fourth section 
(vi. 14—x. 52). Jesus appears here not so much engaged 
in work as a preacher and prophet among the people, as in 
training His apostles. He avoids the principal scene of 
His earlier labours, moves frequently, and changes con- 
stantly His place of abode, though there are times when 
His sympathy for the multitudes leads Him to mingle 
with them, or to help individuals among them who are 
in need (vi. 34, 45, vii. 2, 10, 13). He removes to the 
boundaries of Jewish territory and goes beyond the same 
(vil. 24, 31, vil. 27), not with the intention of preaching 
to the Gentiles, but in order to escape contact with the 
crowds and His enemies, that He may devote Himself 
entirely to the instruction of His disciples, as expressly 
stated in ix. 30f. In the accounts of the miraculous feed- 
ing the part taken by the disciples is emphasised more 
strongly than in the parallel accounts, especially those of 
Matthew and John (vi. 37-39, 41, viii. 6). In vi. 52, 
which has no parallel in the other Gospels, and the account 
in vill. 14-21, which is much more detailed and more 
emphatic than in Matt. xvi. 5-12, these occurrences are 
treated altogether from the point of view of a practical 
instruction of the disciples. They are to learn not only 
to believe in Jesus’ miraculous power, but out of what 
Jesus furnishes them also to satisfy thousands of those 


who hear the word. Where the superstitious opinions 
VOL. II. 3° 


466 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW '"PESTAMENT 


concerning Jesus, produced by His work so far, are'men: 
tioned for the first time (vi. 14f.), the occasion is made 
use of to introduce an episode about the death of the 
Baptist (vi. 17-29). When we compare this account, 
which is very full, with the exceedingly brief notice in 
i. 2-8, it does not seem that it is inserted for its own sake, 
but as a prophecy with reference to the death of the 
mightier preacher (ef. ix. 12f.)... In the second instance 
where these superstitious opinions are mentioned—this 
time by the apostles in answer to a question by Jesus 
(vii. 27 £.)—the design is to bring out strongly the inde- 
pendence of faith and knowledge developed in the disciples 
under the influence of Jesus’ teaching and work. 

But progress in this development is slow and painful. 
Although it was not necessary any longer for Him to ask 
the reproving question, “Have ye not yet faith ?” (iy. 40, 
cf. per contra, ix. 23f.), He did, nevertheless, have con- 
stantly to lament their lack of insight (vi. 52, vii. 17-21), 
their failure to; understand His purposes (viii. 33, ix. 32), 
their want of determination and presence of mind (ix. 
18 f., 28f.), and their failure to make unselfish sacrifice of 
themselves (ix. 33-50, x. 28-31, 35-45). They are still 
much affected with the hardness of heart, the unbelief, and 
the superstition that characterised their countrymen (vi. 
49-52, vill. 11-15, ix. 19). It is not to be denied, how- 
ever, that the governing thought, which in the earlier 
sections iS everywhere noticeable, in the whole of the 
plan, in the details, of its elaboration, and especially in 
the choice of material, becomes less and less prominent as 
the narrative proceeds. specially in the fifth section 
(xi. 1-xvi. 8), where the closing scenes of Jesus’ life are 
described, does. interest in, the material itself, without 
which no history of Jesus’ public ministry would be 
possible, predominate over the particular. point of view 
from which this material is handled in Mark’s Gospel. A 
certain parallelism is noticeable between Jesus’ work, in 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 407 


Galilee and in Jerusalem, which shows itself sometimes 
in the use of similar language. Jesus begins His work 
in Jerusalem with deeds (xi. 1-10, 15-18) and teachings 
(xi..18 =1. 22, el. x1.,17, xii. 14, 35, 37, 38, xiv. 49) which 
arouse the enthusiasm of the people, only to fall back 
upon the use. of parables, of which but, one example is 
recorded. Here, as there, He encounters an alliance be- 
tween the Pharisees and the Herodians, (xii. 13-1. 6). 
Here also in these circles there are those who are drawn 
to Jesus, and in whom He finds something to commend 
(xii. 34 =x, 21). And finally, in Jerusalem as in Galilee, 
He devotes Himself to the instruction of His disciples 
(xiii. 1 ff.). In this instruction a prominent place is given 
to a series of statements about the call of the apostles to 
preach (xiii. 9-13), which are introduced by Matthew—in 
part also by Luke—in a different connection. Repeatedly 
notice is taken of the presence of the disciples, or of the 
impression which something has made upon them (xi. 11, 
14, 20f., xiii. 1-5), and the fact recalled that their task 15 
the commission of Jesus’ word to others (xii. 37), and 
that the Gospel is for the whole world (xiv. 9). But not- 
withstanding all this, one observes that the material is not 
subordinated to the governing thought of the book. Very 
possibly this thought would have become more prominent 
again at the close. But the book was never finished. 

It may be regarded as one of the most certain of 
critical conclusions, that the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, xvi. 8, 
are the last words in the book which were written by the 
author himself (n. 5). How early and how generally it 
was felt to be unfortunate that Mark had broken the 
thread of his narrative with these words in the midst of 
his account of Jesus’ resurrection just as this account was 
begun, is attested by the existence and circulation of two 
additions, which were attached to the Gospel in order to 
supply this lack. The first positive witness for the former 
of these—xvi. 9-20 in the textus receptus, designated 


468 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


in what follows by A—is that of Irensus (iii. 10. 6: 
GK, i. 924). That it was a part of Mark, however, is 
presupposed also in Tatian’s Diatessaron, in which the 
substance of the pericope was incorporated (n. 5)F¥ fora 
has not been shown as yet that a passage of any con- 
siderable length was taken by Tatian from a source other 
than one of the canonical Gospels. Apparently Justin also 
was familar with the passage (GK, i. 515). It must 
therefore have been appended to the Gospel as early as 
the first half of the second century. While there is no 
trace of the pericope, or of a substitute for it, to be found 
in Tertullian and Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria and 
Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, and numerous 
other authors who would have had occasion to make use 
of it had it been known to them, nevertheless from the 
middle of the fourth century on it became more and more 
widely circulated. Whereas in Eusebius’ time it was to 
be found in only a few Greek MSS. (GK, ii. 913), in 
those that have come down from the fifth century (Codd. 
AUDE, ete.) it is found regularly, also in the different 
Syriac versions, with the exception of Syr. Sin. and in 
the Gothic and later Egyptian (Memphitic) translations. 
It is witnessed, further, by Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Marcus 
Kremita, and the Apostolic Constitutions. The first to 
testify to its existence in Alexandria is Didymus; in 
Latin North Africa, Augustine; in Italy, apart from 
Justin and Tatian, who in a sense are to be reckoned 
here, and some doubtful notices (n. 5), Ambrose, the 
Latin MSS. of the Gospels used by Jerome, and Jerome 
himself, who gave the A text a fixed place in the West 
by adopting it in his revision of the Latin N.T. 

Besides this addition, there is another much shorter 
conclusion to the Gospel designated here by B, which was 
circulated somewhat widely at a comparatively early date 
(n. 6). This text is found (1) as an integral part of 
Mark’s Gospel in a fifth century MS. (k), which represents 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 469 


the oldest form of the Latin text of the Gospels, show- 
ing much agreement with Cyprian’s citations. (2) In 
several Greek uncials of the seventh to ninth centuries 
(LT'¥) and several Greek cursives and Ethiopic MSS., 
only that here as if giving a choice between the two, the 
A text is added also partly with introductory and inter- 
posed remarks which give evidence that these additions 
are doubtful and circulated only here and there. (3) On 
the other hand, it appears on the margin of a Greek cursive 
of the tenth century (Ev. 274), A being inserted in the 
text. This is the case also in the latest Syriac version 
made in Alexandria in the seventh century by Thomas 
of Heraclea, who compared Greek MSS. (GA, ii. 922). 
(4) Finally, it is probable that the scribe who copied the 
Codex Vaticanus was familiar with B, not A. There is 
also a Coptic MS. which seems to depend upon an ori- 
ginal having the B text (GA, i. 912, 921). A third 
recension (C), namely, that in which Mark’s Gospel is 
concluded with xvi. 8, is found (1) in the two oldest 
Greek MSS. extant (ΝΒ); (2) according to Eusebius’ 
testimony in “almost all,” and these the ‘‘ accurate” MSS. 
of his time, which Jerome also declares to have been the 
case still in his time (@X, i. 919); (3) in one of the two 
oldest forms of the Syriac translation (Ss). To the above 
is to be added (4) the silent witness of authors who betray 
acquaintance with neither A nor B, and (5) the indirect 
witness of the B recension. From the witnesses cited 
above under 2, 4, for the B text, it is clear that in the 
regions where B originated and was circulated A did not 
become known until later; nor is it hardly conceivable 
that B should have been invented where A had been 
handed down by the tradition. The B text cannot be 
traced back beyond the fourth century, although it may 
have originated in the third century, and apparently in 
Egypt, whence it found its way into single MSS. in Latin 
Africa. The A text, which was the only one known to 


470 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Irenzeus, originated probably in Asia Minor before ‘the 
middle of the second century, whence it spread without 
resistance to Italy and Gaul, whereas in Palestine though 
known it was rejected by scholars. And in Syria, where 
its contents were very early made known by its incor- 
poration in the Diatessaron, it had to struggle for its 
existence. 

The way in which both the additions harmonise with 
the beginning of the book, show that they were written 
after careful consideration. The statement with which 
both A and B conclude, namely, that the apostles, author- 
ised by the risen Christ, preached the gospel throughout 
the world, is a suitable conclusion for a book which, ac- 
cording to its title, was intended to set forth the beginning 
and origin of the gospel of Christ. In B this is all that 
is said, and at the same time expressed in ecclesiastical 
language which has a comparatively modern sound. The 
only thing it contains in the nature of a conclusion to 
the interrupted narrative is the brief statement that the 
women fulfilled the commission given them by the angel. 
The apparent contradiction with xvi. 8—which, after all, 
is only apparent—was partly removed, as in codex k, by 
changes made later in xvi. 8 (GA, ii. 920f.). The con- 
tradiction was, however, little felt, because the passage 
was written more with reference to xvi. 7 (cf. Luke xxiv. 
9f., 28; John xx. 18). The A text is of an entirely 
different character. To begin with, it is very easy to see 
that the text is made up of different elements. In vv. 
9-13 and vv. 19-20 there is no narrative such as we find 
elsewhere in the Gospels, especially in Mark. | Com- 
pared with these sentences, the meagre sketch in 1. 2-13, 
which precedes the account of Jesus’ preaching, shows 
ample breadth of description, and is full of graphic 
detail, while the use of direct discourse (i. 7 f., 11) lends 
it a certain dramatic vigour. In the addition, on the 
other hand, not a single word spoken by the risen Christ 


THE FIRST THREE ‘GOSPELS AND ACTS 47ι1 


at the time of His appearances to His diseiples is repro- 
duced, nor is an account given of a single act. In short, 
it is not narrated, but chronicled, that Jesus appeared 
first to Mary Magdalene, and then to two unnamed 
persons going into the country, with the statement in 
both eases that their tidings were not credited by the 
others (xvi. 9-13). At the close, moreover, (xvi. 19-20), 
in the fewest possible words, the ascension, Jesus’ exalta- 
tion to the right hand of God, and the entire missionary 
work of the apostles are outlined. The sources from 
which these statements are taken are not hard to find: 
xvi. 9-11 is from John "xx. 1-18, with the insertion 
of a phrase from Luke vii. 2; xvi. 12-13 is from Luke 
xxiv. 13-35, the dependence being in part verbal (Luke 
xxiv. 13, δύο ἐξ αὐτῶν... πορευόμενοι eis κώμην), but with 
omission of all details. The language of ver. 19 is that 
of the Apostolic Creed, not of the Gospels, while that of 
ver. 20 resembles the apostolic teaching (Heb. ii. 3f. ; 
Rom. x. 14f., xv. 18 f.; Col. 1.6; 1 Tim. ii. 16; Acts 
xv. 12). 

Vv. 14-18 are strikingly different from the verses 
between which they stand (vv. 9-13, 19-20). This is 
a real narrative, being in its substance an address to 
the apostles by the risen Christ, with a brief statement 
of the circumstances under which they were spoken. 
Further, there is nothing in the passage betraying its 
dependence upon a canonical Gospel; while, on the other 
hand, its style does not, like that of vv. 19-20, differ 
from the classic style which characterises the Gospels. 
xvi. 14 is cited in Latin by Jerome from a Greek MS. 
with a very original addition (n. 7). When the Lord 
reproaches the disciples for their unbelief and hardness of 
heart, they excuse themselves, saying, “This unrighteous 
and unbelieving world is under Satan (Satan’s power), 
who by the agency of unclean spirits prevents (men) from 
laying hold of the true power of God. Therefore reveal 


472 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


now thy righteousness.” Everyone sees at once that this 
is not a gloss written by some copyist, but that it is a 
bit of conversation handed down by the tradition, which 
is not only in perfect. accord with the spirit of that time 
(Acts i. 6), but which suits also the context in the 
Textus receptus. Whereas in the latter the account 
passes very abruptly from reproof of the disciples’ unbelief 
to the commission in which they are bidden to preach the 
gospel to the whole world, in the passage as cited by 
Jerome the necessary transition is supplied. In the excuse 
which they offer, the apostles confess themselves guilty (ef. 
Mark ix. 24), so that it can be taken for granted without 
any statement to this effect that the exhortation, “ Be not 
faithless, but believing” (John xx. 27), is already more 
than half realised.. And the request of the apostles that 
Jesus reveal His righteousness at once, .e. set up His 
kingdom, thereby destroying the power of Satan and 
his emissaries in the world, is followed naturally by the 
promise with which He sends them out into the wide and 
wicked world (xvi. 17f., cf. Mark vi. 7, 13, ix. 1, 284); 
Luke ix. 1, x. 17-20). This fragment, which Jerome 
preserved but did not incorporate among the variants in 
his revision of the Latin Bible, restores the original 
connection of the passage. ‘The words are not, however, 
original in Mark, and could not have been written by the 
author of the A text; for then it would be impossible to 
explain why they have disappeared from all the Greek 
MSS. and from the Syriac and Latin texts which have A. 
That Satan and his emissaries have power in the world 
(John xil., 31, xvi. 11; 2 Cor iv. 4; Eph. vii 11f.; 
1 Pet. v. 8), that the world is lying in wickedness 
(1 John v. 19), and that the apostles longed for the 
coming of the kingdom of Christ and the future world in 
which righteousness dwells (Acts i. 6; 2 Tim. iv. 8), were 
certainly not thoughts so offensive to Bible readers and 
copyists of the second century that they felt constrained, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 473 


when they found such thoughts in their copies of the 
Gospels, to cut them out of the text. Then there is the 
other difficulty of explaining the ineredible thoroughness 
with which this was done in all quarters. The original 
form of this narrative which is preserved by Jerome must 
have been taken from the very source from which the 
author of A took this part of his compilation. It found 
its way into the Greek MS. of the Gospel, in which 
Jerome found it apparently first as a gloss and then as a 
part of the text. Unless all appearances are greatly 
deceptive, this source was rediscovered some years ago 
(n. 8). In an Armenian Evangelistarium belonging 
to the year 989, and purporting to be copied from 
MSS. of a much earlier date, after Mark xvi. 8 there is 
a space left large enough for two lines; then follows the 
title written with red ink—“ Ariston’s, the Presbyter’s.” 
Since the Armenian translation of Eusebius, 7. E. i. 
39. 4, and the Syriac original on which the Armenian 
translation is dependent, transcribe ’Apiotiwy with Aviston, 
and since this Aristion was one of the, presbyters who 
were Papias’ teachers,—from whom also Papias became 
acquainted with numerous sayings of Jesus which did 
not become canonical and with other gospel tradi- 
tions, all of which he preserved in his work,—there 
is little reason to doubt that this notice has reference 
to the Aristion whom Papias makes a personal  dis- 
ciple of Jesus (above, p. 452 f.). In so far as it states 
formally, or seems to imply, that Aristion is the author 
of the whole A text, the notice is misleading. In the 
first place, as already shown, the A text is made up 
of fragments which are totally different in style; but 
neither Papias’ fragments nor the account of Eusebius in 
which they are incorporated give the impression that 
Aristion was engaged at all in literary work, and in 
making compilations from the canonical Gospels. Apart 
from this, however, if Aristion were the author of A, it 


474 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


would be quite impossible to explain how the original 
form of the narrative could disappear from all the Greek 
MSS. having the A text, to turn up again suddenly 
in a Greek MS. in the hands of Jerome. So the fact of 
the matter must be, rather, that Mark xvi. 14—18 is one of 
those narratives and traditions (ef. Luke i. 1) of the dis- 
ciple Aristion which Papias incorporated in his work (Eus. 
H. E. iii. 39. 7, 14). This is confirmed in the most strik- 
ing manner by a marginal gloss to Rufinus’ translation of 
Eusebius, H. E. iii. 39. 9, though inserted by a later hand, 
which connects Aristion’s name with the story taken by 
Eusebius from Papias, that Justus, called Barsabbas (Acts 
i. 23), once drank a deadly poison, but was preserved by 
the grace of the Lord from all harmful effects. Here is 
an actual case where the promise of Jesus in Mark xvi. 18 
is fulfilled. This promise and the narrative of its fulfil- 
ment are referred independently to the same Aristion by 
two different persons acquainted with Papias’ work. 
Papias’ work is therefore the source from which the 
author of A took the middle part of this addition, com- 
bining it with material from Luke and John into an in- 
different unity. The way for the Lord’s rebuke of the 
disciples’ unbelief (ver. 14) is prepared by the statement 
that the reports of Mary Magdalene and of the two going 
into the country were discredited (vv. 11, 13), while the 
sketch of the apostolic missionary work (ver. 20) follows 
naturally the command and promise of the Lord (vv. 15-18). 
The fact that the redactor of A left out the sentence, of 
which we gain our first knowledge from Jerome, does not 
need special explanation ; since, in constructing a suitable 
close for Mark’s Gospel, he did not need to copy his 
sources, but to excerpt and to compile them. The very 
originality of the sentence, which makes it interesting to 
everyone who is fond of the antique, may have made it 
appear to him too peculiar and too obscure to form a part 
of an epilogue so entirely outlinear in character. These 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 475 


last statements also go to strengthen the conjecture that 
the A text was appended to Mark’s Gospel in Asia Minor, 
where this Gospel was highly esteemed at an early date 
(above, p. 444 f.), and that this was done before-the middle 
of the second century, since, outside of Asia Minor, ac- 
quaintance with Aristion’s oral narratives and Papias’ work 
in which these narratives were recorded cannot be presup- 
posed at such an early date. 

After what has been said, further proof that A does 
not belong to the author of the book is scarcely necessary. 
Defenders of this view have undertaken to explain the 
later setting aside of this alleged concluding section, on the 
ground of objections to the contradictions between its 
contents and the other Gospels. To be sure, the learned 
harmonists, from Eusebius on, busied themselves with 
these differences along with others (GK, ii. 913-918). 
But, after all, what do they amount to compared with 
those which exist between the evangelists’ narratives in 
other parts of the gospel history. The attempt was made, 
from the second century on, to modify or to remove such 
differences by means of exegesis, more or less artificial, and 
by small changes in the text, consisting of removals and 
additions ; that, however, a section of this compass, above 
all this section, to which authors like Irenzeus, Epiphanius, 
Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine made no objection, 
should have been cut out for such reasons, and the Gospel 
of Mark thereby simply mutilated in a passage where 
it would be particularly noticeable to every reader and 
copyist, is inconceivable, quite as much so as that the work 
of the mutilator should have been accepted so widely for 
centuries. To begin with, there are two points in the 
language which show that Mark could not have been 
the author of A. (1) Instead of (ἡ) μία (τῶν) σαββάτων, the 
only usage current in the Apostolic Church (Mark xvi. 2; 
Matt. xxviii. 1; Luke xxiv. 1; John xx. 1, 19; Acts xx. 
7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2), we find in Mark xvi. 9, πρώτη σαββάτου, 


476 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which is better Greek (vol. i. p. 19, n. 14), but which does 
not occur elsewhere in the N.T. (2) Jesus is twice called 
“The Lord” (xvi. 19, 20), an expression which does not 
oceur elsewhere in the book, and which is not to be found 
in Matthew, and only rarely in Luke and John. Attention 
has already been called to the fact that the whole character 
of the narrative is foreign to Mark, certainly that of xvi. 
9-13, 19-20 (above, p. 470f.). That Mark could not have 
excerpted portions from Luke and John, as the author 
of A evidently did, will appear when these Gospels are 
investigated. They are later than Mark. The content of 
A is, moreover, of such a character that Mark could not 
have written it as the conclusion of the narrative begun in 
Xvi. 1, and so as the conclusion of his book. After making 
the angels repeat the promise of Jesus recorded earlier in 
xiv. 28 so near the close of the Gospel as xvi. 7, he could 
not, have omitted to mention that the risen Jesus appeared 
to the disciples in Galilee, and to tell how this took place. 
But in A the reader thus made expectant does not hear a 
word about Galilee. Cf. per contra, Matt. xxviii, 16 in 
relation to Matt. xxvi. 32, xxviii. 7. Nor could Mark 
have omitted to narrate how the women so far recovered 
from the terror which at first sealed their lips (xvi. 8) as 
to be able to carry out the angel’s commission (xvi. 7), 
which was undoubtedly the case with Mary Magdalene, 
whom Mark mentions for the first time in xvi. 1, if we 
may believe Mark xvi. 10 and all the other traditions. 

If it be accepted as proved from what has been said 
that A is in the same position as B, which no modern 
scholar is bold enough to claim as original with the author 
of the book, and that both are later additions, it follows 
that © is the original text. The same result follows even 
from the application of the critical canon that, where two 
mutually exclusive longer texts are opposed to a shorter 
text from which their origin can be explained, the shorter 
reading is to be preferred, especially if it has good witnesses 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACIS 477 


(n. 9). The canon is entirely applicable to the case in 
hand ; for, in the first place, it is perfectly evident that a 
text breaking off suddenly with the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, 
as does C, must have given rise to attempts to supply the 
book, so manifestly incomplete, with a suitable conclusion. 
Presupposing, therefore, that C is original, the origin of A 
and B is entirely conceivable. In the second place, C 
is strongly supported by direct and indirect witnesses 
(above, p. 469). In the third place, we cannot understand 
how C could have originated from either A or Β. The 
assumption that originally C was followed by another 
conclusion—here called X—written by the author, which 
afterwards disappeared altogether from the tradition (n. 8), 
is to be rejected as fanciful, because, as shown, it is un- 
necessary in explanation of the facts. Whatever form it 
may take, this hypothesis, which we may indicate briefly 
as © + X, is improbable. Though the N.T. text can be 
shown to have met with varying treatment, it has never as 
yet been established from ancient citations, nor made really 
probable on internal grounds, that a single complete sent- 
ence of the original text has disappeared altogether from the 
text transmitted in the Church, 1.6. from all the MSS. of the 
original and of the ancient translations. Quite as little 
has the opposite been shown to be the case, namely, that 
there is a single sentence of the text, transmitted in the 
Church and witnessed by all existing sources, which did 
not belong originally to the text (n. 9). Here, however, 
it is not a question of a short sentence, but the part which 
is wanting—which must, therefore, have been lost if 
originally in the text—must have been a narrative of 
considerable compass (see above, p. 475). Nor is it a case 
where the section was of such a character that it could 
disappear without notice, because an intelligible connection 
remained after it was left out; it is rather the question 
of the concluding section, which the reader must await 
with interest after what precedes, and the loss of which 


478 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


must leave the book noticeably incomplete. The most 
inconceivable supposition of all would be that some one, 
who was displeased with this alleged genuine conclusion 
(X), vemoved the same intentionally, and that this muti- 
lated copy succeeded in entirely replacing the complete 
exemplars... The mutilation must have been made imme- 
diately after the appearance of the book and before it 
began to circulate, consequently in the region where it 
was written, and, if the author did not die at the very 
moment when his work was completed, in the vicinity 
where he was. Such an intentional setting aside of X 
would have been a senseless and hopeless undertaking, 
if the eritic who ventured it did not at once furnish a 
suitable substitute, 2.e. if the person who mutilated, Mark 
were not at the same time the author of A, the most 
widely circulated of the spurious conclusions. But if X 
was set aside by the author or the redactor of A, how are 
we to explain the origin of all those exemplars, widely 
circulated until: after the fourth century, which at that 
time were, and in their existing form are, without either 
the original conclusion (X) or the conclusion which it is 
alleged was intentionally substituted for it (A)—in other 
words, all the witnesses for Band C? It is, of course, 
conceivable that a recension, C + X, was objected to 
in various quarters, and that the recension A won friends 
earlier than we know—hbefore it came into general use 
in the Chureh; but it is absurd to assume that entire 
Church provinces should have adopted the negative part 
of this new recension—a mutilation of the Mark which 
they possessed originally—-but not the positive part of the 
same, 2.e. the new conclusion, The absurdity is not helped 
by, the assumption (n. 8) that, while the intentional 
setting aside of X and the appending of xvi. 9-20 took 
place in the same circles and from similar motives, a period 
of twenty years or more elapsed between the two processes, 
during which time the Gospel was widely circulated) in its 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS, 474 


mutilated form, without as yet having been completed 
again. It is inconceivable that one who had read critically 
the original in its completed form should have been satisfied 
with the production of such an, unsightly torso, and that 
persons in possession of the completed book in circulation 
as early as the first century in Rome, as well as Asia 
Minor,—certainly also in many other places,—should have 
exchanged the same for the mutilated work. 

The conclusion stands, therefore, that Mark was circu- 
lated from the beginning only in its incomplete form C 
(i. 1-xvi. 8), and the question arises as to the origin of this 
abnormality. An accident to the original MS. has been 
suggested, which must have taken place before any copies 
were made. But if this happened before the book. left 
his hands, why did not the author correct it before he 
permitted his book to be copied, 2.e. before it was issued ? 
More probably death, or some other compelling circum- 
stance, arrested his pen. If he died before the completion 
of the work, the friends for whom it was originally intended 
would have felt it their duty to copy and issue the 
posthumous work without additions. If, however, as the 
tradition seems to show (above, p. 433), Mark published 
the book himself, its incompleted form would be incom- 
prehensible only in case that a few lines were wanting 
which the author and editor could have added, at any 
time. On the other hand, the small compass of the work, 
in comparison with the other historical books of the N.T., 
leaves room for the conjecture that Mark intended to add 
several portions to his work (n. 10). Other things besides 
the resurrection appearances could have been included. 
For, carrying out the idea expressed in the title, a mass 
of material remained. which could have been appropriately 
used, such as we find utilised in Acts (cf. e.g. 1 Pet. 1. 12 
with Acts i. 1-14). If he began to write the Gospel 
before the death of Peter (64), but did not publish the 
same until after the death of Paul (67), things enough 


480 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


eould be mentioned which must have interrupted the pen 
of this spiritual son of Peter and younger friend of Paul 
in the eity where both the apostles had died as martyrs, 
and which also in the time immediately following must 
have prevented him from at once completing his book as 
he desired. If, in these circumstances, he yielded to the 
request for its issue, it would not have been something 
unheard of or irrational. It is perfectly possible also 
that during the months and years while he and others 
were hoping for the completion of the interrupted work he 
had given the unfinished book to friends to read, and that 
they had made several copies without his being able to 
prevent it (n. 11). At all events, the incomplete char- 
acter of the book is proof that it was handed down in the 
Church in the form in which it came from the author's 
pen, since the first attempt to recast the work would have 
been directed toward furnishing it with a conclusion. The 
varied and slow success of the later attempts in this 
direction show how difficult it was to change the form of a 
book after it had once found a circle of readers in the 
Church. Nor is the result different if we assume that it 
is not the original work of Mark which has had the 
misfortune, either by accident or intention, of losing its 
conclusion, but only a later working over of the same ; for 
how could a new working over of the Gospel, which was 
never completed, have replaced the original work, which 
was complete, and which had already come to be highly 
esteemed by many ? 


1. (P. 456.) The question, whether υἱοῦ Θεοῦ is to be read after Ἰησοῦ 
Χριστοῦ in Mark i. 1 need not be raised here. Iren, iii. 10. 6, 11, 8, 16, 3, 
seems to have construed i, 1 as subject of the predicate contained in ver. 2, as if 
it read, ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἶ. Xp. ἐγένετο κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ. 
Origen, however, without expressing himself definitely as to the grammatical 


construction, interprets the passage (in Jo. tom. 1. 13, vi. 24) as if ver. 1 
with ἐγένετο of ver. 4 were the predicate and Ἰωάννης the subject. This con- 
struction, so popular in later times, was deliberately exeluded by N#, καὶ 


ἐγένετο, and Copt. ἐγένετο δέ in ver. 4. The fundamental error of the still 
dominant interpretations appears in Bengel’s Gnomon, though at the same 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 481 


time he rejects a still more mistaken construction : “ Initium tamen appellat 
Marcus non libri sui, sed rei geste.” For further details we must refer to the 
commentaries. ' 

2. (P. 457.) That the indication of the close of a book serves to set off 
one complete literary production from another writing following it in the 
same codex is shown as early as Hier. Ep. xxviii. 4: “Ut solemus nos com- 
pletis opusculis ad distinctionem rei alterius sequentis medium interponere 
‘explicit’ aut ‘feliciter’ aut aliquid istiusmodi.” The same, of course, is true 
of the corresponding incipit. It may be mere chance that these formulas 
appear earlier in Latin Gospel books (eg. in Vercell. see. iv., Veron. and 
Bobb. see. v., ef. Bianchini, Hv. Quadr. i. 262 ff., 474 ; Old Latin Biblical Texts, 
ed. Wordsworth, ii. 23) than in the Greek. The oldest Greek text of the 
Gospels in which such formulas are found is that of the Greeco-Latin Canta- 
brigiensis (sec. vi., ed. Scrivener, p. 95, evayyeAıov κατα Μαθθαιον ετελεσθη, 
apxera evayyehuov κατα loavyny; p. 262, ἐπληρώθη, ἄρχεται). That τέλος and 
ἀρχή Were also customary at an earlier period needs first to be proved. With 
regard to τέλος, cf. GK, ii. 933. The comparison with Hos. i. 2 which has 
been suggested,—by whom first the present writer does not know,—is not apt. 
Aside from the fact that the Hebrew ought probably to be translated, “ As 
Yahweh began to speak with Hosea,” the ἀρχὴ λόγου κυρίου πρὸς ‘Qoné of the 
LXX is not the beginning or the title of the book, but comes after it (Hos. i. 1), 
and refers only to the succeeding portion,—say chaps. i. and ii.,—or perhaps 
only to the command of i. 2 itself. 

3. (P. 461.) In the Johannine writings we do not find εὐαγγέλιον and 
εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, except in Rev. x. 7, xiv. 6—where it is not applied to the 
Gospel usually so called—and a suggestion of the word in ἀγγελία, 1 John i. 5, 
iii. 11. Even Luke, who shows most clearly the derivation of the idea from 
Isa. Ixi. 1 (Luke iv. 18, ef. vii. 22 ; Matt. xi. 5), and who uses the verb with 
some frequency, putting it in Jesus’ own mouth (iv. 43, vii. 22, xvi. 16), besides 
applying it to the preaching of His disciples (viii. 1, ix. 6, xx. 1; Acts v. 42, 
viii. 35, x. 36, etc.) and to other announcements connected with it as well 
(i. 19, ii. 10, iii. 18), does not use the noun inthe Gospel, and in Acts only in 
the mouth of Peter (xv. 7, cf. Mark i. 15) and of Paul (xx. 24, ef. 32) with a 
designation which is characteristic of his teaching. Matthew uses εὐαγγέλιον 
four times, twice in words of Jesus (xxiv. 14, xxvi. 13), and twice referring 
to Jesus (iv. 23, ix. 35), three of these times with the addition, peculiar to 
him, of τῆς βασιλείας (for in Mark i. 14 τοῦ θεοῦ is certainly to be read instead 
of τῆς βασιλείας). But Mark in his much shorter Gospel has the word seven 
times ; he alone of the evangelists uses it in connection with Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
(i. 1), as is common with Paul, or τοῦ θεοῦ (i. 14) ; and among the five passages 
in which he puts the word without addition in Jesus’ mouth (i. 15, viii. 35, 
x. 29, xiii. 10, xiv. 9), there are two where comparison with the parallels 
(Mark viii. 35= Matt. x. 39 ; Mark x. 29= Matt. xix. 29 ; Luke xviii. 29) shows 
that the expression is peculiar to Mark. 

4, (P. 461.) We find in Mark’s narrative a number of details lacking in 
Matt., and for the most part in Luke also, which are not indispensable to the 
understanding of the story, but which describe the situation more exactly or 
the action more graphically : i. 19 (ὀλίγον), 20: (“the hired servants ”), 29 
(particular designation of the house and of Jesus’ companions), 33 (“the whole 

VOl.. II, 31 


482 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


city was gathered at the door”), 36, ii. 1b, 2, 16 (ἰδόντες ὅτι ἤσθιεν), 18 (it was 
a fast-day), 111, 9f., 20f., 34 (“looking about Him at the multitude which 
surrounded Him,” ef. ver. 32), iv. 36,38 (ἐν τῇ πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον), 
v. 3-vi. 13 (the number of the swine), 15 £., 26, 29-33, 40 (Jesus’ company), 41 
(the exact words), 42 (the age of the girl), vi. 13 (anointing with oil), 20f., 37 
(cost of the bread), 38, 39 (“ the green grass”), 40, vii. 26, viii. 3b, 14 (the one 
loaf), 27 (ev τῇ ὁδῷ, and often besides, ix. 33, x. 17, 32, 52), ix. 3, 14-16 (see 
§ 53), 17 f., 21-26, 28 (eis οἶκον), 33 (ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ), 34, 35 (καθίσας), 36 (ἐναγκαλι- 
σάμενος, 80 also x. 16), x. 10, 32a, 46, 49-51, xi. 4, 13 (first what Jesus saw 
from a distance, then what He noticed on the spot), xiv. 7b, 30 (dis, τρίς, ef. 
xiv. 72), 44 (καὶ amayere ἀσφαλῶς), 51f., 54 (ἔσω πρὸς τὸ φῶς), xv. 21, 24 
(τίς ri ἄρῃ), 29 (οὐά), 44. It is often noted that Jesus looked about Him, 
noticed objects, or looked at persons, and sometimes the effect is also men- 
tioned, iii. 5, 34, v. 30, 32, x. 21, 23, 27, xi.11. The feeling and manner, too, 
of Jesus’ words and actions is sometimes noticed by Mark alone, i. 41, iii. 5, 
x. 14, It is frankly stated that Jesus failed to hear something, inquired about 
something that He did not know, and looked for something that was not to 
be found, v. 30-32, 36, vi. 38, xi. 13, cf. xiii. 32; and that His relatives and 
disciples spoke of or to Him with disrespect or reproach, iii. 21, iv. 38, v. 31 
(vy. 40), viii. 32... Mark likes to give a precise note of time, sometimes by an 
addition to the less definite expression found in the other accounts, i. 32, 35, 
xvi. 2, cf. i. 21, ii. 1, iv. 85, vi. 2, 35, 47,48, viii. 2, ix. 2, xii 11, 19, 20,:xiv. 
12, 17, xv. 1, 25 (hour of the crucifixion, Mark only), 33,34. He likes strong 
forms of expression : ἐξέστησαν εὐθὺς ἐκστάσει μεγάλῃ, V. 42; λίαν ἐκ περισσοῦ 
ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἐξίσταντο, Vi. 51, ef. vil. 57, x. 26; πολλοὶ πλούσιοι πολλὰ--- μία χήρα 
λεπτὰ δύο, xii. 41 ἢ. (ef. in comparison with this Luke xxi. 1f.). The merely 
adverbial πολλά, i. 45, iii. 12, iv. 2, v. 10, 23, 38, 43, vi. 20, 34, ix. 26, he alone 
of the evangelists has; vii. 8, 13 also belongs here, while v. 26, viii. 31, ix. 12, 
xv.3 belong in the same category as Matt. xvi. 21, xxvii. 19 ; Luke ix. 22, xxii. 
65. A comparison with the parallels shows that μόνους, ix. 2, πάντων, x. 44, 
ὄντως, Xi. 32, πολύ, xii. 27, are the sharpening of other simpler and suflicient 
terms. For him πάντα ὅσα εἶχεν is not suflicient, he adds ὅλον τὸν βίον αὐτῆς, 
xii, 44. The much repeated καὶ εὐθύς (often amended by transcribers to 
εὐθέως) and the likewise frequent πάλιν and καὶ πάλεν will perhaps weary a 
reader attentive to the style, but on the other hand show the vivacity of the 
narrator. Some proper observations on this point occur in Mandel, Kephas 
der Evangelist, 2-6. Like other narrators from among the people, Mark 
seems rather to favour than to avoid the repetition of the same circumstantial 
expression within the single narrative, instead of an abbreviation of similar 
meaning, iii. 1, 3, 111. 31, 32, v. 9, 15, v. 30, 31, vi. 14, 16, x. 47, 48, xiv. 13, 
72, xv. 37, 89 (ἐξέπνευσεν), xiv. 28, xvi. 7. In the discourses and conversa- 
tions, moreover, he likes refrain and recapitulation, vii. 8 (even according to 
the shorter text), 13, vii. 15, 18-20, x. 23, 24, xii. 24, 27 (πλανᾶσθε), xii. 29-31, 
32-33. Consequently ix. 44, 46 are not to be removed from the text on the 
ground of tautology. He uses direct discourse even where unspoken thoughts 
(v. 28, ix. 10), or remarks of several persons, or words spoken on different 
occasions, are reproduced, i. 37, iii. 11, vi. 14, 16, and also where other narrators 
do not find it necessary to repeat the words at all, vi. 24, x. 49. Mark is not 
afraid of ellipsis, iii. 30, (he spoke in view of the fact) “ that they said” ; ix. 11, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 483 


(how is it related with the fact) “that the Pharisees say?” ix. 23, (how 
can you say) “If thou canst?” ix. 28, “That we could not east it out” 
(how is that to be explained ?) ; xiv. 49, “but (it must happen so), in order 
that the Seriptures might be fulfilled.” The impression of accuracy is also 
heightened by the frequent retention of the Aramaic phrase ; gee § 53. 

5. (Pp. 467, 468.) The most detailed and scholarly arguments for the 
authenticity of Mark xvi. 9-20 are those of Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses 
of the Gospel according to St. Mark, 1871; Martin, Introduction ἃ la Critique 
Textuelle du N.T., Partie Pratique, tome ii. 1884. Among those who dispute 
the authenticity of these verses, special mention may be made of the critical 
apparatus of Tischendorf, that of Westcott and Hort, N.T. Appendix, 28-51, 
the investigation of Klostermann, op. cit. 298-309, and the writer’s discussion 
GK, ii. 910-938, which cannot be fully repeated here. With regard to the 
evidence for the text which closes with xvi. 8, we might add that the: Gospel 
of Peter (circa 150) should probably be included ; cf. the writer’s work on 
the subject, 1893, 5, 53. The dependence of this Gospel upon Mark in 
general, and especially in the account of the resurrection morning, is un- 
deniable. An ἦν, which is proper only in the mouth of the narrator, Mark 
xvi. 4, is in Gospel of Peter xii. 54 attributed to the women, on whose lips it is 
meaningless. From Mark xvi. 5 the Gospel of Peter xiii. 55 takes νιανίσκον 

. περιβεβλημένον στολήν κτὰ., Whereas in xi, 44 it had called the same 
angel ἀνθρωπός ris; from Mark xvi. 8 it borrows φοβηθεῖσαι ἔφυγον. But 
the Gospel of Peter concludes the account of the resurrection day at this point. 
This coincidence with the original conclusion of Mark would be a very 
remarkable circumstance if xvi. 9-20 had also been before the author. Lods, 
L’Ev. de St. Pierre, p. 64, compares Gospel of Peter, vii. 27, πενθοῦντες καὶ 
κλαίοντες ; Conybeare, Zupos., Dec. 1895, p. 413; Gospel of Peter, xiv. 59, 
ἐκλαίομεν καὶ ἐλυπούμεθα, with Mark xvi. 10, πενθοῦσιν καὶ κλαίουσιν. But 
the first passage belongs to a different historical connection, and the second is 
not particularly similar. The combination πενθεῖν καὶ κλαίειν is quite usual, 
Jas. iv. 9; Luke vi. 25; Rev. xviii. 11, 15, 19; and also John xvi. 20,—a 
prediction which was not to fail of literal fulfilment. Rohrbach (Der Schluss 
des Marcusev. 27-33; Die Berichte über d. Auferstehung Christi), following 
up a conjecture of Harnack’s (Bruchstücke des Ev. und der Ap. des Petrus, 
2te Aufl. 33), has attempted to show that the Gospel of, Peter derived its 
conclusion from the lost original ending of Mark. But, granted that there 
was such an ending, how is one to show what it contained? We must 
assume that Mark, if he had finished his work, would have told of an 
appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee, as would probably Gospel of Peter, 
xiv., also—where, however, the name Galilee does not appear, and there is no 
account of an appearance of Christ. But Matt. xxviii. 16-20 and John xxi. 
also tell of an appearance in Galilee, and the connection of the Gospel of Peter 
with the latter chapter is evident. That Levi the son of Alphus is men- 
tioned there, only shows that the writer knew Mark and used it here as in 
other passages ; ef. Mark ii. 14. Horn, Abfassungszeit, Geschichtlichkeit und 
Zweck von Jo. xxi. S. 94-156, has given an extended criticism of the 
Harnack - Rohrbach hypothesis. With regard to the authorities for Mark 
xvi. 9-20, we must notice also that the fact that the section was worked 
over by Tatian (Forsch. i. 218 f. ; GK, ii. 554) has been still further confirmed ; 
cf. NKZ, 1894, 106. On the other hand, one may not with Harnack (TT, xiii, 


484 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


4. 51) adduce Novat. Trin. viii., in connection with which Gallandi, Bibl.2 iti, 
292, had inappropriately cited Mark xvi. 15, or the writing Ad Novat. (Cypr., 
ed. Hartel, App. p. 56) attributed ky Harnack (op. cit. xiii. 1) to Pope 
Sixtus m. and the year 257-258 ; for evangelizate gentibus, also in an inexact 
quotation of Matt. xxviii. 19, does not correspond exactly with Mark xvi. 15 
(predicate evangeliwm ommi creature). Conybeare, op. cit. 402, shows that 
the Armenian Eznik, in his work against heresies (ed. Venet. 89), quotes 
Mark xvi. 17, 18 verbatim according to the usual Armenian translation, but 
without attributing the words expressly to Mark. The principal conclusion 
which Conybeare draws is that Mark xvi. 9-20 always belonged to the 
Armenian translation of the Gospels, but was afterwards set aside because the 
addition was known to the Armenians from the beginning as a work of the 
presbyter Ariston (see n. 8), and so, with stricter views regarding the Canon, 
could not be permanently admitted as a part of Mark. The history of the 
Armenian translation of this section, of which Martin, op. eit. 325 ff., gives a 
different account and opinion than Conybeare, 403f., 417f., cannot be 
followed further here. But seen. 8. For an extended variant of the longer 
form see Freer MS. 

6. (P. 468.) The most important witnesses for the shorter addition B 
are—(1) L. (sec. 8, ed. Tischendorf in Monum. sacra ined. 1846, p. 206); 
(2) © (sec. 8 or 9, in Gregory, Textkritik des NT’s, i. 94); (3) ΤΊ (sec. 7 or 8, 
in Gregory, op. cit. 70, a Coptic-Greek fragment); (4) Ol (so called by 
Schmidtke, Die Hvv. eines alten Uncial codex, 1903, the text is given 8.29; 
it is Miniscule 574, according to Gregory’s enumeration = Paris, Bibl. nat. gr. 
97, used. by the present writer in discussion of the question [GK, ii. 921] 
following Martin, Description techn. p. 91-94; Nestle, ΖΗ͂Ν ΤΊ, 1903, S. 255, 
is mistaken). The text is accordingly as follows: πάντα δὲ ra παρηγγελμένα 
τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήγγειλαν: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα αὐτὸς ὁ (ὁ omitted 
in Ψ) Ἰησοῦς (edavn+WT) ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς (τοῦ ἡλίου -- ΤῊ καὶ ἄρχε (μέχρι, VY) 
δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλεν δι’ αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου 
σωτηρίας" ἀμήν (omitted in L). In Ψ this portion is separated from xvi. 8 
only by τέλος, which indicates the close of a Church lection, and is followed 
by ἔστιν καὶ ταῦτα φερόμενα μετὰ τὸ “ ἐφοβοῦντο yap” ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωϊ κτλ. 
=xvi. 9-20. Not until this point does the subscription εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ 
Μᾶρκον (without ἀμήν) occur. In L the shorter ending is introduced by 
φέρεταί mov καὶ ταῦτα, then follows the longer ending without an ἀμῆν as 
conclusion of what precedes, introduced by ἔστιν δὲ καί ταῦτα κτλ. (except for 
the δὲ interpolated here as in Y, see above) and concluding with ἀμήν. ed. 
x. Μᾶρκον. In Ol all intervening remarks are wanting. So also in TA, 
where, however, the shorter ending is separated from xvi. 8 as from the 
following longer ending by lines filled out with flourishes ; and at the begin- 
ning of the longer ending the words εἶχεν γὰρ---ἐφοβοῦντο yap of xvi. 8 are 
repeated (cf. the Coptic MSS. concerning which, following Lightfoot, the 
present writer has made some comments), Only in the Latin Codex k 
(Bobiensis, swe. 5, Old Latin Bibl. texts, ii. 23) is B fully amalgamated with 
the text of xvi. 8; but in such a way, that the text of xvi. 8 is violently 
changed, in order to add the shorter ending without producing a eontra- 
diction (ef. GK, ii. 920). 

7. (P. 471.) Jerome, contra Pelag. ii. 15 (Vallarsi, ii. 758; ef. GK, ii. 919, 
935); “In quibusdam exemplaribus et maxime in greeis eodieibus iuxta 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 485 


Marcum in fine eius evangelii seribitur : ‘ Postea quum accubuissent undecim, 
apparuit eis Jesus et exprobravit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, 
quia his, qui viderant eum resurgentem, non crediderunt. Et illi satisfacie- 
bant dicentes: Seeculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis sub satana (al. 
substantia) est, qua (read qui) non sinit per immundos spiritus veram dei 
apprehendi virtutem : idcirco iam nunc revela iustitiam tuam.” 

8. (Pp. 473,477,478.) With regard to the Gospel of Etchmiadzin artistically 
considered, see Strzygowski, Byzantinische Denkmäler, i., Vienna, 1891. The 
statement “of Ariston the presbyter,” which it contains, was first published 
and discussed by Conybeare in the Expos., Oct. 1893, pp. 241-254; again, Dec. 
1895, pp. 401-421. Cf. the writer’s discussion, ThLb, 1893, No. 51. Resch, 
Ausserkanon. Paralleltexte zu den Evv. ii. 450-456, on the basis of this phrase, 
argued the probability that Ariston of Pella (circa 135) was not only the author 
of the conclusion of Mark, but also the editor of the Gospel Canon. Rohrbach 
(see ἢ. 5, above), who declares (26) the issue and circulation of. an unfinished 
book to be “nonsense,”—in singular contradiction to the literary history 
of all ages,—and therefore treats the former existence of an original and 
genuine ending as a matter of course, holds the Gospel to have come to 
Asia Minor intact, and also to the place where the Gospel of Peter originated, 
which in all probability, however, is to be looked for elsewhere (p. 483, 
above). It was of this unmutilated book (C+X) that John the presbyter 
spoke with his pupils (Kus. H. E. iii. 39. 15). One of these pupils, Papias, 
wrote several decades later of a Gospel of Mark, which had meanwhile been 
deprived of its closing chapter (X) and furnished with a spurious addition, 
and wrote under the candid impression that he had in his hands the same 
book as that on which in his youth he had heard his teacher comment. So 
Papias did not notice that, in the meantime, the dissatisfaction with X in the 
circle of his fellow-students had led to its, omission; that the book thus 
mutilated had been widely circulated in Asia Minor, for example, in the 
places where Matt. and Luke originated; and that in Asia Minor again, 
somewhere about 110-120, the spurious ending (A) had been attached, while 
at the same time X had been worked over into John xxi. And so we are not 
to be surprised that about 130 the genuine Mark (C+ X) had completely dis- 
appeared wherever it had once existed, in Rome where it had originated, in 
Syria where the Gospel of Peter was probably written, in Palestine where 
Matt. was composed, in the unknown place of Luke’s origin, also, and in 
Asia Minor itself, where so much had been done with X, and that it had 
given place partly to recension (ἡ, which presupposes B, and partly to recen- 
sion A. ‘The spurious ending (A) is said to be the concluding portion of a 
“kerugma” of the presbyter Aristion, that is, a sermon of his concerning the 
whole life of Jesus from the birth to the ascension. If the marginal gloss of 
the Oxford MS. of Rufinus on Kus. H. E. iii. 39.9 is from a late hand (Προ. 
Dee. 1895, p. 415), it must nevertheless rest upon an older statement which 
could have come only from one who knew Papias’ work. Rohrbach’s assertion 
(17), that every reader of Eus. iii. 39 could have set the name Aristion in the 
margin of §9, is more bold than obvious. If such a person was setting up 
conjectures as to the source of the story of Justus Barsabbas and the poisoned 
drink which proved harmless, he could only think of the daughters of Philip 
(there mentioned), or of Philip himself, as the authorities. The references to 


486 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Aristion in 88 7 and 14 are apart from the question, and in the only passage 
where Eusebius mentions his communications more partieularly it is not 
stories that he relates, but words of Jesus that he reports ($14). Mark xvi. 
14-18 is such a διήγησις λόγων τοῦ κυρίου, but not xvi. 9-13 and 19,20. What 
is made to show the original unity of A as a whole, namely, the preparation 
for the main section vv. 14-18 in ἠπίστησαν, ver. 11, and οὐδὲ ἐκείνοις ἐπίστευ- 
σαν, ver. 13, only shows that the writer of A proceeded with some reflection. 
Thus, also, he was led, in the same words which present themselves as a 
fitting introduction to ver. 14, to go beyond the authority from which vv. 9- 
11 are derived, namely, John xx. 1-18, where nothing is said of the disciples’ 
unbelieving attitude toward the message of Mary Magdalene, and into incon- 
sistency with the narrative in Luke xxiv. 13-35, from which he also makes 
excerpts, and especially with its close. That this modification of the 
materials found support in John xx. 8, Luke xxiv. 11, 22-24, Matt. xxviii. 
17, is obvious. But that we have a compilation of excerpts in vv. 9-13 is 
unquestionably shown by the statement which is inserted from Luke viii. 2, 
and which is inappropriate in this connection. In opposition to the opinion 
of Westcott and Hort, N.T. Appendix, 51, that the opening words, ἀναστὰς δὲ 
πρωΐ without Ἰησοῦς, indicate that the whole was borrowed from another 
connection, we may remark that the omission of the name is not rendered 
more intelligible by this hypothesis. In analogous cases, like John vii. 53, 
Luke xxi. 38, the interpolators have introduced the foreign material with a 
sentence of their own which simplifies the connection. In the present 
instance the compiler has followed the style of Mark. After the proper 
name has been given in xvi. 6, Jesus is indicated by αὐτόν, αὐτοῦ, and again 
αὐτόν, while between them stands a προάγει without noun or pronoun. One 
might just as well require Ἰησοῦς, or a substitute for it, in xvi. 14, as in 
xvi. 95 but the modern ὁ κύριος does not appear till xvi. 19 (Ὁ. 476, above). 
Mark himself is very sparing in the use of the name Jesus and its equivalents. 
We miss it in i. 21b after 21a, and in i. 30-ii. 4 after i. 29, and in the entire 
section iii. 7-v. 21, with all its change of actors and speakers. 

9. (P. 477.) Examples for the canon of textual criticism on p. 477 are: 
John vi. 47, rıoreöov—additions, eis ἐμέ and eis θεόν (Sc Ss); John vii. 39, 
mvedpa—additions, ἅγιον and δεδομένον, both, indeed, in B ; Jas. v. 7, πρόϊμον 
additions, ὑετόν and καρπόν. It is without question that many readings 
which found considerable currency in the second and third centuries; among 
them some of no little extent and importance, from the fourth century on, 
were more and more supplanted, and have in part disappeared from the later 
tradition, and also that interpolations have become established which were 
not known in the second century. But even now we are always in a position 
to base our judgment, however it may incline in doubtful cases, on existing 
sources, 6.4. John iv. 9b, v. 3b, 4, vii. 53-viii. 11; ef. vol. 1. 535, above, 124, 
on Phil. i: 3; 1 Tim. iii. 1. Whoever considers “This day have I begotten 
thee” in Luke iii. 22 original, need not complain that the true reading has 
disappeared from the tradition after 300. Of peculiar readings which 
Mareion did not invent, but found existing in part, as in Luke xi. 2f., Gal. 
iv. 26 (GK, ii. 471, 502, 1015; ZKom. Gal. 298), there are certainly but few, 
though various traces in the following centuries, and even on internal 
grounds their genuineness is to be doubted. The variant readings of Cod. Ὁ 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 487 


and allied MSS. in Acts do not belong here, for they are part of a com 
prehensive recension standing over against another which is likewise original. 
See $ 59. 

10. (P. 479.) The length of the historical books of the N.T. reckoned 
according to the ancient stichoi (GK, i. 76, ii. 395) is: Mait., 2480; Mark, 
1543; Luke, 2714; John, 1950; Acts, 2610. The difference, then, between 
Mark and John, the next smallest, is 407 stichoi, about the length of 1 and 
2 Pet. together (403), or 1 and 2 Tim, (420); between Mark and Luke, 1171 
stichoi, which is considerably more than Rom. (979). 

11. (P. 480.) Tertullian, contra Mare. i. 1, relates that the original copy 
of the second edition of his Antimareion was borrowed by a friend, who 
afterward fell away from the Church, transcribed inaccurately, and published 
(exhibuit frequentie). The subsequent lapse does not affect the matter. 
Premature publication against the wish of the author was nothing infrequent 
(Cicero, ad Attic. xiii. 21. 4). Before all, however, one must keep in mind 
that in ancient times the real editio by the booksellers, with which the 
earliest Christians were hardly concerned, was often preceded by a private 
circulation among friends, sometimes for examination and correction, and 
sometimes by the way of gift, or to satisfy curiosity (cf. Haenny, Schriftsteller 
u, Buchhändler in Rom. 1884, S. 9 ff., 17 ff.). The history of opera imperfecta, 
all of which were by no means opera posthwma, gives free play to the 
imagination (cf. also GK, ii. 930f.). 


§ 53, COMPARISON OF MARK’S GOSPEL WITH 
THE TRADITION. 


According to tradition, the Gospel was written in 
Rome by the Mark mentioned in Acts xu. 12, 25, xiii. 
5, 13, xv. 37-39; Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. ἵν: ΤΊ, 
after he had been engaged for some twenty years in 
missionary work outside of Palestine (§ 51). His original 
name, John, as well as that of his mother, Mary (Mariam), 
and of his cousin, Joseph, who bore the Aramaic surname 
Barnabas, make it extremely probable that the family, 
which was settled in Jerusalem, belonged to the Hebrews, 
not to the resident Hellenists (Acts vi. 1), although the 
fact that Barnabas was a native of Cyprus (Acts iv. 36) 
shows that it had relations to the Diaspora living in 
regions where Greek predominated. This is in keeping 
with the fact that Mark reproduces in his Greek book 
with apparent pleasure the Aramaic form of Jesus’ words 
and those of other persons, although it is always necessary 


488 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to append a Greek translation for the benefit of his readers, 
This impression is strengthened by comparison with the 
longer Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the first of which was 
written by a Jew, if we may believe the tradition, but is 
preserved to us only in a translation ; the second, however, 
by a Greek (n. 1). It is also to be noticed that Mark’s 
Greek shows Hebraic colouring more strongly than any 
other of the Gospels and almost beyond that of any other 
N.T. writing. Although Mark does not exhibit as many 
flagrant errors against grammar, conscious or unintentional, 
as does the Book of Revelation, he has more genuine Semitic 
idioms (n. 2). Not only is he familiar with the geography 
and customs of the Holy Land, but he endeavours also 
to acquaint his readers with them. He portrays, as 
does no other evangelist, the shrill lamentations for the 
dead (v. 38, where very probably, reference is made 
to instrumental music, ef. 1 Cor. xiii. 1). He is familiar 
with the fact that the Jewish fasts were no longer a 
voluntary exercise of religious earnestness, but that 
there were certain ‘fast days which the zealous were re- 
quired to observe, and explains in great detail that the 
marriage festivities, which lasted for several days, and 
which on that. account could conflict with the two weekly 
fast days of the Pharisees (Luke xvii. 12), relieved one 
from every obligation to fast (1. 18-20). The Jewish 
conception, of “defiled hands” he explains clearly, and 
makes use of the occasion to inform his readers in detail 
how the Pharisees and the Jews generally laid weight 
upon the washing of hands before meals, and upon similar 
purification of all sorts of vessels, and how all this was 
regulated by traditional Rabbinic rules (vii. 2-4). Just 
as he translates Aramaic words and phrases for his readers 
(n. 1), so he explains Jewish ideas even when expressed 
(παρασκευή, xv. 42) or transliterated (yéevva, ix. 43, but 
not in v. 45, 47) in Greek. With Pilate and his: office, 
on the other hand, the readers appear to be entirely 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 489 


familiar (xv. 1, n. 3), likewise with a certain bloody revolt 
which took place during his term of office (xv. 7). 

The fact that Mark uses more Latin technical terms 
than the other evangelists has only comparative value, 
since such words were in common use everywhere in the 
provinces, even among the Jews in Palestine (n. 4). The 
use of such terms instead of the Greek expressions 
indicates difference of taste, not the author’s nationality. 
Still it must have been very natural for an author writing 
in Rome for Romans to employ Latin names for Latin 
things. It is also conceivable how a Jew, born in 
Jerusalem, who was repeatedly in Rome, who lived: there 
for considerable periods of time, and wrote his book there, 
could come to employ Latinisms in his Greek book 
without necessarily being familiar with the Latin language. 
The passages in which he explains Greek terms by Latin, 
or, more accurately, Roman expressions (xi. 42, xv. 16, 
n. 4), are decisive proof that the book was intended for 
Western readers. This is still more definitely indicated 
by Mark xv. 21 (n. 5). Mark agrees here with Matthew 
(xxvii. 82) and Luke (xxiii. 26) in representing Simon of 
Cyrene as an unknown person, accidentally met on the way 
to the Cross; but the phrase which he adds, that this man 
was the father of Alexander and Rufus, makes it certain 
(1) that the sons of Simon were known to the readers, just 
as it renders it clear that the father was unknown ; 
(2) that the only purpose which Mark had in view in this 
addition peculiar to his account. was to render the history 
more interesting to his readers by connecting it with what 
was familiar to them, since for the understanding of the 
development of thought in the passage it is a matter of 
no consequence whether Simon had sons or not, much less 
what their names were. Now, from Rom: xvi. 13 we 
know that in the year 58 there was a Christian by the 
name of Rufus living in Rome with his mother, both of 
whom had migrated thither from the East not long before. 


490 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


In brief, the situation is this: a Gospel which, according 
to the oldest tradition, was written for Roman readers, 
between 64 and 70, takes for granted, in a purely 
incidental way, personal acquaintance on the part of his 
readers with two brothers, Alexander and Rufus, formerly 
resident in Jerusalem ; and, according to a document of 
the year 58, there was in the Roman Church a Christian, 
Rufus by name, living there with his mother, both of 
whom had come thither from the East. With persons 
possessing so little judgment as to explain this coincidence 
as accidental, further discussion is useless. Granted that 
the tradition that Mark was written in Rome has strong 
and independent support in many passages of the book, 
it becomes probable that it was the tendency among the 
Roman Christians with which we became acquainted in 
Rom. xiv.—noticed also in Heb. xiii. 9 (above, pp. 332 f., 
346 £.)—that influenced Mark to reproduce with such great 
detail the discourse concerning things clean and. unclean 
(vii. 1-23), and generally to emphasise strongly, Jesus’ 
opposition to ceremonialism (above, p. 463). 

The author of Mark nowhere speaks in the first person, 
nor does he make any reference to himself at once intel- 
ligible to every reader. It is very noticeable, however, 
that he calls the apostle John τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ ᾿Ιακώβου 
both in the list of apostles, iii. 17, and in v. 37, instead 
of designating him, as in other passages where he is men- 
tioned with James, either as the brother of the preceding 
(αὐτοῦ, Mark i. 19; Matt. iv. 21, x. 2, xvii. 1), or without 
any definite characterisation (Mark i. 29, ix. 2, xiv. 33; 
Luke vi. 14, viii. 51), or both brothers as the sons of 
Zebedee (Mark x. 35; Luke v. 10; Matt. xx. 20; John 
xxi. 2). This characterisation does not occur elsewhere in 
the N.T., and is very noticeable in view of the much 
greater importance of the apostle John in comparison 
with his brother James, who died in 44 (n. 5a). It must 
have been employed by the author to distinguish one John 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 491 


from another, just as the reverse form is used in Acts 
xii. 2 to distinguish one James from another (Acts xii. 
2, 17; ef. Jude 1). It would have been natural for an 
author himself called John, and standing in’ close rela- 
tion to the events which he recorded, occasionally thus 
to distinguish the apostle of the same name. ‘Though 
it may be doubtful whether in this case the original 
readers, when they read the words “John the brother of 
James,” perceived the feeling with which they were written 
(“ John, but not the narrator surnamed Mark”), they were 
undoubtedly in a better position than later readers to 
understand that xiv. 51f. recorded a personal experience 
of the author (n. 6). After it is narrated that all those 
who accompanied Jesus, 2.e. according to the context (xiv. 
17, 26, 32, 47) all the apostles, with the exception of the 
traitor, forsook Him and fled, we are told the experience 
of a certain youth who followed Him. The characterisation 
νεανίσκος τίς shows at once that he was not one of the 
apostles named and partially described in iii. 16-19. Τὸ 
is self-evident that no one of these could have partaken of 
the Passover and have accompanied Jesus through the 
city to Gethsemane clad as was this young man. Finally, 
it could not here be said abruptly of an apostle that he 
simply accompanied Jesus (συνηκολούθησεν) or followed Him 
(συνηκολούθει) during the transactions previously described, 
which, however, is the chief statement in xiv. 51; on the 
contrary, in making any remark in this connection about 
the clothing or fate of an apostle, it would have been 
necessary to say that he was one of those who up to 
this time had been in Jesus’ company (cf. xiv. 37). 
Whether the σινδών, which was the only clothing that 
the youth had on, was a garment (Judg. xiv. 12; 1 Mace. 
x. 64, variant reading) or a large cloth (Matt. xxvii. 59), 
at all events it should not again be questioned, having 
been proved by Casaubon (above, p. 447, n. 6) that 
the youth had got up suddenly out of bed, and, in his 


492 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


curiosity or anxiety to find out whither Jesus would go 
and what might happen to: Him, had not taken time to 
clothe himself again, but had stealthily followed Jesus 
and the apostles clad in his night garments or’ bed 
blanket. «This confirms the ancient conjecture that: he 
was'a member of the household where Jesus celebrated 
the Passover, since in no other house in Jerusaleny would 
it be possible for a person, who had already retired, to 
know the moment of Jesus’ departure, and to beled 
suddenly to the decision by the breaking up of the Pass- 
over gathering to follow the group in his night garments. 
But why should this event be recorded by Mark, and by 
him only ὁ It does not add anything to the: description 
of the peril of the situation or even to the fury and: mad- 
ness of those sent to make the arrest, since the picture of 
a strong and well-armed police force (xiv. 43, 48) getting 
only the garment of the man whom they design to arrest 
makes a ludicrous rather than a terrifying Impression. 
The episode explains nothing that precedes or follows, and 
must have been narrated only because of its interest to the 
author, and, as he thought, to the readers. The same 
hesitancy which led him to withhold the youth’s name, 
and his relation to Jesus and the apostles, also kept him 
from | saying anything from which we can infer directly 
that the youth belonged to the household where Jesus 
spent His last. night with His disciples. This reserve is 
to be explained only if the narrator was identical with the 
youth who fled. The house in question was his: own 
home, whose guest-room the author describes with detail 
in xiv. 17—in striking contrast to Matt. xxvi. 18f.; John 
xii. 1 ff. N 

That Luke, who practically repeats Mark’s description 
(xxii. 12), here as in other passages, was not independent 
of our author, we shall show later (§ 61). Luke does mot, 
however, repeat the sentence with which Mark begins the 
account ‘of the last supper. ΔΩ when it was evening, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 493 


he cometh with the Twelve” (xiv. 17). We have a sudden 
transition to the present, and Mark describes the approach! 
and arrival of the announced guests as if he were inthe 
house in which the Passover was prepared (n. 7). Involun- 
tarily he reproduces the impression which he had received 
at the time. Here the opinion of the Muratorian Frag- 
mentist, “ aliquibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit,” 15 correct, 
and the oldest tradition, when rightly understood, offers 
no contradiction (above, pp. 428, 442 f.). The correct inter- 
pretation of Mark xiv. 17, 51f., finds independent support 
in the narrative of Acts xi..12-17. The household in 
which Mark grew up was well-to-do; it did not lackvfor ser- 
vants, and the house had room for a considerable gathering 
of Christians. The fact that they assembled there for prayer 
in the middle of the night could possibly be explained on 
the ground that their solicitude for the imprisoned Peter 
led them to engage in tireless, united petition on his ‘be- 
half (xu. 5)... When, however, Peter, who knew nothing 
of this fact, sought out the house of Mary instead of going 
to his own dwelling,—which he must certainly have had, 
and indeed, as the narrator clearly indicates (Acts xii. 12), 
because he knew that there would be a large gathering 
there on that night,—the most natural explanation is that 
it was the Passover night (xii. 3 f.), and that the Jerusalem 
Christians were fond of celebrating the Passover meal in 
the house and room where Jesus had celebrated it with 
the apostles just before His death. The interpretation of 
Acts xi. 12-17 leads to the same result as that'of Mark 
xiv. 17, 51 f. Jesus celebrated His last Passover in the 
home of Mark, and the son of this household is the author 
of this Gospel. In spite of the large number of spurious 
titles of honour gathered about this house in the Church 
legends (above, pp. 428, 447, n. 7), they must contain a 
grain of genuine tradition, since it is not conceivable that: 
they should have grown up from exegetical combinations 
such ‘as those above. The father (Mark xiv. 14; Matt)! 


494 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


xxvi. 18) must have been in sympathy with Jesus even 
before His death. He regarded Him as a rabbi, and gladly 
showed Him a favour. Jesus, in His turn, is confident of 
not being betrayed before His time, either by him or any 
member of his household. The curiosity which led the 
half-grown boy to follow the Passover guests of the house 
is entirely conceivable, and we can also understand how in 
riper years, when he wrote his Gospel, he should mention 
briefly his own part in the great events which he narrates. 
Instead of indicating the ipse fect with a monogram, as do 
others, he paints a small picture of himself in the corner 
of his work which contains so many figures. What he 
narrates of himself is no heroic deed, but only a thought- 
less action of his youth. 

In case we possessed no tradition regarding the person 
and relations of the writer, xiv. 17, 51 ἢ would not be the 
only passages from which the reader would receive the 
impression that the narrative of the book is that of an eye- 
witness. This would be the most natural way in which to 
explain the above-mentioned peculiarities of style in most of 
the accounts (above, pp. 461 f., 481 f.,n. 4). There are other 
observations, however, which are against this impression. 
The barest comparison of Mark ix. 14 with Matt. xvu. 14, 
Luke ix. 37, is suflicient to show that the former was 
written not from the point of view of the historian, to 
whom all the subjects in his narrative have the same 
interest, nor from the point of view alone of the. chief 
person in the narrative, but according to the reading 
(ἐλθόντες. . . εἶδον, NBLAKSs Armenian), which is un- 
doubtedly correct, from the point of view of Jesus and 
His three most trusted disciples. As they come down 
from the mountain and draw near to the place where the 
other apostles are, the first thing which they notice 
is a large crowd, in the midst of which the apostles are 
standing engaged in discussion with the scribes. As the 
four approach they are noticed by several of the crowd 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS ANE ACTS 495 


surrounding the persons engaged in discussion. The crowd 
then turns and leaves the scribes and the nine apostles 
standing, and (some of them) run to greet Jesus, among 
them the father of the possessed child, whom the disciples 
had been unable to heal. Before Jesus reaches the scribes 
and the disciples who had been left behind, He inquires of 
the crowd the occasion of the animated discussion. Then 
He suffers the father to tell his story, and as He goes on 
complains of the wearisomeness of His work in this faithless 
generation. He commands that the sick child be brought 
to Him, but does not perform the act of healing until the 
crowd begins to press about Him on all sides (ver. 25). The 
original narrator of this incident was evidently one of the 
three witnesses of the transfiguration upon the mountain, 
Peter, John, or James (Mark ix. 2; 2 Pet. i. 18). Ac- 
cording to the tradition it was Peter, whose narratives 
Mark reproduced in several parts of his Gospel so accur- 
ately that it is possible to recognise his source from the 
style of his narrative. The attempt was repeatedly made 
in the common text tradition and also in the ancient 
versions, for palpable reasons, to eliminate this peculiar 
style of Mark both in xii. 3 and ix. 14. If the sin- 
cular ἐπηρώτα is to be retained in xii. 3 with NBL, 
the most natural explanation is to suppose that, in the 
original account of Peter, the verse ran somewhat as 
follows : “ Then I asked the Lord confidentially, and James, 
John, and Andrew joined me in the question.” It may 
have been Peter also who earlier called the Lord’s attention 
to the beauty of the temple buildings (xii. 1, eis τῶν 
μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ; cf. xiv. 47). Atall events, we have features 
here not found in Matt. xxiv. 1-8, Luke xxi. 5—7, which 
are naturally explained by assuming that Mark is repro- 
ducing the account of one who took part in the scene. 
The same observation is forced upon us by xi. 12-14, 
20-25 (ef. Matt. xxi. 18-22). The naive detail of the 
narrative, the exact indication of the day and hour of the 


496 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


various incidents in the story, and the rabbi with which 
the master is addressed, have been mentioned above: (p. 
482). It is especially to be noticed that what is said in 
xl. 14 appears to be a very independent remark, “His 
disciples heard Him (make this remark);” but that’ is 
followed in xi. 21 by the sentence, “ And Peter, calling to 
remembrance (what was said on the morning of the pre- 
ceding day), saith unto Him, ‘Rabbi,’” ete. 

A more remarkable account than that which we have 
in i. 29 cannot be imagined, “ And straightway, when 
they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the 
house of Simon and of Andrew, with James and John” 
(n. 8). The subject is not specifically indicated, but from 
i. 16-21 is without doubt Jesus, Peter, James, John, and 
Andrew. But why are the four apostles mentioned again 
by name, and two of them as accompanying the others, as 
if they were not already included in the subject? Why 
is the plural of the verb, so often employed elsewhere to 
include Jesus and those with Him at the time, not 
sufficient here (1. 21, vi. 58, ix. 14); or, if the author 
desired to mention the presence of the disciples expressly 
after i. 21b-28, where only Jesus is spoken of, why did 
not an expression like that in 11. 15, Π|: 7, vill, 27 suttice ? 
Peter's original account at the basis of the narrative 
evidently ran somewhat thus: “We came direct from the 
synagogue to our house, and James and John accompanied 
us; and my mother-in-law lay sick of a fever, and: we 
spoke with Him at once concerning her.” ‘Mark transfers 
the narrative from Peter’s lips into the language of another 
not very skilfully, but faithfully. Peter must have said 
‘our house,” not “my house,” because it was the dwelling 
of his brother and mother-in-law, and possibly belonged 
to the latter originally ; for Peter's own home was) in 
jethsaida, not Capernaum. Mark ‘translates ἡμῶν by 
Σίμωνος καὶ ᾿Ανδρέου, and then returns to Peter's words, 
and says that James and John accompanied the others, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 497 


with the resulting awkwardness that it remains unclear 
who else came into the house, in particular, whether James 
and John were accompanied by Andrew and Peter. The 
use of the expression Σίμων καὶ οἱ pet αὐτοῦ, 1. 36, to 
designate the disciples, is unparalleled in the other Gospel 
accounts, and represents a “we” of Peters discourses, 
Just as the expression used in iii. 13 (n. 7) shows that 
the choosing of the Twelve is viewed and narrated from 
the standpoint of one of their number, so the exceedingly 
awkward character of the narrative, ii. 16, is very much 
easier to understand, if we suppose that it is based upon 
some such words of Peter as follows : “ He chose us twelve, 
and gave me the name Peter” (cf. Klostermann, 72). 
Otherwise it cannot be said that Peter is noticeably pro- 
minent. He is one of the first four to be called to assist 
Jesus in His work (i. 16-20, 29, xii. 3), and one of the 
three with whom He was most intimate (v. 37, 1x. 2, xiv. 
33). The giving to him of the name Peter (Cephas) is dis- 
missed with a word (111. 16, cf. per contra, Matt. xvi. 18 ; 
John i. 42). His great confession, vill. 29, is reproduced 
in the shortest possible form (cf. per contra, Matt. xvi. 
16-19; John vi. 68 £. ; also Luke ix. 20). At the beginning 
of the resurrection history, xvi. 7, he is no more prominent 
than in Luke xxiv. 34; John xx. 2-9. His name does 
not appear in vu. 17, though he is expressly mentioned 
in Matt. xv. 15; nor is it to be found in xiv. 47 (cf. Matt. 
xxvi. 51; Luke xxii. 50), in case Peter is here specifically 
meant (John xviii. 10). The narrative concerning him, 
which we have in Matt. xiv. 28-31, is wanting in Mark 
vi. 50. In the account of his denial, however, the close 
delineation of details reappears ; he warms himself by the 
fire, the reflexion of which enables the maid who sees him 
standing there, and who looks upon him scrutinisingly, to 
recognise his features. His asseveration that he does not 
know Jesus, is reproduced with greater fulness than in the 


other Gospels. Corresponding to the more pointed way in 
VOL. 11. 32 


498 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which Jesus’ warning prophecy is given, the narrative 
indicates that the cock crowed twice (xiv. 29-31, 54, 
66, 72). [Ὁ would not have been natural for Peter, in a 
narrative concerning Jesus, to represent himself as the 
chief of the apostles, as the rock upon which Jesus meant 
to build His Church, as the chief steward in this: house, and 
as the leader who was to strengthen and encourage the 
company of the brethren (Matt. x. 2, xvi. 16-19; Luke 
xxil. 32; John 1. 42, vi. 68£., xxi. 15-22). On the other 
hand, he could not narrate the Passion history without 
giving strong expression to the inglorious part which he 
had taken in the same, and which was so indelibly stamped 
upon his memory. The lament of Jesus over the human 
weakness of His most faithful disciples in the hour of 
temptation has in Mark xiv. 37 a pointed reference to 
Peter which does not appear at all in Luke xxi. 46, and 
which is much less direct in Matt. xxvi. 40. Only in 
Mark’s account does Jesus call Peter by name, and blame 
him alone because he could not watch for a single hour 
(n. 9). 

According to the opinion of the disciple John, Mark 
did not write a narrative which reproduced the order of 
events (above, p. 439). This agrees with the fact that 
frequently in Mark a new narrative is introduced by καί, 
even in cases where the preceding context has no chrono- 
logical connection. In i. 16, 40, im. 13, the descriptions 
which precede are general ; in iii. 20 we find ourselves in 
Capernaum again without statement to this effect, though 
just before we were upon the mountain (111, 13), where it 
is entirely possible that other things besides the choosing 
of the disciples took place. In other passages the events 
could not have taken place in the succession indicated, 
e.g. in i. 21, notwithstanding the εὐθύς after the second 
, since what is narratea ἴῃ 1. 16-20 could not have 
taken place on a Sabbath. In ıv. 26 the hearers are no 
longer confined to the disciples as in »v. 11, 21, 24, but the 


/ 
καὶ 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND AUTS 499 


words are addressed to the multitude again as in iv. 1-9 
(ef. iv. 33 f.); so that the account belongs after iv. 10. In 
the first half of the book especially, where the influence of 
the governing idea is strongest (above, p. 462 f.), the content 
of the separate narratives is throughout the connecting 
bond among them, which does not prevent occasionally 
the clear indication of the chronological order ‘of events 
(12°29, 32, 35, or iv. 35, v..1,.21, or xu 12, 20, and xiv. 12+ 
xvi. 8). When Papias reminds us, in his explanation of the 
opinion of his teacher John concerning Mark’s Gospel, that 
Peter was under the necessity of arranging his accounts of 
Jesus sayings, upon which accounts Mark drew in many 
passages of his book, in accordance with the practical 
purpose of his discourses and the necessities of his hearers, 
he implies that these sayings were reproduced with a 
certain freedom. Their use for edification and the effort 
after clearness render impossible a scrupulously exact 
reproduction of Jesus’ words spoken years before under 
entirely different conditions. This is the case in Mark’s 
Gospel. Comparison of Mark vii. 35, x. 29 with Matt. 
xvi. 25, xix. 29, Luke ix. 24, xviii. 29, shows that the καὶ 
ἕνεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, which occurs in both passages, is only 
an addition due to an intention to make what Jesus had 
said in language appropriate to that situation (ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ) 
applicable to every Christian after Jesus’ departure from 
this world. Likewise the mention of Jesus’ words with 
Jesus Himself in viii. 38 is without support in the nearest 
parallels, Matt. x. 33f.; Luke xi 9. Further, the sharp 
distinction between the rewards which one has: in. this 
world and in the world to come,—which we notice in 
x. 30 ἢ when compared with Matt. xix. 29,—suggests the 
endeavouring of the preacher to guard himself against 
possible misunderstanding. The comparison of Mark ix. 1 
with Matt. xvi. 28, Luke ix. 27, makes it clear that the 
saying of Jesus about His return in the lifetime of some 
of His contemporaries (cf. Matt. xxiv. 30; Mark xii. 30; 


500 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Luke xxi. 32), —a saying which was regarded as an un- 
solved problem in the apostolic age (John xxi. 22 f.),—is 
reproduced with puzzling abruptness in Matthew, replaced 
in Luke by a more general idea, but in Mark, on the other 
hand, is given a definite didactic turn which modifies this 
more general idea. Standing as it does in immediate 
connection with a direct prophecy of the second coming of 
Jesus as the judge of the world (viii. 38), the expression 
about the coming of the kingdom of God with power 
cannot have exactly the same meaning, but points to 
events which, while proving the power of the kingdom 
of God in the world for the believers who experience 
them, are only a pledge of the fulfilment of the promise 
of His personal return. If τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἑστη- 
κότα ὅπου ov δεῖ is the correct reading in Mark xii. 14, 
then, in spite of grammar, the verse contains a definite 
interpretation of a saying which in its original indefinite 
form is found in Matt. xxiv. 15, and which was developed 
in the apostolic age, principally in view of events which 
took place in the reign of the emperor Caligula (vol. 1. 
pp. 228, 235 ff.). Mark ii. 27 gives a suitable reason for 
the saying of Jesus which follows, a saying preserved 
also in Matt. xii. 8; Luke vi. 5. The same general 
thought we find in John vii. 22, 23; but as the verse 
stands in Mark is it not the interpretation of a preacher in 
his narrative? The distinction of the literal from the 
spiritual temple in xiv. 58 (cf. per contra, Matt. xxvi. 61 ; 
John ii. 19; Acts vi. 14) sounds exactly as if the inter- 
pretation of the preacher’s narrative had been taken 
over into the account. So far as we know, the ex- 
pression ὅτε Χριστοῦ ἐστέ (ix. 41), added as an explana- 
tion of ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί pov (cf. Matt. x. 42), is not the 
language of Jesus but of His Church (Rom. viii. 9; 1 Cor. 
iii. 28; 2 Cor. x. 7). Of itself it is possible that Mark 
arbitrarily introduced into the tradition which he received 
all these additions, which in the usage of the Christian 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS τοὶ 


Church and in the interpretations of the Church teachers 
were ascribed to Jesus Himself. But this is against the 
assumption of serupulous exactness and conscientiousness 
in reproducing Peter's discourses, for which Mark is 
praised by his contemporaries, and of which we have 
gained an impression from numerous passages of his work. 
The assumption is also rendered improbable by the fact 
that other authors, like John and Matthew, who handle their 
material with perceptibly greater freedom than Mark, who 
was a disciple of one of the apostles, kept such historical 
inaccuracies out of the sayings of Jesus. Such free repro- 
duction of Jesus’ words is to be ascribed, first of all, to the 
missionary preacher and Church teacher, Peter, who was 
conscious of possessing faithful recollections, and who did 
not make a sharp distinction between the commands of 
Jesus and their proclamation in the apostolic teaching 
(2 Pet. iii. 2; cf. Matt. xxvii. 20). When John became 
acquainted with Mark’s Gospel, it seemed to him as if 
Peter were again alive, and as if he were hearing, as in 
earlier years, his story about the words and deeds of Jesus ; 
and so he called the evangelist Mark, Peter’s interpreter. 
The testimony of the disciple John, as correctly inter- 
preted by Papias and the tradition generally, when rightly 
understood and kept free from later exaggerations, does 
not exclude the possibility of Mark’s having employed 
other sources and helps besides his recollection of Peter's 
narratives. He himself indicates here and there that what 
he gives is selected from a fuller narrative, cf. iv. 2, 33 £., 
xi. 1, 38. He seems to be excerpting from a longer dis- 
course when, contrary to his habit, he reproduces the 
instructions to the disciples in vi. 8 f., in indirect discourse, 
and then in vi. 10f. gives a single saying in direet form, 
as if beginning the narrative again. The brief account 
of the temptation, some of the details of which are un- 
intelligible (i. 13), is not here given in a form in which 
accounts of such events are wont to pass from mouth 


502 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to mouth, but is presented in a way that impresses one 
as being an excerpt taken from a written exemplar. 
Positive judgment on this point must be reserved, how- 
ever, until after other accounts employing related material 
have been investigated. 


1. (P. 488.) With regard to Hebrew and Aramaic words in the N.T., see 
vol. i. 15-22, Mark uses such words (1) in sections which are peculiar to 
him : Boavnpyes, 111]. 17; εφφαθα, vil. 34 ; (2) in sections to which Matt. and 
Luke, or one of the two, offer parallels, corresponding more or less closely, 
but expressed in a purely Greek form : Kavavaios, iii. 18 (so also Matt. x. 4, 
but ζηλωτής, Luke vi. 15); ταλιθα coup, v. 41; kopßav, vii. 11 (δῶρον, Matt. xv. 5, 
but the Aramaic word in xxvii. 6) ; Βαρτιμαιος along with vids Τιμαίου, x. 46 ; 
ραββουνι, x. 51 (κύριε, Matt. xx. 33; Luke xviii. 41) ; ραββι, ix. 5 (κύριε, Matt. 
xvii.4.; erıorara, Luke ix. 33), xi, 21 (not in Matt. xxi. 20); once in xiv. 45, 
where Matt. xxvi. 49 also has it ; twice in Matt. xxiii. 8, xxvi. 25, without 
parallels in Mark ; not at all in Luke, but eight times in John ; aßßa, xiv. 36; 
αμην, iii, 28, viii. 12 (not in Matt. xii. 31, 39, xvi. 4), xii. 43 (ἀληθῶς, Luke 
xxi. 3), xiv. 25 (not in Matt. xxvi. 29; Luke xxii. 18) ; also (3) in sections 
where the parallels also give the Hebrew or Aramaic expression: ἀμὴν (see 
under No. 2); yeevva, ix. 43-47 ; BeeAleßovA, iii. 22; oaravas, iii. 23, 26, 
Vili. 33; @oavva, xi. 9, 10 (so Matt. xxi. 9, John xii. 13, but not Luke xix. 38); 
Γεθσημανει, xiv, 32 (Matt. xxvi.36 ; avoided by Luke xxii. 39; John xviii. 1); 
ToAyoda, xv. 22 (Matt. xxvii. 33, John xix. 17; only the translation Luke 
xxiii. 33); eAwi, ete., xv. 34 (Matt. xxvii. 46, vol. i. 15; without parallels in 
Luke or John). The passages in which Matthew gives Hebrew or Aramaic 
words or names which are lacking in Mark have no parallels at all in the 
latter Gospel (Matt. v. 22, xvi. 17). Xavavaia is hardly to be included. here 
(Matt. xv. 22, cf. Mark vii. 26). 

2. (P. 488.) Hitzig, Ueber Johannes Marcus und seine Schriften, oder 
welcher Johannes hat die Offenbarung verfasst? 1843, S. 29-37, 65 1f., has called 
attention to the Hebraising style of Mark with special emphasis. Elsewhere 
in the N.T. a double δύο is unheard of; likewise συμπόσια and πρασιαί 
doubled in a distributive sense, vi. 7, 39, 40 (cf. the writer’s Hert des Hermas, 
490) ; also the oath formula with εἰ, viii. 12; elsewhere only in O.T. quota- 
tions, as Heb. iii. 11, iv. 3, though perhaps also 1 Cor. xv. 32. Pleonastic use 
of αὐτοῦ, αὐτῆς «A. with the relative i. 7, vii. 25. The use of καί to carry on 
the narrative, instead of syntactical articulation, is not so noticeable in Mark 
as, say, in 1. Mace., but decidedly more frequent than in the other Gospels 
and Acts; cf. for example, Mark iii. 13-19. In. Bruder’s Konkordanz, under 
“at in oratione historica,” p. 456 ff., Matt. occupies 4 columns, Like ΘῈ, 
John 14, Acts 23, while the short Gospel of Mark oequpies 64. Even where 
the relation is adversative he is satisfied with καί, vi. 19, xii. 12; ἀλλά he 
hardly uses except after negative clauses. 

3. (Ρ.. 480.) With the simple Πιλάτῳ, xv. 1, ef. Matt. xxvii. 2, Tlovrio 
Πιλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι. The equally simple form in Luke xxiii. 1 is prepared for‘ 
in ili. 1; ef. xiii. 1. John, writing considerably later, everywhere assumes 
acquaintance with the main facts, and perhaps his readers already knew 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 503 


Pilate (xviii. 29) from a baptismal confession (1 Tim. vi. 13, above, p. 131, 
n. 20; ef. the writer's work, Das Apost. Symbolum, 39-44, 68 f.). On the 
other hand, a title is given to Herod Antipas when he is first introduced, 
vi. 14, to be sure not the exact title of tetrarch (Luke iti. 1, 19, ix. 7; 
Matt. xiv. 1; Acts xiii, 1), but that of king. If one reflects, however, that 
Matthew, in spite of his knowledge of the official title (xiv. 1), calls him 
king in the narrative (xiv. 9= Mark vi. 22; cf. ver. 23, βασιλεία ; John iv. 
46, βασιλικός), and that Josephus also speaks occasionally of Archelaus, 
who had likewise received and borne ne royal title, although he hoped 
to receive one from Rome, as king, and of his rule as βασιλεύειν 
(ef. Matt. ii. 22, and § 56, n. 6), it is evident that one has to do with a 
usage current among the Palestinians, who, in the interval between the 
death of Herod the Great (Matt. ii. 1; Luke i. 5) and the designation of 
Herod Agrippa 1. as king (Acts xii. 1), did not cease to speak of “ king, 
kingdom, royal officers,” ete. So too Mark, although he knew that this 
Herod had inherited only a part of the dominion of his father (vi. 21, 
Γαλιλαίας), and of course, also, that he had not received his full title. On 
the other hand, it is probable that in Mark vi. 17 there is real ignorance of 
the complicated family relationships of the Herods; see § 56, n. 6. Only 
Mark xi. 13, and not Matt. (xxi. 19), who wrote for Palestinians, observes 
that there are no fresh figs at the Passover time. In Rome they did not 
know when figs ripened in Palestine. 

4. (Ρ. 489.) On the Latin see vol. 1. pp. 41 f. 64 ff; kevrupiov, Mark 
xv. 39, 44, 45; im the parallel passages and everywhere else in the N.T. 
only ἑκατόνταρχος or -xns (Matt. 4 times, Luke 3 times, Acts 14 times, but 
Gospel of Peter xevtupiov 4 times, so also the Syrian translators, where 
the original has the Greek word, e.g. Se. Matt. viii. 5-13, Luke xxiii. 47; and 
Ss. Matt. xxvii. 54); σπεκουλάτωρ, vi. 27, not elsewhere in the N.T., but in 
the Targum and Midrash ; similarly λεγιών, v. 9, 15 (also Luke viii. 30 ; Matt. 
xxvi. 53, vol. i. 66); δηνάριον, vi. 37, xii. 15, xiv. 5 (also Matt. 6 times, 
Luke 3 times, John twice, Rev. twice); ξέστης, vii. 4, 8, which is not, as 
Epiphanius, de Mens. 55 (ed. Lagarde, 199 f.), thought, a Greek word adopted 
by the Romans, but is deformed from the Latin sextarius, and was also current 
among the Jews as xvop and xvpw3; cf. Krauss, Lehnworter, ii. 293, 535, only 
Mark in the N.T.; also φραγελλοῦν, xv. 15=flagellare (also Matt. xxvii. 26, 
ef. John 11. 15); κῆνσος, xii. 14 (also Matt. xxii. 17, 19; vol. i. p. 66); and 
κοδράντης, xii. 42 (Matt. v. 26); πραιτώριον, xv. 16 (Matt. xxvii. 27; John 
xviii. 28, 33, xix. 9; Acts xxiii. 35; Phil. i. 13). ‘On the other hand, 
xpaßßaros (Mark 5 times, John 5 times, Acts 5 times) is not the Latin 
grabatus, but vice versa a Macedonian word (Lobeck, ad Phryn. 62) used 
in the common Greek speech, but despised by the Attieists, which was 
adopted by the Latins as well as by the Jews, Krauss, ii. 570. The parallel 
passages themselves show that, as has been said above, p. 489, the occurrence 
of these Latin-words cannot of itself prove that Mark was written in a Latin- 
speaking region. They had all (even κεντυρίων, Krauss, ii. 529) gone over into 
the current speech of Palestine. It might also be a mere matter of taste that 
Luke preferred the Greek φόρος to the Latin census in xx. 22, and δύο λεπτά 
to quadrans in xxi, 2. The decisive point is that Mark explains Greek by 
Latin : xii, 42, λεπτὰ δύο, 6 ἐστιν κοδράντης ; and xv. 16, ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς, 6 ἐστιν 


504 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


πραιτώριον. Asa counterpart to the former, Plutarch (Vita Cic. xxix.) says to 
his Greek readers, of the Romans, τὸ λεπτότατον (ef. τὸ λεπτόν) τοῦ χαλκοῦ 
νομίσματος κουαδράντην ἐκάλουν (al. καλοῦσιν, see Blass, ET, x. 186). If 
ἐκάλουν is the correct reading, the explanation of the imperfect is not, as Blass 
supposes, that the Quadrans was not minted after Trajan’s time (which, more- 
over, is only Mommsen’s conjecture), for Plutarch wrote under Trajan, and 
even twenty or thirty years after the introduction of the mark and pfennig 
coinage a German historian would make himself ridiculous by using the 
imperfect to introduce a bit of archeological instruction regarding the meaning 
of thaler and groschen, gulden and kreuzer. It is only because Plutarch’s 
narrative deals with past time that he gives his information in the imperfect 
(see vol. iii, § 69, n. 6). The discussions between Blass and Ramsay (ET, x. 
232, 287, 336) have only made it evident that it could not possibly occur to 
one who was writing for Greeks to explain the common expression δύο λεπτά 
by the word koöpavrns—a word to them at least much less familiar ; ef. 
Ramsay, ET, x. 232. This is just the situation in Mark xv. 16. To support 
his assertion—which has no support whatever in the tradition—that Mark is a 
translation of an Aramaic book, Blass (loc. cit.) says that 6 ἐστιν πραιτώριον is 
a mistranslation of αὐλή, which there denotes not palace, but courtyard. The 
word has the latter meaning only in xiv. 66 (“below in the court,” in 
distinction from the transaction in the hall “above,” the scene of the preceding 
narrative), but not in xiv. 54 (Matt. xxvi. 58). The Sanhedrin does not 
assemble in the “courtyard of the high priest” (Matt. xxvi. 3), which would 
be an extraordinary expression in any ease, but in the residence of the high 
priest, consisting of various buildings, courtyards, and so forth. In contrast 
with Pilate’s dealings with the Sanhedrin and people, which took place in 
the street before his residence (Mark xv. 1-15, ef. John xviii. 28f.), it is said 
in xv. 16 that the soldiers led Jesus into the interior of the palace, without 
specifying whether the following scene took place in an enclosed building 
or in the courtyard of the palace. The use of ἡ αὐλή to denote the ruler’s 
abode for the time being was common with all Greek writers (ef. Forsch. iv. 
276 ; also, for example, Epist. Aristee, ed. Wendland, p. 48. 12, 21, 80. 15, 
but p. 50. 9, ἡ ἄκρα, royal residence. On πραιτώριον see vol. i. 551 f. It is 
difficult to decide whether the peculiar expressions, often altered by copyists, 
συμβούλιον διδόναι, iii. 6 (BL, ete.; Klostermann, 62 f.=edere) ; φαίνεται, 
xiv. 64 (for doxei=the ambiguous videtur ?) ; ῥαπίσμασιν αὐτὸν ἔλαβον, xiv. 65 
(verberibus ewm acceperunt) ; ἐπιβαλών, xiv. 72; ποιῆσαι τὸ ἱκανόν, xv. 15 
(satisfacere), are to be considered Latinisms, and what value they have in 
determining the historical and local cireumstances of Mark’s Gospel. 

5. (P. 489.) Concerning Rufus (Rom. xvi. 13) see vol. i. 392. There is 
no tradition about him and his brother Alexander, independent of the N.T. 
Alexander and Rufus are called companions of Andrew and Peter in the 
Acts of Andrew and Peter (Acta Apoer., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part 2, 117. 
5, 118, 9, 119. 13; cf. Lipsius, Apokr. A. @. i. 553, 617, 621, ii. part 2. ΤΊ, 
79, 83 ; Papadop. Kerameus, Cat. Bibl. Hieros. ii. 497, No. 8). Other fables 
in Forbes Robinson, Copt. Apoer. Gospels, p. 50. Epiph. Her, Ixxviii. 13, 
evidently confuses the nameless mother of Rufus (Rom. xvi. 13) with the 
Mary of Rom, xvi. 6 (vol. i. 430), where he probably read ἡμᾶς, and identified 
these with the women under the cross (John xix. 25). The old tradition. 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS τος 


used by Epiphanius in his confused way, probably referred to that “ other 
Mary,” the mother of James “the less” and a Joseph (Matt. xxvii. 56, 
xxviii. 1; Mark xv. 40, 47, xvi. 1). The interest in this Mary and her sons, 
which Mark, in contrast to Matthew, mentions and presupposes on the part 
of his readers, and other traces of a (Joseph) Barsabbas Justus (Acts i. 23; 
Papias in Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 9) in the early Roman Church (Acta Apocr., ed. 
Lipsius, i. 108. 13, 116. 12) in fact makes probable the identity of the Mary 
of Rom. xvi. 6 with the “other Mary” of Matthew (ef. Forsch. vi. 348-350). 
If this is so, we would have a companion-piece to “Simon of Cyrene, the 
father of Alexander and Rufus” (Mark xv. 21). This narrative presup- 
poses that this Simon was known to the Jews as one who esteemed Jesus, 
and was therefore pointed out to the soldier who had charge of the execution 
(ZKom. Matt. 703). He was therefore not a festival pilgrim from abroad, 
but a Jew of Cyrene, dwelling in or near Jerusalem. The ἀγρός from which 
he was coming into Jerusalem (Mark xv. 21) must have been his country- 
place outside of the city, ef. Lightfoot’s note to Mart. Polyc. chap. v. In any 
case he cannot be identified with the Simon Niger, Acts xiii. 1 (a conjecture 
made by Spitta, Die Apostlegesch. S. 134, and not yet abandoned (Untersuch. 
über den Rm. S. 73)) ; for, since the Lucius who is named with him is referred 
to as “of Cyrene,” this designation is indirectly denied concerning Simon 
Niger. 

5a. (P. 490.) Acts (iii. 1-iv. 31, viii. 14) gives evidence of the prominence 
of John, for it mentions James only in connection with his own execution, 
and, on the other hand, joins John with Peter; cf. also Luke xxii. 8; John 
xill. 23f., xx. 3 ff, xxi. 20-22. Paul also in Gal. i. 18 f. does not name along 
with Peter, James the son of Zebedee, who was then living, but just as in 
Gal. ii. 9 in relation to a later incident, he mentions another James in con- 
nection with Peter and John. 

6. (P. 491.) For the opinions of the ancients with regard to the fleeing 
youth see p. 446f. above. Among modern writers the combination presented 
above was first brought forward as a conjecture by Olshausen, Komm. zwm 
NT?®, ii. 474, and then more carefully elaborated by Klostermann, 281 f., 337 f. 
The reading eis τις νεανίσκος (AE, ete., against NBCDL Ss 51, the Egyptian 
and Latin versions, which have καὶ νεανίσκος [or νεανίσκος δέ] τις) is evidently 
conformed to ver. 47 with the mistaken idea that another of the apostles’ 
circle is referred to here. The addition οἱ νεανίσκοι after αὐτόν, which has 
still less support, presupposes that the fleeing youth was not one of the 
disciples, but one of the δῆμος ; ef. Anonymus in Catena in Mare., ed. 
Possimus, 327. 

7. (P. 493.) To be sure, ἔρχεσθαι does not always mean to come, but 
sometimes also to go, Matt. xvi. 5; Mark xi. 13a (in distinction from 136), 
John vi. 17, but also Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1 (ef. ZKom. Matt, 579, n. 
48), a signification which appears particularly in ἀπέρχεσθαι, διέρχεσθαι, and 
sometimes also in ἐξέρχεσθαι, e.g. John iv. 30 (“they went out of the city and 
came to Him”). But it would be hard to point out an ἔρχεσθαι entirely 
undefined which describes the movement from the standpoint, not of the 
goal, but of the starting-point. After Mark xiv. 16, if the standpoint of the 
narrative thus far was to be preserved, Jesus’ going to the house could be 
expressed only by ἀπῆλθεν, ἐπορεύθη, or similar terms It is instructive to 


506 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


compare iii. 13, where it is not said, “Jesus called them and they. came* 
(ef. Luke vii. 8, for example), but “they went to Him,” so that one sees that 
the story is not told from the standpoint of the one who called and awaited 
the result of his call, but from the standpoint of the diseiples who were 
summoned (cf. Klostermann, 70). 

8. (P. 496.) The alterations of i. 29 (B ἐξελθὼν ἦλθεν, D beeq S! praeti- 
eally the same) are not improvements, for by them the presence of Peter and 
Andrew is actually excluded. Ss is peculiar: “And he went out of the 
synagogue and came into the house of Simon Cephas—Andrew and James 
and John were with him—and the mother-in-law,” ete. 

9. (P. 498.) Eusebius, Demonstr. 111: 5. 89-95, and more explicitly 
Theoph. (Syriac trans.) v. 40, on the supposition that Peter spoke through 
Mark, found the omission of the contents of Matt. xvi. 17-19 and Mark’s 
more detailed account of Peter’s denial an indication of the apostle’s freedom 
from all self-sufficiency. 


§ 54. THE TRADITION REGARDING MATTHEW 
AND HIS GOSPEL. 


The Matthew who occupies the seventh or the eighth 
place (n. 1) in all the lists of the apostles in the N.T. is 
the only person who has ever been regarded as the writer 
of the Gospel which bears this name. In only one passage 
is he called a tax-gatherer (Matt. x. 3), and here with the 
narrative of ix. 9-13 in view. We find exactly the same 
account with all its details in Mark ii 13-17; Luke v. 
27-32 with reference to a tax-gatherer Levi. Since there 
can be no doubt that the same incident is related in all 
three cases, this Levi. must be identified with the apostle 
Matthew. ‘This takes for granted, of course, that Matthew 
is trustworthy, which, however, we have no reason to 
question in this instance, because there is no conceivable 
reason why a writer should identify the apostle Matthew, 
in whom later he shows no particular interest, inasmuch as 
he is not mentioned again anywhere in his book, with a 
man of another name, the account of whose call in the 
other two reports which have come down to. us is in no 
way connected with the apostles. The difference is to be 
accounted for as follows :—In the account. of his calling, 
Mark and Tnke employ the name by which he was 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 507 


commonly known at the time; while in Matthew the 
name which, according to the four lists of the apostles, 
was regularly used to designate him as an apostle’ and 
member of the Christian community, is employed also in 
this passage of the history. Whether Jesus gave him a 
new name as He did other of His disciples, and if so, 
why the particular name Matthai (“Gift of Yahweh ”) 
was chosen, we do not know (n. 1). In view of the way 
in which the tax-gatherers were hated by the Jews, a 
person who had given up this calling must have been 
doubly glad to be known by another name. His father, 
Alpheeus (Mark ii. 14), can hardly be identical with the 
Alpheeus whose son James was. also one of the Twelve; 
since, if Matthew and this James were brothers, it would 
be so indicated in the lists, as are the brothers Peter- 
Andrew and the sons of Zebedee, particularly in Matt. x. 3, 
Acts i. 13, where they are mentioned together. 

As a tax-gatherer in Capernaum, in the territory of 
Herod Antipas, Matthew was not a Roman official, but 
stood either directly in the service of the reigning prince 
(ef. John iv. 46; Luke vii. 3), or under the person who 
had the taxes of the city or a larger district in tenure. 
In order to fill this office he must have had considerable 
readiness with the pen, and, in addition to the Aramaic 
dialect of the land, must without question have been able 
to use Greek. Judging from the fact that He interrupted 
him in the midstiof his work and also from the result of 
the call; Jesus must have intended that Matthew, like the 
fishermen earlier, should give up his former vocation and 
attach himself to Him as a constant companion and future 
worker. Such a demand and Matthew's immediate com- 
pliance presuppose that he had been acquainted with Jesus 
for a long time, had been affected by His preaching, and 
felt the utmost confidence in Him. Consequently, for a 
considerable time he had been one of those publicans and 
sinners who more than others in Galilee felt drawn to 


508 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Jesus (Matt. xi, 19; Luke vil. 34, xv. 1). A large 
number of persons belonging to the same class as himself, 
and of like feeling, he invited to a feast in his house, in 
order to celebrate along with them and with Jesus the 
deeisive change which had taken place in his life (n. 2). 
Exactly when Matthew became a constant companion of 
Jesus cannot be determined, at least not here in passing: 
So much, however, may be said, namely, that according 
to the accounts in the N.T. he had not been a companion 
and disciple of John prior to his association with Jesus, 
as was the case with the first six of the apostolic group ; 
he had no part in the series of events which, according 
to John i. 19-iv. 54 (or v. 35), preceded the arrest of the 
Baptist ; and after this event and the beginning of Jesus’ 
extensive prophetic work in Galilee considerable time 
elapsed before the publican became a regular disciple. 
Others had been for some time constant companions of 
Jesus. Peter, James, and John are mentioned as already 
the most trusted of the disciples on the day in which 
Matthew received his call (Mark v. 37; for the order of 
events cf. Matt. ix. 11, 14, 18). The battle with the 
Pharisees was already in full progress. The choosing of 
the apostles and the Sermon on the Mount were almost at 
hand. That is all that the N.T. relates concerning the 
apostle Matthew. The meagreness of the record about 
him, with the corresponding implication that he was 
called late, and was one of the less important of the 
apostles, gives the tradition that he was the author of the 
first Gospel particular weight. If the name had been 
chosen arbitrarily, an Andrew or James the son of Zebedee, 
a Philip or a Thomas, would have been preferred to 
Matthew. ‘The reports which we have outside the N.T. 
concerning Matthew are so late, so fantastic, and in part 
so confused on account of the interchange between the 
names Matthew and Matthias, that they possess no 
historical value (n. 3). This also shows that the name 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 3509 


Matthew was not one that would be naturally chosen for 
a Gospel in eireulation in the Church, the origin of which 
Gospel was unknown, or whose real origin one would wish 
to conceal. That the author himself did not make it a 
point to be known as the apostle Matthew, or to pass for 
the same, is perfectly clear. 

For the oldest and most important report concerning 
Matthew’s literary activity we are indebted to Papias, just 
as we have to thank him for the oldest report regarding 
Mark as a writer of gospel history. What Eusebius 
preserves is not an opinion of the presbyter John, but 
what Papias says himself (n. 4). Papias’ words read : 
‘Matthew compiled the sayings, to be sure, in the Hebrew 
language, but everyone translated the same as best he 
could.” The Greek expressions used by Papias show even 
more clearly than this English translation that the whole 
emphasis rests upon the contrast between the language in 
which Matthew wrote and the translation which this 
rendered necessary, but which not everyone who attempted 
it could make successfully. The emphasis does not, as 
has been so often assumed since Schleiermacher (above, 
p. 411), rest upon the result of Matthew’s literary work. 
He does not begin by saying that among others the 
apostle Matthew also had written a book, but he speaks 
in exactly the same manner as does the Presbyter con- 
cerning Mark (above, p. 439 ff.), under the presupposition 
that the readers are aware that Matthew had written, and 
that they are familiar with his work. He states what 
possibly is not known to them all, namely, that Matthew 
did not write in the language of Papias and his readers, 
but in Hebrew, a language with which they were not 
familiar. For this reason Papias could use the extremely 
abbreviated expression τὰ λόγια to designate the subject 
of Matthew’s work. There can be no acceptance of the 
view that ra λόγια was the title of a work known at the 
time. A Hebrew book could not well have had a Greek 


510 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


title; but, apart from this, a title translated by the Greek 
τὰ λόγια, or rather, if it were a title, by λόγια without 
the article, would have been an incomprehensible puzzle. 
‘Oracles,’ or, according to the predominating usage, 
‘Divine Oracles,’ would have been an utterly senseless 
title for a book which certainly was not a collection of all 
the words of God’s revelation or of single oracles, but 
which dealt with Jesus. Moreover, if there was a work 
with this title which at the time of Papias and: in his 
vicinity was assigned without contradiction to the apostle 
Matthew, it would not have been so easy for every trace 
of it to disappear from the remaining literature. Papias 
does not say that the author of the known Logia was the 
apostle Matthew, but he says that the distinguished 
apostle Matthew, whom he had already mentioned in ‘his 
preface as a disciple of Jesus, wrote in Hebrew. | Nor does 
any author of the ancient Church, not even those who are 
quite at home in the extra-canonical Gospels and kindred 
literature, as Irenzeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and 
Jerome, ever say anything of a book of this title, much 
less of such a book from Matthew’s hand. This universal 
silence is conclusive evidence that these persons had never 
read or heard anything of such a work. Consequently it is 
also very improbable that such a work existed in Papias’ 
time. On the other hand, the unemphatic position of the 
τὰ λόγια and the lack of all explanatory definition of the 
words exclude the possibility of Papias having meant that 
Matthew, in distinction from other authors who narrated 
also the deeds of Jesus, limited his account to the words, 
The only possibility left is to suppose that Papias took it 
for granted that the content of Matthew's writing was 
known, and used an abbreviation of the same, which in 
its connection could not be misunderstood. According to 
the title, Papias’ entire work was devoted to the inter- 
pretation, of the λόγια κυριακά, Te had always been a 
searcher after “The commands that are given from the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 511 


Lord to our faith, and that come from the truth itself,” 
as he says in the preface. That is, he was a searcher 
after the words of Jesus, not His deeds. As to the books, 
moreover, which dealt with Jesus, those parts which 
contained the words interested him by far the most. 
This is indicated by his comment upon John’s judgment 
concerning Mark... John mentions as the subjects which 
Mark had handled, without giving the exact chronological 
order, the’ ‘‘ words or deeds of Christ”; Papias speaks 
only of the ‘ words of the, Lord,” which were without 
ordered connection in the discourses of Peter, upon which 
Mark drew. From this we may assume that here also, 
where he uses the words τὰ λόγια to designate the subject 
of Matthew's work, he mentions only that part of the book 
to which his own special interest was directed, without 
thereby implying that Matthew did not record also deeds 
of Jesus and the historical occasions of all the words which 
he preserved. 

The idea of a collection of sayings by Matthew, or even 
of a work bearing the remarkable title Nya, has there- 
fore no support from the words of Papias. It lacks also 
internal probability ; by far the greater number of Jesus’ 
words which have been preserved to us were spoken in 
conversation with His disciples and in discussion with His 
opponents. According to the tradition, upon which we 
are in any case dependent, even the longer discourses had 
definite occasion in outward events, without knowledge 
of which they cannot be understood, and which must 
have been communicated for their intelligent transmission. 
They are pictures which could never have existed without 
frames, in literature any more than in fact (n. 4). When, 
now, Papias sets in contrast to the fact that Matthew com- 
piled the Logia in Hebrew, the other fact that for this 
reason a ἑρμηνεύειν was necessary, which everyone exercised 
according to his ability, it is self-evident (1) that épunvevew 
here can mean only translating; and (2) that this was a 


512 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


translation into the Greek language, which did not need to 
be mentioned expressly, because this was the language of 
Papias and his readers. Those who knew Hebrew required 
no translation of a Hebrew document, and the Phrygian 
bishop knew nothing of hearers or readers unfamiliar with 
both Hebrew and Greek. (3) The fact deserves more atten- 
tion than has been paid to it heretofore, that Papias does 
not speak of the translation of Matthew’s writing, but of 
the words of Jesus which it contained. The idea that the 
words ἡρμήνευσε δ᾽ αὐτὰ (se. τὰ λόγια) ἕκαστος mean that ἃ 
number of written translations or revisions of Matthew’s 
Gospel were made, can be arrived at only under the pre- 
supposition already shown to be untenable, that τὰ λόγια 
was the title of a book. Even if this presupposition were 
as correct as it is palpably false, the construction would be 
out of harmony with the words ; the fact to which they are 
supposed to attest Papias would have to express in some 
such way as this: πολλοὶ δὲ τὴν τοῦ Ματθαίου συγγραφὴν 
ἡρμήνευσαν OT ἑρμηνεύειν ἐπεχείρησαν. Then we would have 
the impossible puzzle to solve, how so many written trans- 
lations, say five or six, of which Papias still had know- 
ledge in 125, so suddenly disappeared from the life and 
recollection of the Church, and were replaced by the sixth 
or seventh translation, which is the only one preserved in 
all the Greek MSS., and the only one which was made the 
basis of all the ancient versions. We are freed from all 
these historical, linguistic, or logical impossibilities as soon 
as we realise that Papias is talking about oral translation, 
and, indeed, oral translation such as was made in assem- 
blies of Greek-speaking Churches or congregations whose 
language was mixed. We cannot recall the fact too often 
that the oral translation in the religious assembly of books 
written in a foreign language played an important röle not 
only among the Jews, but also in the Christian Chureh of 
antiquity (ef. vol. i, 111, 23; GK, i. 39-60). For the 
benefit of Christians who did not know Greek, in Jerusalem 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS σι 


and Scythopolis all the Scripture readings, prayers, and dis- 
courses were translated orally into Aramaic in 300 as in 400, 
and certainly very much earlier. Before the preparation of 
the Latin Bible, such oral translation was the only means 
employed by Occidental Christians, who were ignorant of 
Greek, for the transference of the words of the Gospel and. of 
the apostolic letters from Greek into Latin. Among the 
Africans who knew only Latin, this was the case until Tertul- 
lian’s time; whereas among the Punie-speaking population of 
the same province in the time of Augustine, and among the 
Celts in Gaul, it wasnever otherwise. From this point of view 
Papias’ statement is very luminous: Then the ἕκαστος, which 
is out of place when his words are interpreted to refer to a 
number of Greek translations of Matthew’s Gospel, is 
limited in the nature of the case to Christians who had 
some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, and who attempted 
to make the content of a Hebrew book intelligible to con- 
gregations with little or no knowledge of this language. 
It was necessary for them to translate. There were per- 
sons, like the disciples John and Aristion, Philip and his 
daughters,—to confine ourselves to Papias’ vicinity,—who 
certainly possessed considerable ability in this direction, 
but not everyone requested to do the work was equally 
skilled in translation, and it was possible to succeed once 
and fail the next time. The work was burdensome, and 
the method of discourse defective. We have a repetition 
of conditions and occurrences such as are described in 
1 Cor. xiv. 11-19, 26-28 in another connection. Now 
we understand the distributive ἕκαστος (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 26); 
on each occasion—and this could recur hundreds of times 
—the question arose as to how the acting interpreter 
would succeed in edifying the congregation by his: trans- 
lation. It is also clear why Papias did not think of the 
translation of the Book of Matthew, but of the sayings of 
Jesus which it contained. Through Hebrew Christians 


the existence of a great sermon which Jesus had preached 
VOL. II. 33 


514 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


on the mountain became known, which was recorded in 
the Hebrew Matthew but not in the Gospel of Mark, which 
was in circulation in the province of Asia at the time (above, 
pp. 444, 456 n., 16). If this‘or some other discourse was 
to be brought to the ears of the congregations in Ephesus or 
Hierapolis, it must be through the translation of a Hebrew 
Christian. It was never the Book of Matthew which was 
translated, but always and only single pericopes from the 
same, and, what was the chief point for Papias, always 
a portion of the λόγια κυριακά. Papias’ words give us a 
glimpse into the history of the Christian worship at a time 
when the Greek Gospel of Matthew did not yet exist in 
Asia Minor, but while there were still numerous Hebrew 
Christians who possessed a Hebrew Matthew. Papias 
does not describe Christian worship as conducted during 
his younger years; in this case he would have used the 
imperfect (ἡρμήνευε) to express the fact that the reading 
of sections of Seripture in Greek was exchanged for the 
translation of Hebrew pericopes. Neither does he describe 
a condition of things in existence at the time when he 
wrote (ἑρμηνεύει), but employs the aorist (ἡρμήνευσε) to 
indicate that it was something belonging entirely to the 
past. It was so once; when Papias wrote it was no 
longer necessary. This statement carries with it the 
explanation why it was that the earlier state of things of 
which Papias speaks was no longer in existence when he 
wrote. It is inconceivable that a Hebrew book made 
familiar by reiterated translation and doubtless also highly 
prized should have been forgotten, possibly because the 
other Gospels were a sufficient substitute, or because the 
interpreters who knew the language, the emigrants from 
Palestine, had died out in Asia Minor. In this case there 
would have been no longer any Matthew, and Papias 
would no longer have had any interest in speaking) of 
Matthew’s literary work. He did have such an interest, 
however, because when he wrote there was a Greek Gospel 


THE FIRST ‘THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 515 


whose content purported to be the same as that of the 
Hebrew Matthew. The same process must have taken 
place here that we observe elsewhere under similar con- 
ditions. Just as the oral translation of the Hebrew Serip- 
tures in the Palestinian and other Oriental synagogues was 
finally crystallised in the written Targums, and just as 
Oyprian’s Latin Bible grew out of the translation of the 
Greek Bible in the African Church into which Tertullian 
gives us a glimpse, so the Greek Matthew is the final 
outcome of the translation of the Hebrew Matthew, testi- 
fied to by Papias, in the Greek congregations of | Asia 
Minor, and perhaps also in other regions. 

We know also from other sources that when Papias 
wrote, 125 A.b., or possibly somewhat later, that the Greek 
Matthew was not only in existence, but already somewhat 
widely circulated. ‘lo mention only the most striking 
evidence, the Kpistle of Barnabas (130 A.D.) cites as Holy 
Scripture the saying which we find preserved in Matt. xxii: 
14, and in the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp (110 a.p.), 
a friend of Papias (Iren. v. 33. 4), also in the Didache 
(probably written at the same time), we find several: sen- 
tences peculiar to Matthew employed as if they were the 
common property of the Christian Churches (n. 5). ' The 
Greek Matthew, which is the only known source to which we 
can refer these citations, was, however, universally accepted 
as a work of Matthew (above, p. 386 ff. ; below, n.- 5). 
Consequently, the data for the history of Matthew derived 
from other sources confirms the interpretation of Papias’ 
testimony given above. The latter remains, however, of 
inestimable value, since Papias gives us no mere literary- 
historical report of uncertain origin handed on by him, 
but testifies to a condition which had existed for a long 
time in his native Church, an unfortunate condition 
burdening the Church’s life, beyond one’s imagination. 
If, during Papias’ earlier years, there was a Hebrew Gospel 
purporting to be the apostle Matthew’s, which persons in 


516 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the province of Asia had long been in the habit of trans- 
lating into Greek, often orally in the manner which he 
describes, it is (1) incontrovertible that the original lan- 
guage of the book in question was Hebrew (or Aramaic, 
see below), and that at this time there was no Greek 
translation or recasting of the same. (2) The tradition 
that Matthew wrote this Hebrew book was just as firmly 
believed as that regarding Mark’s authorship of the Gospel 
bearing his name, since this Hebrew book was much read, 
translated, and also highly esteemed as a work of the 
apostle Matthew at a time when personal disciples of Jesus 
and other “ Hebrews” from Palestine were to be found in 
the Churches of Asia’ Minor. (3) This shows that the 
book whose oral translation appeared to be rendered un- 
necessary by the existence of a Greek book bearing the 
name of the same author was no unknown work. The 
transference of Matthew's name from the Hebrew to the 
Greek Gospel, which took place under the eye of Papias 
and of others who, like himself, were disciples of apostles, 
presupposes that in this circle the Greek Gospel was 
regarded as a complete substitute for the Hebrew book, 
1.6. as a substantially correct translation of the same.» 

We are not informed in so many words as) to the time 
and place of this transition: Inasmuch, however, as we 
have no knowledge of another Greek-speaking province 
outside of Asia where the Hebrew Matthew was in use, 
and since we are informed by Papias that this Gospel had 
been translated orally for a long time in the Churches of 
Asia, the only natural inference is that the change from 
the Hebrew to the Greek Matthew was made in this 
region. In view of the practicalvadvantage to be derived 
from such a work, it is not likely that it was left until 
only one or two interpreters were to be found capable of 
executing the translation. It may, therefore, be con- 
sidered very probable that the Greek Matthew originated 
before the close of the first century in the province of 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 517 


Asia, whence it was circulated, and, in view of the wit: 
nesses cited, more probably before 90 than after 100. 
The fact that the name of the translator of this book, like 
those of all the ancient Bible translators, has disappeared, 
requires no explanation (n. 6). There are two things, 
however, that must not be forgotten, first, that Papias’ 
statement to the effect that the oral translation of the 
Hebrew Matthew was not always made in a manner 
entirely satisfactory, will hold good also of one of these 
oral translators who wrote out the Greek Matthew. Then, 
secondly, we must bear in mind that at least one Greek 
Gospel, that of Mark, was already in circulation in his 
vicinity (above, p. 444 f.) when the Greek text of Matthew 
was prepared. 

The report that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew 
was often recalled in the ancient Church and never con- 
tradicted (n. 7). Undoubtedly, Papias’ work and, after 
325, the Church History of Eusebius, which was widely 
read, contributed much to the circulation of this tradition. 
This is not enough, however, to render Papias entirely 
responsible for the same. Origen, whose writings betray 
not the slightest trace of acquaintance with Papias’ work, 
speaks of the original language of Matthew with as much 
confidence as does Irenzeus, who had read Papias’ book. 
The Alexandrians received the information from another, 
or indeed an additional source. The Alexandrian teacher 
Panteenus is reported to have found on the occasion of 
his journey to India, 1.6. probably to South Arabia 
(before 180), a Gospel, written in Hebrew characters and 
the Hebrew language, in use among the Christiahs in this 
region. These Christians, who for this reason are called 
Hebrews, are reported to have held this Gospel to be a 
work of Matthew, which they claimed to have received 
through the apostle Bartholomew, to whose preaching they 
were said to owe their Christianity (n. 7)» Regardless of 
the) correctness or incorrectness of the statements and 


518 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


opinions of these Jewish Christians, they had'a tradition 
that Matthew wrote a Hebrew Gospel, which, in any case, 
was not derived from the Greek work of the Phrygian 
bishop. It was at that time at the latest, however, that 
Panteenus learned this same tradition and brought: it to 
Alexandria. The opinion that the entire tradition of the 
Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is due to an error of Papias, 
who; had heard of the Aramaic Gospel in use among Jewish 
Christians in Syria and Palestine, is not only inconsistent 
with the proper understanding of Papias’ testimony con- 
cerning the Hebrew Matthew, and unsuited to explain the 
citculation of the tradition regarding the same, but is in 
itself also, historically improbable. . For, to our knowledge, 
the Jewish Christians in question, the Nazarenes, never 
called their only Gospel (the so-called Gospel of the 
Hebrews) after Matthew (GK, ii. 723); and the older 
scholars who deal with the Gospel of the Hebrews, 
Clement, Origen, and Eusebius, do not say anything 
which indicates) that it was closely related to. Matthew. 
Only those who, like Irenzeus (n. 7), were) unacquainted 
with the conditions and Scriptures of Jewish Christians 
in the far East were liable to be led into the error of 
supposing that the Ebionites, as these Jewish Christians 
were indiscriminately called, used only the Hebrew 
Matthew. The tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew 
for the Hebrews, together with the reported existence of 
a Hebrew Gospel in. use among Jewish Christians, and 
uncertain reports of correspondence between the Greek 
Matthew and. the Gospel of the Hebrews, gave rise to 
the opinion that the latter was the original upon which 
the Greek Matthew was based. Jerome, who was exactly 
informed as to the facts, gave occasional support to the 
view in order to establish a reputation for being also a 
N.T, scholar by rediscovering the veritas hebravca. These 
obseure» statements and errors are not the source of 
the: tradition regarding the Hebrew Matthew, but pre- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS — 51g 


suppose its existence. In reality the relation between 
the Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Greek 
Matthew is very close. If, on the other hand, it be 
accepted as proved that no relation of dependence of the 
Gospel of the Hebrews on the Greek Matthew exists, or 
vice versa (GK, ii. 704-723), we have a new proof, entirely 
independent of the witness of Papias, that the Greek 
Matthew goes back to a Hebrew original which is also 
the basis of the Gospel of the Hebrews. In every case 
where Jerome speaks of the Hebrew original. of Matthew 
as a book in his possession, he means this Aramaic Gospel 
of the Nazarenes (GA, u. 648 fl., 681 f.). It is not im- 
possible that the book shown to Panteenus by Jewish 
Christians in South Arabia was likewise a copy of the 
Gospel of the Hebrews. But it is just as possible that 
at that time copies of the original Matthew were really 
preserved in this. far-off corner of the Christian world. 
In his account of the incident, Eusebius expresses surprise 
(nu. 7) that the Hebrew Matthew should be still in exist- 
ence in Pantzenus’ time (180), as he concluded from the 
incident which he narrates. This fact shows us that the 
learned bishop of Caesarea, who had the largest Christian 
library of the fourth century at his disposal, would have 
sought in vain for the Hebrew Matthew in his age and 
vicinity. When Epiphanius repeats what he had heard 
from eye-witnesses about a Hebrew Matthew and also a 
translation of John’s Gospel and of the Acts in the posses- 
sion of the Jews in Tiberias in 330 (n. 7), and states, 
further, that this Hebrew Matthew was not a, translation 
but the original, the latter,is an incorrect addition of his 
to the otherwise credible narrative which he had heard. 
It is possible that here also, as so often by Jerome, the 
Gospel of the Hebrews was taken to be the original 
Matthew. It is improbable, however; since, in the first 
place, as already remarked, the single Gospel used by the 
Nazarenes was not called by Matthew’s name, and, in the 


520 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


second place, the contemporaneous existence of a Hebrew 
John and Acts indicates rather that the Hebrew Matthew, 
like the other two books, was ἃ translation from the Greek. 
These Aramaic translations originated from the oral trans- 
lation of the Greek N.T. which, according to traditions which 
come down to us from the time, was still customary in the 
Churches of these regions in 300. Large portions of the 
same are preserved for us in the Hvangeliarium Meroso- 
lymitanum and the accompanying fragments of other N.T. 
books. This explanation of the origin of the translation 
is not weakened by the fact that several parts of the same, 
including the three books mentioned, were in existence as 
early as 330. There is no doubt that the translation of 
Matthew, as of the other N.T. writings, goes back to a 
Greek original) Here we have a new proof that at the 
beginning of the fourth century the original Hebrew 
Matthew no longer existed in Palestine. No one would 
translate Matthew’s Gospel from the Greek into the ver- 
nacular if the original Gospel written in ‘this language 
were still in existence. The same is true of the’ oldest 
Gospel translations of the East Syrians (Sc, Ss), in which 
Matthew is also dependent upon the Greek. The Hebrew 
Matthew has disappeared. And why not? The Nazarenes 
who retained their native language had their Gospel of 
the Hebrews not later than 150. Other Jewish Christians 
in Palestine and Syria had a Greek translation of their own 
apparently from 170 onwards (GA, ii. 724-742). By 100 
at the latest, the Gentile Christian Churches of Asia Minot; 
perhaps also of other regions, where once the Hebrew 
Matthew was orally translated with great effort, were in 
possession of a Greek translation Which was considered in 
every sense a substitute for the original. After the middle 
of the second century, none of the Churches that\ we know 
anything about had any interest in retaining the Hebrew 
Matthew. ‘The disappearance of the book in no way ob- 
sures the clear traces of its earlier existence. Scholars who 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 521 


regard our Matthew as an original Greek work (n. 8) have 
not succeeded in showing the unanimous tradition against 
them, which goes back into the first century, to be in error, 
and therefore have not succeeded in setting it aside. 
Further, the assumption that Matthew himself wrote his 
Gospel both in Greek and in Hebrew stands in irreconeil- 
able contradiction with the testimony of Papias, when 
rightly understood, which rests upon the experience of a 
large section of the Church, and it finds no support in the 
tradition. How the theory goes to pieces when the 
attempt is made to reconcile it with the text itself, we 
shall show later (§ 56). 

The evidence derived from its original language showing 
that Matthew was written for Hebrews, 1.6. for non- 
Hellenised Jews in Palestine, is frequently stated by the 
Fathers. No more definite tradition than this appears to 
be at the basis of the statement occasionally made that 
the original readers were Jews who had been already con- 
verted to Christianity (n. 7). The objection can be made 
at once on purely external grounds, that James and Judas, 
as well as Peter in 2 Peter, wrote in Greek to the Jewish 
Christians of Palestine and the neighbouring regions, . If 
the readers whom Matthew had in mind were of exactly 
the same character, in using Hebrew he would be depart- 
ing from the rule which we find otherwise to be observed. 
Matthew's use of the ἑβραὺς διάλεκτος, like Paul’s (Acts 
xxi, 2), indicates that he has in view compatriots and 
countrymen in general, and wrote the book in the vernacular 
because he desired to show also in this outward manner his 
geniune Israelitish feeling, and to bring its contents as close 
to their hearts as possible. The choice of the language was 
one of the means by which he sought to accomplish his 
apologetic purpose,—a means which, to say the least, would 
have been unfortunately chosen if it was Hebrew in the 
strict sense, 1.6. the sacred language of the O.T., or the 
modernised Hebrew of the rabbis... In this case he would 


522 INTRODUCTION TO: THE NEW) TESTAMENT 


have transferred the discourses of Jesus and His conversa 
tions with friend and foe out of the language of the 
common people (Aramaic) into a learned language little 
understood, by the majority, especially the poor, ὕο whom 
first of all the gospel was to be brought. The assumption 
may be rejected at once as historically impossible. The 
language in which Matthew wrote could have been no 
other than the language of Jesus, “the original language 
of the gospel” (δ 1), the Aramaic vernacular of Palestine 
(n. 9). 

The only tradition regarding the time of composi- 
tion which is of sufficient age and definiteness to be, of 
value has been already discussed (above, p. 392 ff.). It is 
limited to the two points : that (1) of the four evangelists 
Matthew wrote first, and (2) his gospel was written be 
tween 61 and 66. For the latter, lrenzeus is, to be sure, 
the only witness; but he speaks with a definiteness and 
certainty which indicates dependence upon older sources 
(n. 10). | 

1. (Pp. 506, 507.) The position of Matthew in the lists is not always the 
same; in Mark iii. 18 and Luke vi. 15: 6th Bartholomew, 7th Matthew, 
8th Thomas ; in Matt. x. 3: 6th Bartholomew, 7th Thomas, 8th Matthew ; 
in Acts i. 13: 6th Thomas, 7th Bartholomew, 8th Matthew. In the fact 
that Matthew alone in his list calls himself the publican, and puts his 
name after that: of his σύζυγος Thomas, Eus. Demonstr. 111. 5. 81-86; 
Theophan. v. 38, saw a proof of his humility. Cf. Orig. Schol. in Prov. 
(Tischendorf, Not. Cod. Sin. pp. 78, 119) ; Didascalia, ed. Lagarde, p. 44. 9 ff.; 
Epiph. Her. li: 6 ; also Barnabas v. 9. ‚In the Diatessaron, according to the 
testimony of the Syrian Ischodad of the ninth century (given by Goussen, Stud. 
Bibl. i. 66, cf. Harris, Fragments of the Comm. of Ephrem on the Diatessaron, 
p. 101; ThLb, 1895, p. 499), the five apostles invariably placed first: were 
followed. by ; 6th Bartholomew, 7th Thomas, 8th Matthew the publican, 
9th James Lebbzeus, son of Alphzeus, 10th Simon Cananwus, 11th Judas, son 
of James, 12th Judas the traitor.’ So Ss in Matt. x. 3f., except that James 
the son of Alpheus has not the added name Lebbeus. Tatian seems to have 
found a ὁ before καὶ Acßßaios in Matt. x. 3 (or Mark iii, 18), or to have 
invented it in the effort to harmonise the lists. This combination presupposes 
the reading Ἰάκωβον instead of Aeviv, Mark ii. 14, which Tatian shared with 
D and the old Latins according to Ephrem, Kxposit. p, 58, and which was 
also known to many Greeks, and probably was before Origen as well (cf. 
Forsch. i. 130; Tischend. and Matthäi on Mark ii. 14, iii. 18; Matt. x. 3; 
Se, S# on Mark ii. 14 are unforttinately lacking). Aevis, which is written 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 523 


Aeßns in Orig. c. Cels. i. 62, was mistakenly identified with Δεββαῖος. Since 
the same publican who in Luke v. 27 was called Levi, with the addition 
τὸν τοῦ ᾿Αλφαίου, according to Cod. 1), was called James the son of Alpheus 
in Mark ii. 14, according to the same text, it followed that the apostle James 
the son of Alphzeus was also a publican. Tatian, therefore, found it appro- 
priate to put the two publicans together among the apostles. It cannot be 
doubted that in Luke v. 27, 29 Levi without addition, in Mark ii. 14 Levi, 
son of Alpheus (so also Gospel of Peter, xiv. 60 from Mark), is the original 
text; and also that in Mark ii, 13-17, Luke v. 27-32 the same event is 
recorded as in Matt. ix. 9-13. Now, as this publican bears the name 
Matthew in Matt., and in Matt. x, 3 the apostle is expressly characterised as 
the publican mentioned shortly before, the identity of Levi and Matthew 
really followed of necessity in the interpretation of the Church. Neverthe- 
less the distinction between the two publieans, called by Jesus in very similar 
circumstances, is found not only in the Valentinian Heracleon, which is passed 
over without criticism by Clement in his report of it (Strom. iv. 73), but also 
in Orig. δ. Cels. i. 62, who says expressly that this Levi did not belong to the 
number of the apostles, in contradiction to which the preface of his in Epist, 
ad Rom. (Delarue, iv. 460) is of no consequence, since the whole discussion 
about the names of the apostles comes from the translator Rufinus. Cf. also 
Ephrem, Exposit. Ev. Conc. 287 ; Forsch. i. 130. This distinction was at least 
more reasonable than that, say, between Peter and Cephas, in so far as Mark 
iii. 18, Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13 do not indicate the identity of Levi with an 
apostle. ‘This follows only from the comparison with Matt. ix. 9, but should 
not have been overlooked by those who, like Origen, acknowledge the credi- 
bility of Matt. The cases where to a Hebrew name is added a Latin one (John 
—Mark, Saul—Paul, Jesus—Justus) or a Greek one (Judas—Aristobulus, 
Jonathan—Jannai—Alexander, vol. i. 37) are not wholly analogous to the 
combination of Levi and Matthew in one person. Nor is the union of the 
father’s name with one’s own exactly similar (Joseph Bar-Saba, Acts i. 23; 
Simon Bar-Jochanan, John i. 42, xxi. 15-17; probably also Nathanael Bar- 
Tholmai, vol. i. 31). Yet we do also find two independent Hebrew names 
applied to one person, as Ἰωσὴφ 6 καὶ Καϊάφας, Jos, Ant. xviii. 2.2. As a rule, 
one is probably a by-name received later, as Joseph Kabi (Jos. Ant. xx. 8.11), 
Simon Kepha, Joseph Barnaba. Just this is to be presumed in the case of 
Levi—Matthew, and from the; analogy of Simon—Kepha (Peter), Joseph— 
Barnaba, it is probable that the name by which the man was famed among 
Christians, and by which in his own lifetime he was regularly called, was the 
later of the two. With historical precision Mark ii. 14, and Luke v. 27, 29 
following him, have stated that the publican at the time of his call was known 
as Levi, while in Matt. ix. 9 the name which he uniformly bore as apostle 
and in the Church is carried back into the story of the call. This corresponds 
with the fact that until he has related Peter’s change of name (iii. 16) Mark 
speaks of him only as Simon (i. 16, 29, 36), whereas the second name is intro- 
duced at once in Matt. iv. 18, and, except for the solemn moments, x. 2, xvi. 
16f., is used exclusively. That tradition tells us nothing of Levi’s renaming, 
and its occasion follows from the fact that. tradition leaves him personally 
altogether in the background. It is only Mark 11]. 17 that tells us even of 
John and James, that Jesus gave them the surname of Boanerges, and then 


524 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


it is simply the faet we learn and not the circumstances and occasion. . The 
same is true of Nathanael as regards double naming. According to John i. 
46-51, he was one of the first disciples, and according to John xxi. 2 a per- 
manent member of the most intimate circle, and so certainly one of the 
apostles (cf. John vi. 66 ἢ). And yet he is missing from all the lists of 
apostles, unless he is identical with Bartholomew, who is the sixth in order 
in Matt., Mark, and Luke, as Nathanael is the sixth disciple of Jesus accord- 
ing to the correct understanding of John i. 35-51. The formation and mean- 
ing of the name Μαθθαῖος (so in the oldest MSS. NB, and also D, instead of 
Ματθαῖος of the later MSS. corresponding to the Greek rule) are much debated, 
but in any case it is to be written *m or 'smo, In B. Sanhedr. 48a (omitted in 
the expurgated editions, printed in Laible-Dalman, Jesus Christus im Talmud, 
S. 15,* translation, S. 66; Eng. trans. by Streane, text, p. 15,* translation, 
p: 71f.) we read : “Jesus had five disciples, Matthai (Ἀπ), Nakai (xp), Nezer 
(753), Bunai (53), Thoda (mn). They took Matthai before the court. He 
said to the judge: Shall Matthai be put to death? It stands written : When 
(22) shall I come and appear before God? (Ps. xlii. 3). They said to him: 
By all means Matthai shall be put to death, for it is written : When (np) will 
he die, and his name perish ? (Ps. xli. 5).” According to frequent analogies 
(6... Zarxatos= 21, abbreviation of na), un» is probably an abbreviation of 
mynd (2 Kings xxiv. 17; Neh. xi. 17, 22, Ματθανίας, gift of. Yahweh). Just 
as the name mnm of similar meaning (Neh. viii. 4; 1 Chron. ix. 31, Mar@a6ias) 
was customary as a special name, in addition to the other, so we find the 
abbreviation of the one name (Ματθαῖος) along with the abbreviation of the 
other (Ματθίας, Acts i. 23; am, Jastrow, 861). Onom., ed. Lagarde, 174. 79, 
Ματθαῖος δεδωρημένος, Ματθίας δόμα θεοῦ. Cf. Dalman, Gram. des jüd. Ara- 
miiisch.? 178. A discussion of various derivations and explanations by Grimm 
(ThStKr, 1870, 8. 723-729), who for his: part would derive nn from the 
unused singular no (man). Still other views in Schanz, Komm, zu Mt. 1f. 
Like Ewald and Hitzig, Nöldeke also, GGA, 1884, S. 1023, takes the name 
to be an abbreviation of ‘px or max. 

2. (P. 508.) What Luke v. 29 says more expressly, that the publican 
gave a feast in his house in honour of Jesus, and to celebrate the day (cf. 
Luke xiv. 13, 16; John xii. 2), is also the meaning of Matt. ix. 10; Mark 
ii, 15; for, aside from the improbability that Jesus was able to entertain a 
large company in His own lodging, τῷ ’Inoov makes it certain that the αὐτοῦ 
which Matt. puts forward with strong emphasis, and the αὐτόν of Mark, do 
not refer to Jesus, but to the publican, the principal person in the preceding 
sentence.’ The account in Matt: as in Mark is brief but perfeetly clear, 
First the publican is sitting at his place of business; at the call of Jesus he 
leaves it and attaches himself to Him; finally, he sits at table in his own 
house. Matt, expresses only the difference in the localities, while Mark with 
αὐτοῦ after ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ expressly indicates that which is of itself obvious, 
Matt. gives the most wnassuming form of the story; cf. ZKom, Matt, 370f. 

3, (P. 508.) Aside from the accounts which refer to the Gospel, the only 
statement which ean be called traditional is that of ‘Clement, Pad, ii. 16; 
Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν ὁ ἀπύστολος σπερμάτων καὶ ἀκροδρύων Kal λαχάνων ἄνευ 
κρεῶν 'μετελάμβανεν. But there is a suspicion that Clement drew here from 
the Parudoses of Matthias or the Gospel of Matthias, and so that Ματθαῖος is to 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 352; 


be emended to Ματθίας; ef. GK, ii. 751-761. The suggestion concerning 
Matthew’s ascetic manner of life in Martyr. Matthei (Acta Apocr,, ed. Lipsius 
et Bonnet, ii. part 1. 218) is not contrary to this view ; for in this as in/othe; 
legends (op. cit. pp. 65 ff., xxi, xxxiv) the interchange of the name ‘Matthew 
and Matthias is so confused, that it is difficult to determine which name is 
original. ‘The confusion of these two names is in many instances an uninten- 
tional error, e.g. in the list of “the sixty books,” GK, ii. 292, A. 7, οἵ, 758, 
A. 1, 759, A. 2. But it took place designedly when, in an apocryphal varia- 
tion of the story, Luke xix. 1-10, the name of the chief publican Matthias was 
substituted for that of Zacchzeus, Clem. Strom. iv. 35 ; ef. Quis Div. xiii.; GK, 
ii. 752; as it was conscious trifling, also, when a Gospel was ascribed to, the 
last chosen apostle Matthias, whose name was enough like that of the evan- 
gelist Matthew in derivation, meaning, and sound to be exchanged with it. 
In the region of the apocryphal Gospels of the childhood the unaltered 
name of Matthew had yet once more to suffer, Ev. Apocr.? Tischend. 51-112. 
With regard to the legends concerning him, see Lipsius, A pokr. Apostelgesch. 
ii. 2. 109-141 et passim. With regard to a copy of Matt., ostensibly from the 
hand of Barnabas, of which much was said in the sixth century, see cbid. 291 ff. 

4. (Pp. 509,511.) After the quotations from Papias concerning Mark, Eus. 
H. E. iii. 39. 16 continues: περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαίου ταῦτ᾽ εἴρηται (sc. τῷ aria). 
“Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν EBpaidı διαλέκτῳ ra λόγια συνεγράψατο (al. συνετάξατο), 
ἡρμήνευσε δ᾽ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς (al. ἠδύνατο), ἕκαστος." For the expression 
ch. Berl. ägypt. Urk. No. 1002 of 55 A.D. ἀντίγραφον συγγραφῆς πράσεως 
Αἰγυπτίας, μεθερμηνευομένης κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν. The Syrian translates: “But 
of Matthew he says this: Matthew wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew language, 
but everyone (literally “man for man”’) translated it as well as he could.” 
Rufinus: “ Matthzeus quidem scripsit hebreo sermone; interpretatus est 
autem ea, que seripsit, unusquisque sicut potuit.” The fact that Rufinus 
leaves τὰ Aöyıa untranslated, confirms what was said above (p..509f.) as to the 
unemphatic nature of the object of the verb. The Syrian, on the other hand, 
corroborates the view that Papias was speaking of nothing else than ‘the 
Gospel of Matt. already current in his time. Irenzeus understood him so 
when he made acknowledgment to Papias for his information concerning 
the original language of Matt. (see p. 393 f. above, and note 7 below) ; and so did 
Eusebius himself when he added this testimony regarding Matt. to that con- 
cerning “the Mark who wrote the Gospel,” without finding any further 
explanation needful. The authorities on biblical introduction, too, long 
assumed it as a matter of course that Papias was speaking of the Gospel of 
Matt. Michaelis, Hinl. 951, translated, as Rufinus did, Eichhorn, Hinl.? 1. 200, 
458, like the old Syrian, Hug, Einl.? ii. 16 : * Matthew wrote his history in the 
Hebrew language.” Schleiermacher (see p. 441 above), in 1832, was the first 
to emphasise τὰ λόγια, and to infer that Papias was discussing a Hebrew book 
very different in its content from our Matt. Since then the Adya of Matthew 
have been constantly spoken of as a lost source of our Gospels. For the idea 
of λόγια see GK, 1. 857 Ε΄, ii. 790ff. It is, of course, granted that. λόγια kupuard 
or λόγοι Ἰησοῦ (cf. Amos i. 1) might have been the title of a book containing 
a collection of extended discourses and short sayings of Jesus. But if one 
recalls what was said (above, p. 511) with regard to the historical framework 
of Jesus’ discourses, this is most’ improbable. The Greeks had collections of 


526 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


anecdotes whose real content lay in some brilliant saying, called ἀποφθέγματι 
a potiori, e.g. Plutarch’s various collections (Moralia, pp. 172-236, 240-242). 
The Jews called an anecdote of this sort rather nwvyn=pä£ıs. Of the in- 
numerable discussions of Papias’ testimony regarding Matt. (and Mark), 
besides Schleiermacher’s famous treatise (see above, p. 425, note 12) and the 
writer’s discussion (@K, i. 889-897), let us mention, further, only Weiffenbach, 
Das Papiasfragment über Marcus und Mattheus, 1878, and Lipsius, JbfPTh, 
1885, S. 174-176, claiming the reference of Papias’ evidence to our Gospels 
of Mark and Matt. Among the unfounded prejudices from which the correct 
understanding of the few words of Papias has suffered, there is the idea that 
he was a Jewish Christian. So even Hofmann, ix. 270. The name of a 
Papias of Seythopolis, but also the name of an Ammia of the same city, which 
is likewise a Phrygian name (Forsch. v. 94, vi. 364) are found on Sarcophagi, 
which were recently brought to light in Jerusalem (known to the present 
writer from the Quartalschrift des Syrischen Waisenhauses of May 1905, 
and from photographs). Papias is a genuine Phrygian and Gentile name. 
Forsch. v. 94, vi. 109. One should not infer that he had the Gospel of the 
Hebrews in his hands from the fact that, according to Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 16, 
he embodied in his work the account of the sinful woman accused before 
Jesus, which was included in the @ospel of the Hebrews also, and which was 
probably the same as was inserted later in John: viii. 1-11. As Eusebius 
says, just before, that Papias cited passages from 1 John and 1 Pet. (κέχρηται 
μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ κτλ.), it followsrather from the form of his statement regarding 
Papias and the Gospel of the Hebrews that Papias did not name this book, 
but merely presented matter which Eusebius, who had himself studied the 
Gospel of the Hebrews, knew to be contained in it as well. For Papias, as for 
all Asiatic Christians, a Hebrew book was a closed book, unless a Jew was 
at hand who could translate it for him. The only Hebrew book of which, 
according to the extant fragments and statements, he made any mention was 
the Book of Matt. When, in describing the studies on which his work rested, 
he names Matthew among the other disciples of Jesus from whose oral state- 
ment he used to seek information, and when he explains this diligent inquiry 
by saying that he proceeded on the assumption that he could not derive so 
much benefit from books as from the spoken words of living witnesses, he 
does not express any indifference toward books in general which would: be 
inconsistent with his remarks on Mark, Matt., 1 John, 1 Pet., and Rey. nor 
does he say what was his own opinion of the value of books now that he 
himself had become an author (he writes ὑσσελάμβανον not ὑπέλαβον or 
ὑπολαμβάνω), but what he thought in earlier years, at the time of this in- 
vestigation. Mark was not suflicient. The Book of Matt. he could not 
understand. Interpreters were not always at hand, and did not always 
understand their business as well as they might have done. 

5. (P. 515.) Barn. iv. 14: προσέχωμεν, μήποτε ὡς γέγραπται “ πολλοὶ 
κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ" εὐρεθῶμεν, Matt. xxii. 14; ef. GK, i, 848, 924, 
From Barn. v. 9 one must conclude that he always knew the Gospel of Matt. 
by this name. When he there asserts that, in confirmation of Matt. ix. 13, 
Christ chose the most sinful men to be His apostles, he has in view primarily 
the narrative in Matt. ix. 9 (ef. x. 3), the only passage where the publican is: 
designated as the apostle Matthew. The generalisation of this fact and the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 527 


characterisation of the apostles at the same time as those who were afterward 
to preach the gospel of Christ, would be unintelligible, if Matthew were not 
known to the author as one who had a peculiar share in this work, and in 
general as a prominent apostle fitted to serve as the type of the whole 
company. But both these statements are true of Matthew only in so far as he 
was author of a Gospel. With regard to the time of Barnabas, ef. Funk; 
ThQSc, 1897, S. 617 ff., who assigns him once more to the time of Nerva, or 
the end of the first century ; and A. Schlatter, Die Tage Trajans und Hadrians, 
1897, S. 1, 61-67, who comes forward with new arguments for the date 
which is probably correct, 130-131. With regard to Ignatius, Polycarp, 
Didache, ete., cf. GK, i. 922-932, 840-848. Nestle, Murginalien und 
Materialien, ii. 72, calls attention to a passage in the writing of the pseudo- 
Eusebius on the star of the Magi (preserved in the Syriac), which reads : 
“In the second year of the coming of our Lord, in the consulate of Caesar 
and Capito (?5 a.p., Klein, Fasti Cons. 17), in the month of Kanun II. 
(=January), these Magi came from the East and worshipped our Lord. And 
in the year 430 (Oct. 1, 118-119), in the reign of Hadrian (117-139), in the 
consulate of Severus and Fulgus (read Fulvus=120), and the episcopate of 
Xystus, bishop of the city of Rome (circa 115-125), this question was raised 
among the people who were acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, and 
through the efforts of great men in various places this history was sought 
out and found, and written in the language of those who attended to the 
matter.” The exactness of the fourfold dating is surprising. If we change 
the first figure 430 to 431 (Oct. 1, 119-120 A.n.), all four dates agree, a great 
rarity in chronological notices of this sort. In the year 120, then, and 
primarily in Rome, as the manner of dating shows, the question in what 
year the Magi had come to Bethlehem was actively discussed. We are re- 
minded of discussions like those concerning the census of Quirinius and of 
the fictitious Acts of Pilate (Justin, Apol. i. 34, 35). If there is anything 
in this remarkable statement, then in 120, in Rome and “in various places,” 
men were occupied in a scholarly fashion with Matt. ii., that is, of course, 
with the Greek text of this chapter of our Matt. This agrees with the 
citations previously mentioned. 

6. (P. 517.) The Greek translator of Matt. was a someone, nameless 
and unknown to Eusebius (see the following note). We cannot conclude 
with certainty from Jerome, Vir. Ill. iii., that at this time conjectures on the 
subject had already been advanced. In Greek minuseules (Tischendorf, 1. 
212) the translator is identified with John (which has a certain justification 
in older legends, such as may be read in the Acts of Timothy, ed. Usener, p. 
9, cf. GK, i. 948), with Bartholomew (which has some connection with the 
aecount of the journey of Panteenus to India, Eus. v. 10. 3), and, finally, with 
James the brother of the Lord. This is also the view of the Synopsis 
which goes under the name of Athanasius (ed. Montfaucon, ii. 202). Ac- 
cording to Epiphanius, Mon., ed. Dressel, p. 44, who finds evidence in Matt. 
x. 23 that no apostle had travelled far from Palestine before the destruction 
of Jerusalem, and who in the same passage advances the pseudo-Clementine 
idea that James was the overseer of the apostles, Matt. would have written 
his Gospel thirty years after the Ascension at the direction (κατ᾽ ἐπιτροπήν) 
of this James, who died two years before. 


528 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


7. (Pp. 517, 518, 519, 521.) That Matt. was written in Hebrew and intended 
for Hebrews, cf. Iren. iii. 1.1 (p. 398, above). Also a frarment of a catena in 
Stieren, p. 842 ; τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον πρὸς ᾿Ιουδαίους ἐγράφη" οὗτοι γὰρ 
ἐπεθύμουν πάνυ σφόδρα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ Χριστόν, ὁ δὲ Ματθαῖος ἔτι μᾶλλον 
σφοδροτέραν ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην ἐπιθυμίαν, παντοίως ἔσπευδε πληροφορίαν παρέχειν 
αὐτοῖς, ὡς εἴη ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ ὁ Χριστός" διὸ καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς. γενέσεως αὐτοῦ 
ἤρξατο. Cf. the excerpts from Matt. in Iren. iii. 9 ; iii. 11.8 on’ the beginning 
of the book; iii. 11. 7: “Ebionzei etenim eo quod est secundum Mattheum 
solo utentes, ex illo ipso eonvincuntur, non recte presumentes de domino.” 
This statement regarding the Gospel of the Ebionites, to which is added 
i. 26. 2, et apostolum Paulum reeusant, rests on Iren®us’ inexact knowledge 
of the circumstances of the Jewish Christians; cf. GK, ii. 664, Eus. H..E. 
v. 10. 3: ὁ Πάνταινος καὶ eis Ἰνδοὺς ἐλθεῖν λέγεται, ἔνθα λόγος εὑρεῖν. αὐτὸν 
προφθάσαν τὴν αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον παρά τισιν 
αὐτόθι τὸν Χριστὸν ἐπεγνωκύσιν, οἷς Βαρθολομαῖον τῶν ἀποστόλων ἕνα κηρῦξαι 
αὐτοῖς τὲ Ἑβραίων γράμμασι τὴν τοῦ Ματθαίου, καταλεῖψαι γραφὴν, ἣν καὶ 
σώζεσθαι εἰς τὸν δηλούμενον χρόνον. Cf. Forsch. iii. 168-170; GK, ii. 666, 680. 
While Irenzus supposes Matt. to be written for theJ ews, and, according to the 
fragment at least, primarily for the Jews not yet, converted to Christianity, 
Origen (in Eus. ἢ. E. vi. 25. 3, and tom. vi. 17 in Jo., see above, p. 397) says it 
was meant “for those converted from Judaism” and “for the believing from 
the circumcision.” Elsewhere, however, he too says (tom. i. 6 im,Jo.): 
τοῖς προσδοκῶσι τὸν ἐξ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ Δαβὶδ Ἑβραίοις. Eus. himself says, 
H. E. iii. 24..6: Ματθαῖος μὲν γὰρ πρότερον Ἑβραίοις κηρύξας, ὡς ἤμελλε καὶ 
ἐφ᾽ ἑτέρους ἰέναι, πατρίῳ γλώττῃ γραφῇ παραδοὺς τὸ Kar’ αὐτὸν εὐαγγέλιον, τὸ 
λεῖπον τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ τούτοις, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἐστέλλετο, διὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἀπεπλήρου. 
On what grounds Eusebius claims to know this no one cansay. It goes beyond 
lven, iii. 1. 1 (see above, p. 397), where it is said, to be sure, that Matthew 
“ preached among the Hebrews” and wrote his Gospel, but where it is in no 
way implied that he ever left Palestine. Of this, too, there is no ancient 
and credible tradition. The Jewish Christians in “ India” (see above) be- 
lieved that they had received the Gospel not from Matthew himself, but from 
Bartholomew. Eus. Quest. ad Marinum (Mai, N. Patr. Bibl. iv. 1. 257; 
ef. Jerome, ad Hedibiam Epest. exx. 4.on Matt. xxviii. 1): λέλεκται δὲ “ὀψὲ 
τοῦ σαββάτου" παρὰ τοῦ ἑρμηνεύσαντος τὴν γραφήν᾽ ὁ μὲν γὰρ. εὐαγγελιστὴς 
Ματθαῖος ἑβραΐδι γλώττῃ παρέδωκε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ὁ δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλήνων φωνὴν 
μεταβαλὼν αὐτὸ τὴν ἐπιφώσκουσαν ὥραν εἰς τὴν κυριακὴν ἡμέραν “ὀψὲ σαβ- 
βάτων " προσεῖπεν. Directly afterward he calls not the Greek translator who 
is here held responsible for the obscure expression, but the apostle John, 
ὁ διερμηνεύων, referring to John xx. 1 in comparison with Matt. xxviii. 1; 
as immediately before he writes : ὥσπερ διερμηνεύων αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ὁ Ματθαῖος, 
Eus. in Ps, Ixxviii, (Montfaucon, Coll. Nova Patr, i. 468): ἀντὲ yap τοῦ 
“φθέγξομαι προβλήματα dm’ ἀρχῆς" Ἑβραῖος ὧν ὁ Ματθαῖος οἰκείᾳ ἐκδόσει 
κέχρηται εἰπών" “ἐρεύξομαι κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς" (Matt. xiii, 35). Here 
οἰκεία ἔκδοσις, of course, does not mean a particular Greek translation (dis- 
tinguished from the LXX, like those of Aquila and Symmachus which are 
cited immediately after, but the native, te, the Hebrew, text which belonged 
to Matthew as a Jew. The statement (Eus. H. E. vi. 17, cf. GK, ii. 740 ἢ.) 
regarding the polemic of Symmachus the Ebıonite against. the Gospel of 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 329 


Matt. has no importance in this connection. What is handed down (Mai, 
op. cit. 270) as a declaration of Eusebius (καὶ δὴ συνόρα ἐν τούτοις ὕφος καὶ 
ἀπολουθίαν ἱστορικῆς διηγήσεως, ἣν 6 Ματθαῖος ἐκτίθεται, Σύρος ἀνήρ, τέλώνης 
τὸν βίον, τὴν φωνὴν Ἑβραῖος), but should probably be assigned to Julius 
Africanus (ef. Spitta, Brief des Africanus an Aristides, 70 ff., 111), presupposes 
the composition of Matt. in Hebrew. This tradition is repeated by Cyril, 
Hieros. Cat. xiv. 15; Epiphanius, Her. xxx. 3 (ἑβραϊστὶ καὶ ἑβραϊκοῖς γράμ- 
μασιν), Xxx. 6 (rd κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον ἑβραϊκὸν φύσει ὄν, a gospel said 
to have been extant as late as 330 along with a Hebrew translation of John 
and Acts in the possession of Jews in Tiberias; ef. Forsch. 1.345 ff. ; @K, i. 411, 
A. 1, ἢ. 672); Her. li. 5 (ἑβραϊκοῖς γράμμασι); Chrysost. Hom. i. 3 in Matt. ; 
Jerome, Vir, Ill. 111. (“evangelium Christi Hebreis litteris verbisque compo- 
suit, quod quis postea in Grecum transtulerit, non satis certum Vest”); 
Preef. Comm. in Mt. (“qui evangelium in Judza Hebr&o sermone edidit”) ; 
Comm. in Oseam (Vall. vi. 123: “Mattheum evangelium Hebreis litteris 
edidisse, quod non poterant legere, nisi hi qui ex Hebreis erant”). What 
Jerome meant here and in many other passages by the Hebrew language of 
the Gospel of Matt. is most plainly shown by the fact that the Aramaic 
Gospel of the Nazarenes, which he studied with care, copied, and translated 
into both Latin and Greek, was sometimes considered by him to be the 
original of Matt.; ef. moreover, vol. i. 23 f., 27. Nothing but absolute 
ignorance could find in the frequent mention of the Hebrew characters in 
which Matt. wrote a proof that the Gospel was composed in the ancient 
Hebrew language. The same statement is made by Jerome regarding the 
Aramaic sections in Daniel and Ezra, and by him and others as well regard- 
ing the Gospel of the Hebrews, the language of which has never’ been a 
matter of doubt; cf. GK, ii. 661, 667, 718. The tradition of the Hebrew 
Matt. came to the Syrians chiefly, if not exclusively, through the Syriac 
translation of Eusebius’ Church History. Ephrem shows his dependence 
on Eusebius in this as in many matters (Ev. Concord. Exposit. 286), An 
anonymous Syriac fragment also, which from the excerpt in Wright, Catalogue 
of Syr. MSS. p. 1016, the present writer took to refer to the Gospel of the 
Hebrews (GK, ii. 681), is shown by the fuller account given by Barnes in 
the Academy, 1893, p. 344, to refer to Matt., and repeats only the ἐν τοῖς 
Ἑβραίοις of Ivenzeus (see p. 398 above). The Syrian Ischodad in the ninth 
century (Harris, Fragments of the Comm. of Ephr. Syr. p. 16, ef. TRLB, 1896, 
col. 2) remarks on Matt. i. 20: “Others (say) that he who translated (this) 
out of Hebrew into Syriac altered (the expression), and for (the words) is 
conceived in her substituted zs born. But the Diatessaron says, ‘The 
one who is born in her is of the Holy Spirit.’” These exegetes went on the 
supposition that the Syriac version of Matt. was taken directly from the 
Hebrew original and not from a Greek translation, a view which in modern 
times has been revived by W. Cureton for the Se discovered by him (Preface, 
p. 76 ff.), and by Minischalchi Erizzo for the Sh (Evang. Hieros. Prief. p. 45) 
which he published. On the other hand, the Arabian bishop George in the 
seventh century still knew that the Hebrew Matt. was first translated into 
Greek, and that errors crept in at this point which the Syriac text shares 
with the Greek; cf. Georg, Gedichte wnd Briefe, translated by Ryssel, 
S. 140. 
VOL. 11. 34 


530 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


8. (P. 521.) Erasmus is said to have been the first to dispute the 
tradition of the composition of Matt. in Hebrew. Several Catholics, like 
cardinal Cajetan, and the representatives of both Reformed and: Lutheran 
orthodoxy followed him ; ef. the counter-argument of R. Simon, Hist. Orit. 
du Texte du. NT, 1689, p. 47 ff., and the excerpts in Credner, Hinl. i. 78 ff. 
It is significant of Luther’s historical. insight and freedom that he held 
to Hebrew as the original language of Matt. In the discussions ‘concerning 
the institution of. the Lord’s Supper, according to the report of Gregor 
Casel in 1525 (Kolde, Anal. Lutherana, 72), he said what still holds: true 
for a hundred other problems, “Si haberemus. Hebrzeum Matthaum, facile 
expediremus!” Following in Simon’s steps, Michaelis, Hinl. 946ff., de- 
fended the older tradition with great thoroughness. Yet theologians of the 
most various schools have again and again set it aside, eg. Hug, Einl.? ii. 
16-63; Fritzsche, Comm. in Ev. Matthwi, 1826, p. xvii ff.; Harless, Fabula 
de Mattheo Syrochaldaice Conscripto (Erlanger Programm, 1841). That our 
Matt. is not a translation, but written in Greek at the beginning, is the pre: 
vailing opinion to-day. Bengel’s suggestion im the Gnomon’ (Vorbemerkung 
zu Mt., ed. Stuttg. 1860, 8. 2), that Matt. himself published his Gospel in 
both Hebrew and Greek, has been seriously adopted by a few, among them 
men like Thiersch, Versuch, 192 ff., and Hofmann, ix. 326. The self-contra- 
diction in which Thiersch becomes involved is very remarkable. On p. 103, 
in an explanation of Papias’ statement which is otherwise essentially correct 
(cf. 8. 222 f.), he amplifies it tomean that the oral interpretation of the Hebrew 
Matt. continued “until he (Matt.) himself published the Greek writing 
which is read in the whole Church as his Gospel” ; while, according to p. 197, 
Matt. gave his two versions to the Churches of Palestine, the Greek to the 
Hellenistic and the Hebrew to the Hebrew congregations, “at the same time 
or nearly so.” In that case the translating of Matt. would have been super- 
fluous everywhere, and the Hebrew Matt. could not have been brought to Asia 
Minor in place of the Greek except by an extraordinary confusion. 

9. (P. 522.) The only scholar familiar with linguistic conditions in the 
time of Jesus and the apostles who has declared in favour of Hebrew in the 
stricter sense as the original language of Matt. is Franz Delitzsch (The 
Hebrew NT, Leipzig, 1883, p. 30), and he himself previously held that it was 
Aramaic (Neue Untersuchungen über Entstelung und Anlage der kanon. Bvv. 
1853, S. i. 7, 45, 49, 50). The long-continued and valuable labour which 
this distinguished Hebraist devoted to the restoration of a Hebrew version 
of the N.T. seems to have been the chief influence which led him thus to 
change his view. In his Brief an die Römer, in das Hebr. übersetzt und aus 
Tulmud und Midrasch erläutert, 1870, 8. 16 ἢν, he already showed some un- 
certainty with regard to the language even of the Gospel of the Hebrews, On 
other representatives of this view see GK, ii. 718 ἢ. 

10. (Ὁ. 522.) The statement made by Gla, Die Originalsprache des Mtev. 
1887, 8. 177, that Eusebius in his Chron, ad Ann. 41 assigned the composition 
of Matt. to the eighth year after the Ascension, is false in every particular. 
In anno Abrah. 2057 =41 A.D., or according to Jerome’s revision anno Abrah. 
2058, Busebius says nothing of Matt., and of Mark only that he went to 
Eyypt to preach (ed. Schoene, pp. 152, 153), The Chronicle has nothing 
whatever to say about the composition of any Gospel. 


THE FIRST THREE: GOSPELS AND ACTS 531 


8 55. CONTENTS, PLAN AND PURPOSE OF 
MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 


The words which stand at the beginning of the book 
form an introductory title. It would seem as if the fact 
that these words stand at the beginning of a book, in 
the further course of which there are no other titles 
were sufficient to make it clear, beyond all doubt that 
BiBros γενέσεως Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ κτὰ. is the title of the 
entire book, just as we have seen that ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου 
«tr, is the title of Mark’s Gospel. On the supposition that 
itis applicable to only a part of the same, we have great 
difference of opinion as to how much shall be included in 
the section. The title has been variously referred —(«@) 
to, i. 1-17 ;(b) to i, 1-25; (c),to i.,1-2, τῶν (d) to i 1-2, 
23, the number of which diyisions, shows that the author 
never thought of the possibility of so many interpreta- 
tions. If he had, how could. he have omitted to make 
clear by a new title or in some other, way where the first 
division ended and the second began? ‚The words them- 
selves will bear the translation, ‘“‘Book of the origin of 
Jesus Christ,” with corresponding reference to i. 18-25 
where the γένεσις or γέννησις τοῦ Χριστοῦ, to follow what is 
probably the original reading, is described (n. 1). But 
this applies only te this second paragraph of the. book, 
not to the entire chapter. In the first place, in 1. 18a, 
which reads almost like a title, it 1s very clearly implied 
that the discussion of the generation and birth of Jesus 
begins with this passage, and therefore that it was not the 
subject of what precedes, i. 2-17... In the second place, it 
is perfectly self-evident that no informed person could 
have called the enumeration of a man’s ancestors an 
account of his γέννησις, or even his γένεσις (cf. Luke 1. 17). 
A title with this meaning would not.have been in place 
until after, i.17; and there even it. would have been as 
Strange as it was superfluous, since what follows is not 


532 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


properly an account of the beginning of Jesus’ life, 
Neither the time nor the place of the events related is 
indicated, and the birth is mentioned only in a subordinate 
sentence, i. 25, as was the case also in 1. 16. Not until 
ii. 1 do we have the statement of the time and place of 
the birth, and there because both are significant for the 
narrative which begins with this verse. Reference of the 
title to 1. 2-17 is to be rejected as impossible linguistically 
until a case is cited where a Greek or Hellenist calls a 
genealogical table βίβλος γενέσεως (n. 2). On the other 
hand, the expression was familiar to the Greek Christians, 
for whom the Greek Matthew was written, from their 
O.T., and it was certainly not in keeping with the inten- 
tion of the author, or rather of the translator, that, 
perhaps at a very early date, in spite of the clear depend- 
ence of the words upon very familiar passages in the 
Greek O.T., the first clause of the book was mistaken 
for a title of the genealogy of Jesus or of the history 
of His birth. It was certainly a misunderstanding if 
the expression was borrowed from the Greek O.T., since 
in no O.T. passage where this or a similar expression 
occurs is it employed to introduce a list of the ancestors 
of the person with whose name it is used, or a narrative 
of his birth. Where genealogies follow they are those of 
descendants, not of progenitors. From other passages we 
see that! the etymological’ meaning of the Hebrew word, 
‘‘a man’s generations,” has been widened in usage to the 
more general conception of the family history beginning 
with the person mentioned, or of history in general (n. 2). 
Since descendants of Jesus were out of the question, the 
translator could take it for granted that this O.T. expres- 
sion would be understood in the sense in which it was 
used in the O.T. He gave his writing the title “ Book of 
the History of Jesus.” When, however, he adds immedi- 
ately to the name Jesus the title of His office, Christ, 
which had come to be used in the Church as a second 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS, AND ACTS 533 


proper name, and then goes on to indicate that, the bearer 
of the same is a son of David, a son of Abraham, it is 
clear that he intends to set. forth the history of Jesus. in 
such a way that He shall be recognised from the history 
as the Messiah; and as the fulfilment of the promise made 
to the house of David and the seed of Abraham. The 
appositives attached ‚to Χριστοῦ show that here it is not 
used asin Mark i, 1 and frequently elsewhere as a common 
expression of the author for his Christian faith, but. indi- 
cates the point of view from which the author intends. to 
set forth the history of Jesus; and this is confirmed, by his 
usage of ὁ Χριστός, which varies from that of the.other 
Gospels (i. 17, 18 [n: 1], xi. 2)... The more exact meaning 
of the thought expressed in the title of the book is to be 
derived from the investigation of the fulfilment which 
he found disclosed in the history. 

The first section, 1. 2-1. 28,15 not only without parallel in 
the other Gospels, but is distinguished also for other reasons. 
The genealogical table at its beginning | could hardly be 
more grossly misunderstood than to construe it as a proof of 
the Davidic descent of Jesus, and His accompanying natural 
right to the throne of David. That David was an Israelite 
and therefore a descendant of Abraham, and that Zerub- 
babel was the offspring of the Davidic house, required no 
proof. For this supposed purpose two-thirds of the table 
is superfluous ; and in view of the long period which it is 
made to cover, and the much longer list of names in Luke 
111. 23-27, the remaining third is clearly so. short, that. it 
would have been very poorly adapted for such an alleged 
purpose. In general, it would have been difficult for 
anyone to conceive such a purpose. That.the carpenter 
Joseph, who was known to all.as Jesus’ father (Matt: xiii. 
55; Luke ii. 23, iv. 22; John i, 46, vi. 42), and whose 
line of descent Matthew represents to be that of Jesus, 
was a “‘son of David,” was. not the peculiar. belief of the 
Christian Church, which could have originated from. the 


534 INTRODUCTION ΤΟ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


confession of Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. i. 16, 20; Luke 
i. 27), but was universally known and acknowledged by 
his countrymen and contemporaries. When all the people 
called Jesus the son of Joseph, the son of David, and 
showed themselves inclined to affirm that He was the one 
expected son of David (Matt. ix. 27, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31, 
xii. 28, xxi. 9, 15), His opponents, to be sure, denied the 
latter, but without contesting the presupposition. Accord- 
ing to the testimony of the Gospels, which bring before us 
the greatest variety of objections which the opponents of 
Jesus raised against Him, they never attempted, not even 
in their bitterest attacks, to deny Jesus’ Davidic descent, 
i.e. Joseph’s, and thereby to remove the entire basis of His 
claims. The bitterest insults of the Talmud are accom- 
panied by the recognition that Jesus was closely related 
to the royal house (πη. 3). To be sure, His descent was 
suspected, but not in the direction of the descent of Joseph 
from David as set forth by Matthew. The legitimacy of 
His birth was denied. It was claimed that He was a 
bastard, whom the unfaithful Mary had ‘borne to another 
man and then passed off as the son of Joseph, and thus as 
the son of David. It is, therefore, historically impossible 
that Matt. i. 2-17 should have been intended to prove the 
descent of Jesus from David and especially from Abraham. 

Matthew’s object is not proof of any kind, but to 
bring before his readers in the shortest possible form—in 
the form of a genealogical table—the whole history of 
Israel from the founder of the race to the Messiah, in order 
to express the thought, already hinted at in the title of 
the book, that the Jesus who received the name Messiah 
(i. 16) was the goal of the entire history of His people. 
For this purpose he not only employs a list of names 
which is incomplete, a fact to which he betrays striking 
indifference (ἢ. 4), but also gives it an artificial arrange- 
ment to which he directs our attention in i. 17 more 
expressly than in the genealogy itself. He divides the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 535 


latter into three groups of fourteen members, each indi 
cating the division between the groups within the list 
itself. Ini. 6 he mentions David the king, which marks 
the end of the first group, and in i. 11, 12 the deportation 
to Babylon is twice mentioned as the event which separated 
the line of ruling Davidic kings from the line of dethroned 
successors of David. The first indicates the highest, the 
second the lowest point in the historical development from 
Abraham to Christ, That the names meant to him an 
outline of the history, is also indicated by the fact that in 
two cases the brothers are mentioned along with’ the re- 
presentative of the line. By this means he indicates in 
i. 2 the transition from family to national history, and in 
i. 11 the change brought about in the Davidic house when 
the unity of the family and the inheritance of the promise 
was no longer represented in one person who occupied the 
throne, but when what was once the royal seed continued 
to exist only as a number of families, with uncertainty as 
to which one would enter upon the inheritance. In order 
to express this thought and in this outward way to re- 
present the symmetry of the history in which he believed, 
Matthew’s arrangement of fourteen members in each group 
of the genealogical table is evidently intentional (n. 4). 
It is inconceivable that an author who intentionally invited 
his readers to recount the list of names should have left 
out from pure carelessness the three kings, Ahaziah, Joash, 
Amaziah, whose names are wanting in ver. 8 after Joram. 
it:is inconceivable also that he should have made a mis- 
take of one figure when he reckoned the whole as 42, v.e. 
3x 14, instead of 41, the number actually found (i. 17). 
Inasmuch as the O.T. gave him fourteen members for the 
period from Abraham to and including David, he assigned 
the same number to the two groups that followed. | In 
order to do this he threw out the names of the three kings 
from the second group, and, as we have seen, made the 
third list short in proportion to the period which it 


536 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


covered. We σοῦ a further insight into the author's 
purpose from his remarks regarding ‘lamar, Rahab, Ruth, 
and Bathsheba which would have been out of place in a 
simple genealogical table (1. 3, 5, 6). These four names 
are not used to adorn the genealogical table in some such 


Rebecca, are employed in the Old and New Testament (ef. 
1 Pet. i. 6; Gal. iv. 23; Rom. ix. 9; Heb. xi. 11; for 
Rebecea, Rom. ix. 10), but their sole purpose is to point 
to dark blots in the history. That the first heir of David's 
throne was the offspring of an unlawful marriage is ex- 
pressed delicately but clearly when his mother is called 
not, Bathsheba, but the wife of Uriah. Ruth was a 
Moabitess and therefore a heathen, as was also. Rahab; 
who according to a legend which has no basis in the O.T. 
was the mother of Boaz, and from Josh. 11. 1 (ef. Jas. i, 25; 
Heb. xi. 31) was known as a harlot. The names of Tamar 
and her twin sons must have recalled to every reader for 
whom the passage had any meaning at all the incestuous 
intercourse between her,and her father-in-law. (Gen. 
xxxviil. 13-30). Since it is self-evident that the author 
could not have designed to cast reflections upon the 
ancestry of the Messiah and so upon Him, his purpose in 
these references can be only apologetic. In answer to the 
Jewish slander concerning Mary’s adultery (n. 3), Matthew 
points out the fact that the things which are slanderously 
charged against the last son of David are actually to be 
found in the early history of the Davidic house, and, 
above all, in the history of the birth of David's first son. 
If these blots on the history of his people and of the 
royal, house do not hinder the Jew from recognising in 
the same a sacred account of the divine revelation, cer- 
tainly the evil suspicion cast upon the birth of Jesus by 
malicious enmity should not prevent him from investigat- 
ing the facts and from hearing patiently the exposition of 
the same. ‘Jesus is not a bastard, but a true son of David, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 535 


inasmuch as He was born of the legitimate wife of ἃ 
descendant of David, Joseph. That Joseph's paternity 
was the particular point from which the suspicion of the 
Jews could originate is suggested already in i. 16 (n. 5), 
and the explanation which this demands follows: in i. 
18-25... As a history of the birth these verses would be 
entirely incomplete (see above, p. 531 f.), but they are per- 
feetly adapted for the purpose indicated in 1. 18a, namely, 
to show how the conception and the birth of the Messiah 
had taken place. He was conceived before Mary was 
married, but not born until she was the wife of a son of 
David, Joseph. The condition which appeared to him 
even to be due to sin on the part of his. bride, and which 
he was justified in not enduring until informed of its cause 
by divine revelation, was a miracle of the Holy Spirit. 
The very thing which was an offence to the Jewish people 
because not in accordance with their expectations, corre- 
sponded so literally in all its details, notwithstanding, to 
the prophecy regarding the Immanuel (Isa. vii. 14), that 
Matthew does not hesitate to say at this point what. is 
often repeated later, namely, that the history of Jesus 
took place as it did by divine arrangement even: in 
those details which were most objectionable to the Jews, 
because God designed thereby the fulfilment of the pro- 
phecy in which long before His decree was declared. 
From this agreement between the history of Jesus and 
the O.T. propheey it should: be recognised that He was 
the Christ in spite of all appearance to the contrary 
(ι.. 22, ἡ. 6). 

In significant contrast to this passage, which bears a 
genuine Israelitish stamp, particularly in the description 
of Jesus’ future vocation as the Saviour of His own 
people (i. 21), we have the narrative concerning the Magi 
(i. 1-12), in the course of which account itself the same 
contrast comes strongly to the front. Whereas heathen 
astrologers, incited by an observation in the field of their 


538 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


occult science, and animated with a religious ‘interest, 
make the long journey to Palestine to pay homage to the 
newborn King of the Jews, and do not rest until ' they 
find Him ; the high priests and scribes are satisfied with 
giving the correct answer to the’ scholastic question about 
the place-where the Messiah was tobe born. The reigning 
king of the Jews, however, alarmed by the news’ brought 
by the strangers and the definite answer of the Sanhedrin 
to the question which he had put to this body, allows 
himself to be moved to nothing less than a plan ‘to murder 
the true King of the Jews, born in Bethlehem in accord: 
ance with the prophecy. The wickedness of Herod and 
the indifference of the guardians of Israel’s holy things 
make it appear as if the King and: Saviour of Israel, 
hailed with joy by the heathen, had been born in vain in 
so far as His own people were concerned. For this reason 
He does not grow up in the place out of which, according 
to prophecy, He was to come forth (ii. 6), but at first found 
refuge outside the “land of Israel” (ii. 20, 21; vol. i. 
24, π. 7) among the Gentiles in Egypt (ii. 15). In this 
also He appears to be estranged from His people; and 
this must have been a further occasion for Jewish 
suspicion (n. 3). Although the flight into Egypt was 
eaused by Jewish wrong-doing, it was none the less of 
God's ordering. By this also a word of prophecy found 
fulfilment, not a prophecy with regard to the coming 
Messiah, but a passage in which Hosea recalls historically 
Israel's departure from Egypt (ii. 15). The fact that the 
child Jesus fled to Egypt and not to Damascus, for 
example, the author regards as a significant ordering of 
events on the part of God from which we should recognise 
the repetition of the history of Israelv in’ the history of 
Jesus ; He was no more unfitted for the fulfilment of His 
vocation by His residence in’ Egypt than was Israel by 
theirs. The slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem, 
viewed from one side, was a lamentable misfortune which 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS = 530 


overtook the innocent; from another point of view it 
was oruesome folly. For this reason Matthew could not 
say that the horror was ordered of God for the fulfil- 
ment of His word. Nevertheless it did fulfil a part of 
Israel’s history experienced by Jeremiah, and expressed 
by him in impressive words (11. 17 f.). After Herod’s 
death the child Jesus was able to return to the “ land of 
Israel,” but not to Judea and Bethlehem, out of which, 
according to prophecy (ii. 6) and the popular expectation, 
the Messiah was to come (John vi. 42). On the contrary, 
he came to the half-Gentile Galilee, out of which no 
prophet ariseth (John vii. 52), and to the village ‘of 
Nazareth, which is not once mentioned in the O.T., and 
which appears to have been despised by its neighbours 
(John i. 47). . This, in turn, was another consequence of 
the wickedness which had become hereditary in the Jewish 
kings. This, however, was so ordered by God that thereby 
not merely a single word of an individual prophet, but 
the prophetic word in general should be fulfilled in Jesus, 
inasmuch as He was to be called the Nazarene, from 
Nazareth, where He grew up and whence He made His 
appearance among the people. ‘This name was employed 
to express the complete repugnance felt by the Jewish 
people toward Him and His Church (ii. 28, ef. xxvi. 71; 
John i. 46f.; Acts vi. 14, xxiv. 5, xxvi. 9, and n. 7). 
This points at the same time to the history of the man 
Jesus among His people, which we expect to find ‘set 
forth from the same apologetic point of view evidenced 
by every line of the first section. 

Before this, however, we have a second section (iii. 
1-iv. 11) devoted to the aceount of preparatory events. 
Just as in Ex. ii. 11, whole decades are passed by with 
an “in those days,” and the figure of the Baptist and the 
preacher, John, is introduced as the prophesied forerunner 
of the Lord. It is especially noticeable that the kingdom 
of God, whose coming John 'announced, is characterised 


540 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


as the kingdom of heaven in the short summary of the 
Baptist’s preaching (111. 2), as generally in Matthew (n. 8). 
Without the earth’s ceasing to be the scene of the action 
(cf. v. 4 al. 5, vi. 10, xii, 24, 38, 41), the expression 
indicates that it is a rule of God over the world whieh 
comes down from heaven, 1.6. by God's act. This’ con- 
ception of the Baptist stands in contrast to the expectation 
of a Messianic kingdom which is a purely earthly product. 
The masses accepted John’s testimony ; also representatives 
of the two. parties, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who 
in general stood for the two classes, the scribes and the 
high priests, in the Sanhedrin (ii. 4), visited the place where 
he baptised. It was just this appearance of the leaders 
of the people, however, that furnished the Baptist with an 
occasion to deliver a scathing denunciation, in which the 
work of the coming founder of the kingdom is described 
as predominantly that of the judge of His own people and 
in which God’s freedom to receive the Gentiles into, His 
Church in place of the unworthy Israelites is main- 
tained. Jesus also visits the scene of baptism in order 
Himself to be baptised. In the case of all others it is a 
confession of sin (111. 6); with Him, however, itis only an 
exemplification of the principle that it was fitting. for 
Him to fulfil the entire legal economy of God (111. 15). 
This self-humiliation on the part of Jesus, God answered 
from heaven by the impartation of His Spirit, an inner 
experience, which was externalised for Jesus Himself in 
a visible form as well as in the audible message that 
Jesus was the beloved or the only Son of God whom., He 
had chosen as the instrument for His approaching work 
(iii, 17, ef. xxi. 37). In what spirit Jesus would, carry 
out the commission thus entrusted to Him is indicated 
in the Temptation history (iv. 1-11). As a humble, pious 
man, and an Israelite who believed in the Scriptures, He 
overcomes every temptation to win the world-rule which 
belonged to Him by any means other than that which 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 541 


God had apppointed,—the way of patient faith and self: 
denying obedience. 

The third section (iv. 12-xi. 1) sets forth by general 
descriptions and selected examples Jesus’ publie work in 
Galilee which followed the arrest of the Baptist. All that 
follows the second section is appended to the announce- 
ment made to Jesus of John’s arrest, without bringing this 
event into any chronological connection with the narra- 
tives that precede, and without narrating the story, well 
known to the author, of the way in which he came to be 
cast into prison (xiv. 3-5). The return of Jesus (John 
v. 35) to Galilee from Judea, where at the time He 
seems to have been residing, is a second retreat (iv. 12, 
ἀνεχώρησεν, cf. 11. 22), naturally not in the sense that He 
sought thereby to escape the danger of a fate like John’s, 
for Herod Antipas, who had put an end to the Baptist’s 
work, was also the ruler of Galilee.’ But Judea and the 
Holy City (iv. 5, xxvii. 53), “the city of the great King” 
(v. 35), seemed the appropriate place for the public 
appearance (John vil. 3f.) of the anointed King who was 
born in Bethlehem. It denoted self-denial on Jesus’ part 
when He withdrew to the despised Galilee. In keeping 
with this is the fact that He began His preaching there 
(iv. 17) with exactly the same sentence that the Baptist 
employed (iii. 2). He does not appear as the King whom 
the Baptist had announced, but as the prophet continuing 
the Baptist’s work, and, indeed, in Galilee, where the 
latter had never worked. The fact, however, that He 
did not make Nazareth, where He grew up, His head- 
quarters, but Capernaum, where He settled later, and 
whence He planned to make tours in all directions in 
Galilee, appeared to Matthew to be a remarkably literal 
fulfilment of the prophecy to be found in Isa. viii. 23- 
ix. 1. He quotes it not as Jesus’ motive, but in order to 
justify this feature in the history of Jesus which was 
offensive to orthodox Jews (iv. 14-16). The lack of 


542 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW ‘TESTAMENT 


connection between the account of the call οἵ the fisher: 
men to become fishers of men and what precedes and 
follows, only shows more clearly that it is merely a part of 
the introductory portion of this section (iv. 18-22). The 
Prophet of Galilee was accompanied from the beginning 
by, countrymen who were to share His work... In 
iv, 23-25 we have a general description of this, period 
of, Jesus’ workin Galilee, ending with the climax where 
Jesus. is represented as surrounded. by persons seeking 
His help, who come from all parts of Palestine and even 
from the neighbouring Gentile regions. Three additional 
points are, brought out: (1) The constant moving from 
place to place, throughout Galilee ; (2) the teaching and 
preaching; and (3) the healing of all sorts of diseases, 
Thus we have in iv, 12-25 a sketch of Jesus’ entire work 
in. Galilee, which, according, to ver. 24f., must, have 
occupied at least several months. The elaboration of this 
sketch proposed in the plan begins with an example of 
His, teaching (chaps. v.—vii.). This great discourse is not, 
however, what we should expect from iy. 17, 28. It,was 
not delivered in a synagogue (iv. 23), but under the open 
sky ; nor was it a sermon directed. to the people sitting 
in darkness in Galilee, but instruction (v. 1 1.) intended 
for the disciples, who are the light of the world (v. 14), 
Not until toward the close of the, discourse does Jesus 
direct His attention to the crowd (vii. 24, 28f.), in the 
presence of whom the disciples had received the preceding 
instruction, with its constant reference to their particular 
religious condition, their deeper relation to Him, and 
their special vocation in the world. The Sermon on the 
Mount in Matthew is not, the preaching of repentance 
(iv. 17) nor the gospel of the kingdom (iy, 23), but a 
setting forth of the moral conduct which the disciples of 
Jesus are to exhibit before the world as His disciples, and 
as children of God (v. 16; u. 9). 

Why Matthew chose as an, example of Jesus’ teaching 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 543 


this instruction of His disciples, which ; presupposes 
throughout faith in Himself and His gospel, we must 
learn from the elaboration of the theme (v. 16). First 
of all, He warns them against. the folly of supposing that 
it was their Master’s mission to set aside the O.T., and, 
as the further context shows, its authoritative content. 
It is not His mission to destroy anything whatever 
that is divine in. its origin, and that exists for the 
sake of what,is right, but rather to fulfil the sacred 
forms which He found. existing, to put into them the 
content. which ‘they themselves demanded. (v.17, οἵ 
iii. 15).. As long as this world stands, not even) the 
smallest portion of the O.T. law can pass away unfulfilled 
(18)... The same reverence for the law in word and deed, 
which. He here confesses and Himself always: exhibited, 
He demands in His disciples (19). Far from allowing 
the exact interpretation and. fulfilment of the law to 
remain solely the distinction of the rabbinic guild and 
the party of the Pharisees, He makes actual righteousness, 
which exceeds by far that of the scribes and Pharisees, a 
condition of blessedness on the part of His disciples (20). 
Thus by the standard of Jesus’ favourable attitude toward 
the O.T. law, and His condemnation of the rabbinic 
interpretation and Pharisaic observance of it, shall the 
good works be measured by which His disciples are 
to demonstrate that they are children of God. The 
theme thus more closely defined is now elaborated in such 
a way as to show first of all (v. 21-48) by a series of 
examples, and in contrast to the superficial and, in part, 
even foolish rabbime interpretation of the law, how the 
Israelitish laws, written and unwritten, are to be treated 
in order to discover in them the will of the divine Law- 
giver concerning the moral conduct of the individual. | In 
the light of this exposition, in vi. 1-18, He sets forth 
the kind of alms, prayer, and fasting which becomes the 
children of God, in contrast to the Pharisaic externalisa- 


544 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tion of the principal acts in which piety finds expression. 
Rabbinic interpretation of the law and Pharisaic piety do 
not take us beyond the standard of heathen morality and 
piety (v. 46f, vi. 7). In relation to the things of this 
world also, children of the heavenly Father may not, as 
do many of the Pharisees, sink to the level of the Gentiles 
(vi. 32), but, free from inordinate covetousness and 
unbelieving anxiety, the two principal forms in which 
slavery to mammon exhibits itself, they are to make’ the 
kingdom and the righteousness of God first and last the 
only goal of their life (vi. 19-34).. Opposition to the 
Pharisees, which is already less prominent in this part of 
the discourse, recurs only once in what follows (vii. 5). 
For our purpose we do not need to investigate the last 
part of the discourse (chap. vii.). It is clear that the 
choice of ‘the Sermon on the Mount as an illustration 
of Jesus’ teaching was due to Matthew’s apologetic, and 
at the same time polemic, purpose, and that, in so far as 
this discourse is his ER its form is the result 
of. his work. 

Three examples of ‘healing follow. That viii. 1-17 is 
to be taken as an independent unit, is shown not only by 
the fact that we have, beginning with viii..18, a series of 
narratives which cannot be included under this title, but 
also by the citation with which the whole is solemnly 
concluded by the author in viii, 17. The first example is 
that of a leprous Jew whom Jesus enjoins to observe the 
prescriptions ‘of the law. Here we have actual evidence 
that Jesus was not a revolter against the Mosaic law 
(viii. 1-4, ef. v. 17-20). The second example is that of a 
Gentile whose importunate faith puts the Jews to shame 
and opens a vista into the future, when in the place of the 
unworthy Jews the Gentiles of the entire world shall have 
part in the blessings of the kingdom of God (viii. 5-13). 
‘These two narratives bear the same relation to each other 
as i. 21b to 11. 1-12, or iv. 23 (ἐν τῷ χαῷ) to iv. 24 (ὅχην 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 545 


τὴν Συρίαν). The third example forms the introduction to 
a scene in which Jesus is pictured as engaged with multi- 
tudes of the sick until the day begins to fade. Such work 
as this shows Him to be the Servant of God who bore as 
His own all the infirmities of His people, even in the form 
of physical disease (viii. 14-17). The series of narratives 
which follows, viii. 18-ix. 34, is made up of a variety of 
very different incidents which, taken together, serve to 
expand a third feature of the programme laid down 
in iv. 12-25 (above, p. 541 f). Itisthe restless wandering 
life of the teacher and physician which is here pictured 
in a long series of very brief but chronologically insepar- 
able narratives. The saying of Jesus in vill. 20 serves as 
an introduction for the whole. At first glance it might 
seem as if iv. 23 and ix. 35, which contain practically the 
same words, formed a sort of frame for what stands 
between ; but closer observation shows at once that in the 
latter case the tireless journeying through all the cities 
and villages is recalled primarily for the sake of what 
follows in ix. 36 f., which seems to give the motive for the 
sending out of the apostles (x. 1). Jesus’ own work 
is not sufficient; the harvest requires many labourers. 
Moved by sympathy for the neglected multitudes, He 
sends out His apostles to do a work of preaching and 
healing similar to His own. Not until now does the 
reader learn that twelve disciples had been chosen earlier 
for this purpose, and what their names are. ‘The special 
injunction to confine the work of their preaching journeys 
to the Jews (x. 5 f., 23) is in accord with Jesus’ sympathy 
for His people (ix. 36) and Matthew’s apologetic purpose 
(ef. i. 21, iv. 23, ἐν τῷ λαῷ; also xv. 31 end); what 
follows, namely, ix. 36-x. 42, is an elaboration of the 
fourth point of the introductory programme. Jesus de- 
signed to carry on His prophetic work in Galilee supported 
by regular helpers (iv. 18-22). The third section is con- 
cluded by the notice that Jesus did not on this account 
VOL. Il. 35 


546 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


cease His own work of preaching in different places 
(xi. 1). 

The fourth section, xi. 2-xx. 34, brings before us the 
different impressions which the work of Jesus previously 
described made upon the different individuals and classes 
who were affected by it. This is done in such a way, 
however, as to bring out at the same time the particular 
actions and discourses of Jesus occasioned by it. The 
words which we find in xi. 6 may serve as a title for 
the whole section. It is conceivable that men should be 
offended in Jesus, but deeper reflection as to what creates 
objection to Him helps to remove the offence. Happy the 
man for whom this is true! Even the great prophet in 
imprisonment, the prophet who surpasses all others, who 
in his original greatness is inferior to no man, since he 
ushered in the great epoch of the approaching kingdom of 
God steadfastly and without fear,—even he cannot under- 
stand the work of Jesus of which he hears. The works 
which Matthew describes as the works of the Messiah, 
because they distinguish Jesus as the Messiah (xi. 2), the 
Baptist cannot understand as the fulfilment of his own 
proclamation, By means of the fresh impression which 
the Baptist’s messengers carried back, and the warning 
with which this answer was concluded, Jesus hopes to save 
His impatient friend from a fall. He strives also to ward 
off the possible injurious effect of John’s inquiries upoı 
the crowd (xi. 2-15). The frivolous muititude is totally 
incapable of comprehending the significance of the times. 
Like whimsical children, they find fault with the Divine 
wisdom manifested differently in its different personal 
agents, in one way in John, in another way in Jesus (16-19). 
The cities of Galilee, distinguished above measure by the 
works of Jesus, exhibit a worse blindness than the heathen 
cities whose sins and destruction made them a. proverb 
(20-24). But Jesus does not allow Himself to be dis- 
turbed by such experiences, In that hour He praises 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 547 


His Father, the God who rules the world, that He has so 
determined the revelation of the Divine counsel of salva- 
tion through Him, the Son, that it is intelligible to babes, 
but misunderstood by the wise and understanding. He 
is not weary of calling to Himself those who are burdened 
with a heavy yoke (25-30). The wise ones and those who 
lay the yoke of their precepts upon others are the Pharisees 
and scribes (cf. xxii. 4). When Jesus is attacked by these 
on the ground of supposed profanation of the Sabbath, 
He proves to them from the sacred history, the temple 
worship prescribed by the Torah, and their own daily 
practice, that He is not a transeressor of the Law, but 
that they accuse Him without justification on the ground 
of a Law which they themselves have misunderstood 
(xii. 1-13). Jesus retires before the hostile attempts 
which are thereupon planned (14), but continues to 
minister to the suffering. The absence of all display 
which characterised this work, as well as the fact that 
Jesus refrained from all violence in the conflict with 
His enemies, led Matthew to bring forward again from 
Second Isaiah, as he had done in viii. 17, the picture of the 
Servant of Yahweh, who works with perfect quietness, and 
yet through the power of the Spirit wins victory for all 
peoples, as a prophecy fulfilled and to be fulfilled in Jesus 
(15-21). When, however, the Pharisees blaspheme the 
Spirit by whose power He worked His deeds of healing, 
calling the same a satanic power, He does not remain 
silent, but shows them the self-contradietion in their 
charge, and, more than this, warns them against commit- 
ting the unpardonable sin (22-37). When, thereupon, 
they seek a sign from Him which will render it unnecessary 
for them to exercise faith, He gives them the sign of His 
resurrection, represented by the sien of Jonah, which, in 
turn, will be of use only to the believing. In spite of 
temporary improvements in their condition, He sees the 
multitude of His compatriots and contemporaries facing 


548 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


an incurable state (38-45). From this generation, how- 
ever, involved as it is in destruction, is gathered the 
company of Jesus’ followers; these are not His kinsmen, 
but those who hear and do His words (46-50). The 
same distinction appears also in the fact that, in order to 
punish the multitude for their indifference to the truth, 
Jesus conceals it from them entirely by the use of 
parables, while He interprets these to His disciples, and 
teaches them to grasp the truth even in this form (xiii. 
1-52). The account of the impression which Jesus made in 
His native city,—characterised by the word ἐσκανδαλίζοντο, 
xiii. 57, ef. xi. 6,—and of the superstitious utterances of 
the ruling prince when he heard of the miracles of Jesus 
(xiv. 1-2), serve also to complete further the series of 
incidents begun in xi. 2. In order to explain the latter, 
he formally narrates the account of the Baptist’s execution 
and the cause of his arrest, already presupposed in iv. 12, 
xi. 2. Although this is only an episode, it determines 
the further trend of the narrative, which from xiv. 13 to 
xvii. 21 appears to retain a chronological order, as in 
vili. 18-ix. 34. Constant change of residence is noted 
(cf. ἀναχωρεῖν, xiv. 13, xv. 21; also other passages where 
Matthew does not use just this word). Jesus constantly 
avoids contact with the crowds and with His opponents, 
and devotes Himself to the training of His disciples, as 
we have seen already in the corresponding part of Mark 
(vi. 14-ix. 32; ef. above, p. 465f.). This suits Matthew's 
plan also, only he makes the separation between the 
disciples and the multitude with their religious leaders 
much sharper. It does not appear for the first time 
in this section of the Gospel, but the way is prepared for 
these statements by what is said earlier in v. 10-12, 
x. 16-39. From chap. xiii. onwards, Matthew does not say 
anything more about the preaching of Jesus to the people 
of Galilee (cf. Matt. xiv. 14 with Mark vi. 34). Matthew 
alone (xv. 12-14, not in Mark vii, 17 £.) narrates how 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 549 


the disciples called Jesus’ attention to the fact that His 
severe condemnation of the Pharisaic overvaluation of the 
rabbinie statutes was offensive to the Pharisees. Likewise 
peculiar to him is the severe judgment with which Jesus 
replies: they are a foreign growth which God has not 
planted in His garden, and which deserves no care; as 
is also the injunetion of Jesus to His disciples to leave 
these blind leaders of the blind multitude to their inevit- 
able fate. Only in Matt. xvi. 6, 11, 12 (not in Luke 
xii. 1; ef. Mark viii. 15), are the Sadducees included also 
in the warning against the leaven of the Pharisees; and 
this warning itself repeated three times, and its meaning 
expressly stated. No concealment is made of the incurable 
divisions which Jesus made among His people by His 
testimony concerning the true law of God (xv. 3, 6, 9; 
ef. xxiii. 2 ΕἾ, 23, v. 17-48, xu. 1-11, xix. 3-9). On the 
other hand, the same section discloses clearly the author's 
apologetic purpose. ‘The agonising struggle of the Gentile 
woman with Jesus, who disregarded her cries and went on 
His way in silence, is impressively described (xv. 22 ff., 
ef. per contra, Mark vii. 25 ff... The sympathetic Jesus 
appears to be severer than His disciples, who, for the sake 
of being rid of her cries, are willing to be a little incon- 
sistent. Only in Matthew does Jesus state the principle 
that His lifework is limited to Israel (xv. 24, ef. 1. 21, 
x. 5f). To this principle He remains true even to 
the extent of harshness toward the Gentile woman. Not 
until she recognises to the full Israel’s prior rights does 
He give her help. When in another region—from Mark 
vil. 31 we know that it was the half-Gentile Decapolis— 
we find Him scattering the gifts of His merey with free 
hand, the gratitude of all the people finds expression in 
praise of the “God of Israel” (xv. 31). Those, therefore, 
who say that Jesus is disloyal, an enemy and a disgrace 
to His people, and a blasphemer of the God of Israel, are 
condemned as liars. 


550 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


In the description of the intercourse between Jesus 
and His disciples there is less emphasis than in Mark 
upon the slowness with which they progressed in know- 
ledge. Severe judgments concerning them, such as we 
have in Mark vi. 52, vin. 17f., are either wanting: alto- 
gether or less bluntly expressed (Matt. xvi. 9). On the 
other hand, the way for Peter’s great confession (xvi. 16) 
is prepared by the account of his experience on the sea 
with the confession which it called out (xiv. 28-33). His 
later confession is more fully reproduced than in Mark, 
and is solemnly acknowledged by Jesus; it is declared 
to be due to God’s revelation (xvi. 17, cf. xi. 25), and 
rewarded by a great promise. The separation between the 
disciples and the Jewish people had been mentioned before ; 
now we hear that the company of disciples, who hitherto 
had been gathered about Jesus like a family (x. 25, xii. 
49 f., ef. ix. 15),—one of a number of groups within the 
same national bounds,—is to become a Church which is 
to exist alongside of the Israelitish Church and outlast 
all hostile attacks. The ἐκκλησία is not yet in exist- 
ence; Jesus will build it in the future, and He will rear 
it upon the man of rock-like character, who in the name 
of the other disciples has given utterance to the true 
confession, and who is to exercise the oflice of a steward 
in the house of this Church, with the power accompany- 
ing this office to institute rules for the ordering of the 
house (n. 10). What is said primarily to Peter as the 
first confessor is on that account none the less applie- 
able to the companions of his calling, who have received 
a similar office not from him, but like him and with him 
from Jesus (xix. 28, x. 1-5). As to the right to establish 
ordinances in this future household of Christ upon earth, 
to enforce their observance, and to punish their trans- 
gression, that belongs to the whole Church (xvii. 15-20), 
i.e, the Church separated from the Jewish people by 
their confession of Jesus as the Christ. It is this idea 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 551 


of the Christian Church which distinguishes the entire 
fourth section of Matthew’s Gospel from the parallel sec- 
tions in Mark, which in other respects are so similar. By 
the latter the disciples are represented as preachers of 
the gospel in course of training for their future calling. 
In Matthew, on the other hand, we are taught to look 
upon them as the foundation and leaders of the Church 
of Jesus in process of formation. When, however, this 
confession of Peter and Jesus’ answer is followed by the 
first express announcement of the sufferings and death 
in Jerusalem (xvi. 21); and when, further, the instruction 
of the disciples with reference to the future conditions of 
the Church is interrupted repeatedly by the announce- 
ment of His sufferings (xvii. 12, 22f., xx. 17, 22, 28), 
we infer that the two conceptions are intimately con- 
nected. It is because Jesus is condemned to death by 
the heads of the people and delivered over to the Gentiles 
for the carrying out of their sentence (xvi. 21, xx. 18f.) 
that the kingdom of God is to be stayed in its sweeping 
onward progress (cf. xi. 12), and a period intervene be- 
tween its beginning through the word of Jesus and its 
completion with His parousia, during which the kingdom 
of heaven shall have its preliminary realisation in a Church 
of the Christian confession by no means free from foreign 
elements, in which even the best members are still tainted 
with sin (xill, 36-43, 48, xvill. 7-35, xxii. 11, xxiv. 12). 
This Christian Church and the Jewish people are repre- 
sented as two sharply distinguished bodies. The teaching 
concerning discipline within the Church (xviii. 15-35), 
marriage (xix. 3-12), the relation of children to Jesus and 
so to His Church (xix. 13, 14), the attitude toward earthly 
possessions (xix. 16-26), the Divine reward in relation to 
human labour (xix. 27-xx. 16), ruling and serving (xx. 
20-28, cf. xxii. 8-12, xxiv. 45-51),—all these presuppose 
a Church of Jesus, which, whatever its organisation, was 
certainly separate from the Jewish people, and regulated 


552 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


by a different law from that which prevailed among the 
Jews. Still, these two groups are not without relation te 
each other. The twelve apostles are never to forget their 
relation to the people of the twelve tribes (xix. 28, ef. x, 
23), and the disciples in general are to follow Jesus’ ex- 
ample, and from pure love are to cherish their relation to 
Israel. This we learn from the profound narrative preserved 
in xyil. 24-27 (peculiar to Matthew). Though funda- 
mentally separated from the Jewish cultus, and though 
freed by sonship of the “great King,” whose dwelling is 
not in Jerusalem but in heaven (cf. v. 34f.), from every 
obligation to observe the ceremonial law, as long as the 
temple stands they are still to pay the temple tax, ze. to 
fulfil the cultus duties incumbent upon an Israelite, as 
Jesus had done (11. 15, v. 17-20, 23 f., xxii. 3, 28). The 
words, “in order that we may not offend them,” contain 
the entire programme of the politics of the Israelitish 
Church of Jesus before the year 70. Jesus intended \to 
make the distinction between the Jewish people as repre- 
sented officially in the high priests and rabbis, further in 
the Pharisees who were beyond all hope of improvement, 
and the blind multitude that followed them, on the one 
hand (xv. 12-14), and the house of Israel, the people of 
the twelve tribes, on the other, many of whom had erred 
but could yet be brought back to the fold (x. 6, xv. 24). 
The former may be offended if they will (xv. 12); no one 
is to place a stumbling-block in the way of the others 
which can keep them from the truth (xvi. 27, ef. xi. 6). 
The last narrative of the fourth section (xx. 29-34) has 
the appearance of an allegory, because it stands without 
any practical connection with what precedes and what 
follows. Besides the blind who fall into the ditch (xy. 14; 
xxiii. 16), there are also those blind persons in Israel who 
appeal to the mercy of the Son of David, and who become 
His followers after He has healed them. The localities of 
tke single narratives in this section are for the most part 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 553 


very indefinitely indicated (xiv. 13, 22, xv. 29, xvi. 5, 
xvii. 1, 22, xx. 17). The reader is able to form no idea 
of the journey to J erusalem. Similarly, the change from 
Galilee to Perea in xix. 1 is marked by no break in the 
narrative, since the arrangement of the material is deter- 
mined by the contents. 

In the fifth section we have the description of Jesus’ 
work in Jerusalem (xxi. 1-xxv. 46), where the same material 
is employed throughout that we find in Mark. Still even 
here the features that distinguish Matthew are not want- 
ing. It is the prophet of Galilee (xxi. 11) who as King 
enters the royal city, and it is prophecy which He fulfils 
in the choice of the method of entrance (xxi. 5), designing 
thereby to show that while He gives up none of the claims 
which belong to Him, He will not make use of force. 
The enthusiasm of the people, which is caught up even 
by the children, is more offensive to the members of the 
Sanhedrin than the cleansing of the temple and the 
severe condemnation, that its guardians who are re- 
sponsible for its sacredness, have allowed it to become a 
den of thieves (xxi. 151). The parable in xxi. 28-32 
brings the resistance of the ruling classes to the testimony 
of Jesus into stronger relief than the discussion (recorded 
also by Mark and Luke) which precedes. Only in Matthew 
is the parable of the husbandmen followed immediately 
by the unmistakable declaration that the kingdom of God 
shall be taken from the Jewish people as a nation and 
given to another people, 3.6. to a people independent of 
every nationality (xxi. 43). In the parable which follows 
(xxii. 1-14, Luke xiv. 16-24 is only remotely parallel) 
we have a sentence, not an essential part of the picture, 
pointing clearly to the destruction of Jerusalem as the 
punishment of the Jewish people for their refusal to 
accept the invitation to enter the kingdom of God (xxii. 7). 
The teaching discourses, which arouse the astonishment 
of the crowd here as in Galilee (xxi. 46, xxii. 33), and 


554 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the discussions in which Jesus overcomes the Pharisees 
and Sadducees are followed (chap. xxiii.) by a compre: 
hensive discourse addressed alike to the undecided multi- 
tude and the disciples, in which He condemns the scribes 
and Pharisees occupying Moses’ seat, who will not be 
satisfied until they have made full the sin of Israel and 
of Jerusalem against the bearers of all God’s revela- 
tion. ‘The rejection of Jesus’ witness is not the last step 
in this direction. There remains still the persecution of 
the prophets, the wise men, and the scribes whom Jesus 
will send to His people (xxiii. 34). The present genera- 
tion, however, shall live to see the judgment upon Jeru- 
salem. The decisive cause of the catastrophe lies in the 
rejection of the repeated efforts of Jesus to shelter the 
inhabitants from the coming storm. This condemnation, 
and at the same time the public testimony of Jesus, are 
brought to a close with an outlook toward the day when 
this unfortunate people shall hail Jesus as their Messiah 
with more sincerity than they had shown on the preceding 
Sabbath. Connecting itself directly with the words con- 
cerning the destruction of Jerusalem, we have in what 
follows Jesus’ instruction of His disciples with regard to 
the end of the world (chaps. xxiv., xxv. ). 

The seath section (chaps. xxvi.-xxvii.) covers the 
history of the Passion and the Resurrection. "The following 
features are peculiar to Matthew :—(1) A sharp portrayal 
of the betrayer and his history. Only Matthew records the 
bargain with the hi¢h priest about the price of the betrayal 
and the sum agreed upon (xxvi. 15), the conversation be- 
tween him and Jesus while they were still at table (xxvi. 25), 
the remark which Jesus made to him at the arrest (xxvi. 
50), and the account of his end (xxvii. 3-10). (2) Only 
Matthew emphasises the way in which Jesus, in obedience 
to the will of God as He found it indicated in the Seriptures, 
refused to call the Divine help to His aid in order to 
deliver Himself from His enemies (xxvi. 52-54, ef. xxi. 5). 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 555 


The evidence for Jesus’ innocence, to which, according t« 
all the records, Pilate testified several times, is rendered 
still stronger in Matt. xxvii. 19, 24 by the accounts of his 
wife’s dream and of the washing of his hands. Responsi- 
bility for the blood of this man, whom the Gentile judge 
more than once declared to be innocent, is assumed by 
the whole people, in so far as they have a part in the 
transactions (xxvii. 25). If Barabbas was also called 
Jesus, as possibly may have been the case in the original 
text of Matthew (n. 11), the narrative of the choice be- 
tween Barabbas and Jesus would be more pointed than 
anywhere else. In any case, it is made clear that the 
people delivered up their Messiah (xxvu. 22), and that it 
was the king of the Jews upon whom the Roman soldiers 
heaped every mockery (xxvii. 27-30, simpler in Mark xv. 
16-19). To the account of the rending of the veil of 
the temple, found also in Mark xv. 38, Matthew (xxvii. 
51-53) adds notice of the earthquake and of the opening 
of the graves of departed saints, who after the resurrection 
of Jesus appeared to many in the “Holy City.” This is 
also witness against the Jewish people, but they will not 
be convinced. The sealing and guarding of the tomb, 
arranged between the Sanhedrin and Pilate (xxvii. 62-66), 
was due to a sincere disbelief in Jesus’ prophecy of His 
resurrection. When, however, unsuspected witnesses in- 
formed the Sanhedrin that the grave had been opened by 
other than human hands, the highest officials took refuge 
in intentional falsehood, and circulated the report which 
still existed “among the Jews” at the time when Matthew 
was written, that Jesus’ friends had stolen His body 
(xxvii. 11-15). But the one thus declared to be dead 
appears alive to His friends in Jerusalem as well as in 
Galilee (xxviii. 9, 17). The same person who refused to 
call either the power of God or that of the devil to His 
aid in order to disarm His foes and to gain dominion over 
the world (iv. 8, xxvi. 53), speaks as a Lord of heaven 


556 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


and earth. The Messiah of Israel who longed to save His 
people from sin, and who remained loyal to this His first 
duty, even unto death (i. 21, x. 5f., 23, xv. 24), commis- 
sions the Eleven to make all peoples without distinction 
His disciples through baptism and teaching. With this 
Church, which shall increase constantly as the majestic 
command is carried out, His invisible presence shall abide 
until the end of the world, 1.6. until His visible return 
(xxvii. 18-20, xxiv. 3, 14). Thus ends “ The Book of 
the History of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son 
of Abraham.” 

If the preceding summary of the principal thoughts 
of the book is in the main correct, we must admit that 
the work is exceedingly rich in its content, that it is 
constructed according to a plan, and that this plan is 
carried out to the smallest detail. In greatness of con- 
ception, and in the power with which a mass of material is 
subordinated to great ideas, no writing in either Testament, 
dealing with a historical theme, is to be compared with 
Matthew. In this respect the present writer would be 
at a loss to find its equal also in the other literature of 
antiquity. On the presupposition—which is justified— 
that the author believed the incidents which he recorded 
to be real facts, and sharing with him the conviction that 
history is governed by God and not by blind chance, we 
need only a little historical imagination to discover in 
Matthew a genuine Jewish book, that is, in so far as the 
method of exposition is concerned. It would not pass 
for history in the Greek sense. Matthew makes little 
effort to give us what is called historical narrative. 
What he gives as a history of Jesus’ birth is in no sense 
narrative (above, pp. 531 f., 537). He records the sending 
out of the apostles, and indicates by an introduction (ix. 
35-38) and the communication of a long preparatory dis- 
course that it is an event of great importance. But he 
says nothing whatever as to how the apostles fulfilled the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 3557 


eommission, and whether they returned to Jesus. When 
and from what quarter Jesus came to His native city, and 
whither He went upon leaving (xiii. 54), are questions to 
which he seems entirely indifferent. Evidently he finds 
no difficulty in giving us Jesus’ words in which Chorazin 
and Bethsaida are said to be the chief scenes of His 
miraculous work (xi. 21), without himself. mentioning the 
two cities in any passage of his history of Jesus... The 
book is concluded, not with words appropriate for a work 
which began as a narrative, but with a saying of Jesus. 
Even in the case of those actions and discourses which 
have great weight for him, the outward circumstances are 
treated with great carelessness. Without the help of 
other accounts, no reader could form a picture of the 
situation in v. 1, vil. 28, or ix. 10-14, or explain wherein 
Jesus “saw” the faith of the bearers in ix. 2, or whether 
Jesus entered Jerusalem riding upon the ass, or the foal, 
or upon each alternately, xxi. 7, or why the sick did 
not besiege the house of Peter until after sundown (viii. 
16, cf. Mark 1. 32 with i. 21). Matthew disdains all ex- 
ternal pragmatism. In a passage where he gives us a 
series of closely connected events (vil. 18-ix. 34, xiv. 
13—xvul. 21), the reasons for this arrangement have nothing 
to do with the chronology. The charge that Matthew 
transferred the Sermon on the Mount to the beginning 
of the Galilean ministry, and the choice of the apostles 
to a later time, was a misunderstanding for which the 
author is not responsible, since he does not narrate the 
latter incident at all (x. 1 ff.), and, moreover, the Sermon 
on the Mount is introduced without connection with any 
other single event, after he had brought the readers to 
the climax of Jesus’ work in Galilee. 

Far greater weight is laid upon the discourses of Jesus 
than upon the clearness of the narratives and the external 
connection of events. Matthew closes his book with words 
of Jesus (xxviil. 18-20), and often represents Him as speak- 


558 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ing at length. Five times discourses of considerable length 
or series of discourses are concluded with the formula, καὶ 
ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους (vii. 28, 
xi. 1, ΧΙ, 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1). That he used a large 
amount of freedom in the composition of these discourses 
is clear even without comparison with the parallels im 
Mark and Luke. The connected and well-arranged dis- 
course of chap. x., which is associated with a definite 
oceasion, could not have been spoken on the occasion 
there indicated. While the ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω (not ἀποστελῶ) 
ὑμᾶς (x. 16) cannot be referred to any other sending out 
of the apostles than that which is narrated in x. 5, every 
intelligent reader says to himself that on this preaching 
tour the apostles could not possibly have been in a position 
where they would be brought before kings and rulers, and 
where they would flee from city to city in expectation of 
Jesus’ return (x. 16-23). In x. 38 it is taken for granted 
that Jesus has already spoken of His death as a death 
on the cross. Comparison with Matt. xvi. 21-27, John 
xvi. 4, and the parallels, Mark xin. 8-13, Luke xii. 2-9, 
51-53, xxi. 12-17, shows beyond doubt that Matthew 
connected the commission which Jesus gave His disciples 
when He sent them out for the first time with other say- 
ings relative to their later work, weaving the whole into 
an ordered discourse. The same is true of the Sermon on 
the Mount (chaps. v.-vil.). Comparison with the discourse 
in Luke vi. 12-49 proves that in both the same historical 
fact is related. Luke’s account has the same beginning 
and conclusion as that of Matthew; all the parts of the 
discourse are to be found in Matthew, and with the single 
exception of Luke vi. 31 (= Matt. vii, 12) in the same 
order. There is no reason to doubt that v. 16-48, vi. 
1—6, 16-18, which are essential for Matthew’s extended 
plan of the Sermon on the Mount, and of importance for 
the apologetic purpose of his Gospel, were in their essen- 
tials a part of the original discourse, and that Luke 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 5359 


omitted these sentences which related to the O.T. and 
Judaism, retaining only the main principles of Christian 
morality (vi. 27-36). Still even here the work of 
Matthew’s free hand is undeniable. The Lord’s Prayer, 
with its introduction and the application at the end (vi. 
7-15), spoils the perfect symmetry of the three parts of 
the discourse concerning alms, prayer, and fasting. To 
this must be added the fact that the historical occasion 
for the Lord’s Prayer, given in Luke xi. 1-4, has every 
appearance of genuineness, and that a second impartation 
of the same prayer, without any reference to a previous 
giving of the same, is extremely improbable. Matthew 
must therefore have taken it out of its historical connec- 
tion and incorporated it in the Sermon on the Mount, 
with the fundamental thought of which it thoroughly 
agrees. This prayer, which every Jew could use, and 
which even in Luke is given in answer to the request 
for a specific formula for Christian prayer, shows, on the 
one hand, that Jesus did not desire to replace Jewish 
forms by new forms, but to fill the same with genuine 
content. On the other hand, it serves to throw a glaring 
light upon prayer as practised by the Pharisees, which 
had sunk to the level of the heathen abuse of this 
office. The same is possible and probable with reference 
to other parts of the Sermon on the Mount. In chap. x. 
the historical foundation of a great discourse is reproduced 
along with a disproportionate amount of material borrowed 
from elsewhere, but the reverse is true in the case of the 
Sermon on the Mount, chaps. v.-vii. ; the parable dis- 
courses, chap. xili. ; the great sermon against the scribes, 
chap. xxui.; and the eschatological discourses, chaps. 
xxiv.-xxv. That, however, in the last three groups of 
discourses also the author has handled the historical 
material with freedom, is not only rendered probable from 
the analogy of the discourses in chaps. v.—vii. and chap, κι, 
but is proved by comparison with the parallels; ef. eg. 


560 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Luke xi. 37-53, xiii. 31-35 with Matt. xxiii. 23-39, or 
Luke xvii. 20-37 with Matt. xxiv. 26-28, 38-41. 

When we survey the entire book, its material and 
method of exposition, its aim and the means by which its 
aim was accomplished, the purpose of the whole is no longer 
obscure. It is an Austorical apology of the Nazarene 
and His Church over against Judaism. The book takes 
for granted that the Jewish people to whom Jesus was 
sent as a Saviour from sin had rejected Him, had been 
offended in Him, and had crucified Him as a revolter 
against the Law and its authentic interpretation, as a false 
Messiah and a blasphemer against God, by which act they 
had made Him all the more a σκάνδαλον to themselves 
(ef. 1 Cor. 1. 23 f.; 1 Pet. ii. 7). It is further presupposed 
that the spiteful slanders of this people, whom Jesus had 
loved so deeply and so faithfully, followed Him after His 
death (pp. 536f, 555), and that up to the time when the 
Gospel was written false aspersions rendered faith in 
Him difficult for the “Jews” (xxviii. 15), also that now 
a Church bound together by Christian confession exists 
as an independent body alongside of the Jewish people, 
identifying themselves with their rulers (xvi. 18, xvii. 

24-27, xviil. 17, xxi. 41-43), and that this Church, whose 
nucleus was gathered from the lost sheep of Israel (x. 6, 
xv. 24, xix. 28), was nevertheless hated and persecuted 
by the Jews (v. 10-12, x. 17-26, xxii. 34-36), whereas 
it opened its doors more and more to the Gentiles (viii. 
10-12, xxi. 43, xxii. 8-10, xxiv. 14, xxv. 32, xxv. 13, 
XXvill. 19, 20, ef. ii, 1-12, ii. 9, v. 13, 14, xiii, 38). 
None of these facts are concealed or apologised for, but 
all are clearly brought out and defended. It is admitted 
that Jesus and His Church have appearances strongly 
against them. Joseph, a son of David, was offended at 
the son of David yet to be born, the greatest of the 
prophets at the prophet Jesus, and the chief of the 
apostles at the Messiah who chose the cross (1,019, “χι" 16) 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 561 


xvi. 22f., xxvi. 31-35). Still the true Israelite does 
not need to be offended in Jesus, and for those who 
have been thus offended there remains always only one 
choice, that between the fate of a Judas (above, p. 554 f.) 
and the blessedness of a Peter, since in spite of all 
Jesus is the Messiah. Those very features in His history 
which appear to be against His Messianic claims when 
rightly understood, will be found to be in harmony with 
prophecy ; all charges of infraction of the law are set 
aside by Jesus’ words and deeds, and what is really 
strange and objectionable to the Jew who judges the 
matter superficially, the flight into Egypt, His bringing 
up in Nazareth, the choice of Galilee as the scene of His 
labours, and His crucifixion,—all were brought about by 
the sin of the Jewish people which will not remain un- 
punished. His blood is upon this entire “people and 
their children” (xxvii. 25), and indeed upon the same 
generation that would not believe His testimony (xii. 
38-45, xxill. 36-38, xxiv. 34). 

A book of this character must have been written by 
a Jew for Jewish readers.. In keeping with the usage of 
the Hebrew Paul (1 Thess. ii., 14; 2 Cor. xi. 24; Rom. ii. 
17, ef. Gal. 1. 18 f.) is the author’s employment in one 
instance of the name ᾿Ιουδαῖοι to designate those of his 
contemporaries who had not become disciples of Jesus 
(xxviii. 15), whereas in Mark vii. 3 the name is used only 
to describe the Jewish nationality in contrast to those who 
are not Jews. Matthew’s language is in general that of 
a Jewish Christian. On the one hand, he makes use of 
conceptions which of themselves could not be understood 
by a Gentile (e.g. v. 22, xvi. 19, xviii. 18). He takes for 
granted that his readers understand the difference between 
the Galilean and Judean dialects (xxvi. 73), as is not the 
case in Mark xiv. 70 in the genuine text. Matthew never 
explains Jewish words and customs as something strange 
to his readers (n. 12), as is the case with Mark (above, p. 

VOL. 11. 36 


562 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


488f.). On the other hand, from the title onwards, he does 
not hesitate to avow his Christian confession. For this 
reason the book could have been written for the Jewish- 
Christian Churches of Palestine; it was adopted by them, 
and afterward recast in the Gospel of the Hebrews. But 
the prominent apologetic and polemic character of the 
book as well as the choice of the language (above, p. 521) 
makes it extremely probable that Matthew desired to 
see his book read primarily by Jews who were not yet 
Christians. It was always possible to find in the Jewish- 
Christian Church persons enough who were almost more 
Jewish than Christian (Acts xv. 5), and others who were 
open to the influence of Jewish insinuations; but the 
Churches of Palestine as a whole as they are known to us 
from the Greek Epistles directed to them, the hints of the 
Acts, and the occasional remarks of Paul, were not in need 
of such an apology for Christ and of such a defence of the 
right of His Church to exist, nor of such a sharp attack 
upon Judaism as governed and misled by Sadducaie high 
priests and Pharisaic rabbis. The book was suited for 
Jewish Christians who were still open to Jewish influences, 
or who had again become so after conversion, also for Jews 
who still resisted the Gospel. And for such readers it was 
probably intended (n. 13). 

1. (Pp. 531, 533.) More detailed proof of many points can be found in the 
writer's commentary on Matthew (Komm. zum NT unter Mitwirkung 
anderer herausgeg, von Th. Zahn, Bd. i. 2te Aufl, 1905), cited in this work 
as ZKom. Matt. With regard to the text of i, 18, observe first of all that 
Origen (Scholion in Migne, xvii. col. 289, cf. Delarue, iii. 965) knew no other 
reading than γέννησις, and on that basis discussed the difference between it 
and γένεσις, i, 1; also that Ss Sc S! use different words in i. 1 and i, 18; and, 
finally, that the important D is defective at this point. Furthermore, with 
Iren. iii. 11. 8, Sc Ss, ete., we are probably to read rod δὲ Χριστοῦ without 
Ἰησοῦ. 

2. (P. 532.) We find the usual designation of a genealogy, γενεαλογία, in 
1 Tim. 1. 4; Tit. iii. 9; cf. γενεαλογεῖσθαι, Heb. vii. 6, cf. ver. 3; 1 Chron 
v. 1. No Hellenist would have translated the Jewish words on om son, 
with or without 20 (Jerusalem Targum, Gen, v. 1; 1 Chron. v. 1; 


2 Chron, xii. 15) or 7539 (Jerusalem Targum, Taanith, 68a ; Bab. Jebam. 495) 
otherwise than by yeveadoyia. The earlier Syriac translators, Ss Sc, have in 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 563 


Matt. i. 1 μη δῆτ sans, like the O.T. Peshito, Gen. v. 1 (except so for xan>); 
only S! ventured to reproduce γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ more exactly by ye ams 
The LXX has αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως not only for nıbın 20, Gen. v. 1, but 
for non so, Gen. ii. 4, while in Gen. vi. 9, x. 1 the latter phrase is more 
accurately represented by αὗται ai γενέσεις, which is the rendering of Aquila 
and Symmachus in Gen. ii. 4 also. On the ground both of content and of 
form, Gen. v. 1 must be regarded as the basis of Matt. 1. 1, for here the Hebrew 
text, both Targums, the LXX, and Aquila (βιβλίον γεννημάτων) all agree. 
There the ereation of the first man is briefly recalled, and then the successive 
generations from Adam to Noah are enumerated. Gen. xxv. 12, 19 are the 
only other instances in which the birth of the person named in the heading 
is so much as mentioned ; everywhere else either the history of the man in 
question, without reference to his own birth, or else the history of his 
descendants is entitled his “ Toledoth,” Gen. vi. 9, x. 1 (32), xi. 10, 27, xxxvi. 
1, 9, xxxvii. 2—nowhere an enumeration of his ancestors. According to O.T. 
usage, therefore (and we can refer to no other for βίβλος γενέσεως), Matt. i. 1 
eould not in any ease be the heading of a genealogy, but rather that of 
an account of Jesus which, like Mark and John, made no mention of His 
parentage and birth. It is possible that this phrase, borrowed from the 
LXX, seemed to the translator less unsuitable for Greek readers than it does 
to us, because he had also in mind the wider sense of γένεσις, “ being in its 
activity—life” (ef. Jas. i. 23, iii. 6). - 

3. (Pp. 534, 536, 538.) Sanhedr. 43a, x7 mabns mp7 (Cod. Mon. add »s\37) 
γ᾽ “ Jesus (the Nazarene), who was connected or related with the royal house”; 
ef. Laible-Dalman, Jesus im Talmud, S. 79 and 15*; Delitzsch, Jesus und 
Hillel, 2te Aufl. S. 13; Derenbourg, Hist. et geogr. de la Pal. p. 349; ZKom. 
Matt. 43f. A.6. As long as the temple stood the Davidie family elaimed 
to be able to prove their descent, as appears from the table of the days on 
which the different families were to provide wood for the altar of burnt- 
offering. Mishnah, Taanith iv. 5 (ef. Schürer, ii. 260 [Eng. trans. τι. i. Ῥ. 
9597) ; on the 20th of Thammuz the house of David. In the N.T. οἵ, Luke 
i. 5, 11. 36; Rom. xi. 1; Phil. iii. 5. The great concern which the Jews, and 
the priests in particular, felt in establishing their descent (Jos. c. Ap. i. 7; 
Vita, i.; Jul. Afric. in Eus. H. E. i. 1) was invariably satisfied by proving 
the links between the latest admittedly legitimate member of the family and 
the one whose legitimacy was in question ; cf. Schiirer, ii. 229 [Eng. trans. 11. 
i. 210]. The accusation that Jesus was born out of wedlock, through an 
adulterous relation between His mother Mary, the wife of Joseph, and a 
soldier named Panthera or Pandera, is brought forward by the Jew whom 
the pagan Celsus introduces into his polemie against Christianity, eirca 170 
(Orig. ὁ. Celswm, i. 28, 32; cf. Eus. Hecl. Proph. iii. 10, ed. Gaisford, p. 111). 
But the ramifications of this fable in the Talmudic literature show that its 
kernel is still older; cf. Laible-Dalman, S. 9-39, 5*-8*; Dérenbourg, pp. 
203 f., 468 ff. Justin also seems to have it in mind, Dial. xxiii. (δίχα duap- 
rias), Ixxviii. (Joseph’s suspicion, ἐγκυμονεῖν αὐτὴν ἀπὸ συνουσίας ἀνδρός, rov- 
τέστιν ἀπὸ πορνείας, cf. xxxv. exvii.) ; ef. Forsch. vi. 266-269. Nor did Celsus 
invent for his Jew the story that Jesus spent part of His youth in Egypt, 
and there learned magic arts by means of which He imposed on the people 
when He returned to His own land (Orig. c. Celswm, i. 28, 38, 46). It is 


564 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


a much older Jewish fable ; ef. Laible-Dalman, S. 40-48, 8*ff. ; Derenbourg, 
203, note 2; 361, note 1; 471. 

4. (Pp. 534, 535.) Except for insignificant variations in the spelling of in- 
dividual names, the text of Matt. i. 1-15 is certain. When Sc—but not Ss 
Sh 51 S*—inserts the three missing kings in ver. 8 (as does D in the arbi- 
trarily arranged genealogy which it inserts at Luke iii. 23) without altering 
the figures in ver. 17, the interpolation is self-evident. If the genealogy in 
Matt. were Greek to begin with, and constructed on the basis of the LXX, 
the omission of the three kings might be explained, perhaps, as an error 
due to the similarity of ᾿Οχοζίας (2 Kings viii. 24-29 ; 2 Chron. xxii. 1) and 
’Olias (Isa. i. 1; 2 Chron. xxvi. 2), especially in view of the mistakes which 
this similarity had already occasioned in the LXX itself (1 Chron. iii, 11, 
‘O¢ias wrongly for Ahaziah ; 2 Chron. xxvi. 1, ᾿Οχοζίας wrongly for Uzziah). 
But the premise does not hold; see § 56,n. 11. If it is probable, further, 
that the author took the names of the kings from the list in 1 Chron. iii. 
10 ff., instead of collecting them laboriously from the narrative (ef. what 
Africanus says of the genealogical inquiries of Jesus’ relatives, Eus. H. E. i. 
7.14; Spitta, Brief des Africanus, 102), the text there gave no occasion for 
confusion. In that passage Uzziah bears the name any, LXX ’Alapias, 
which bears no marked resemblance to nx, LXX Ὀζίας (wrongly for 
*Oyotias). Matthew, then, must have excluded the three kings intentionally, 
among them Joash, who reigned forty years, and Amaziah, who reigned 
twenty-nine. Any particular reason for omitting just these names is not to 
be sought or found; but, on the other hand, it is quite conceivable that 
Matthew did not care to dispense with the names from Uzziah onwards, 
made famous by Isa. i. 1, vi. 1, vii. 1, xxxvi.-xxxix. ; Hos. i. 1; Amosi. 1. 
The fact that Jehoiakim is also lacking before Jeconiah in Matt. i. 11 cannot 
be independent of the further fact that one of the 42 (3 X 14) vouched 
for by ver. 17 is missing. We cannot here appraise the various attempts 
(ingenious attempts in part) to show that this defect is only apparent 
(Hilarius (?) in Florileg. Biblioth. Casin. ii. 66; Hofmann, Werssag. u. Erf. 
ii. 42). It is clear that the insertion of the name Jehoiakim in ver. 11 (so 
as early as Iren. iii. 21. 9, which, according to ZKom, Matt.? 58, A. 18 is 
rather to be denied) does not relieve the difficulty. By that means the second 
section is made to contain fifteen names; for, according to the analogy of 
the first section, Jeconiah is the concluding member of the second, and the 
third section still lacks one. If one recognises the mistake, and holds it 
inconceivable that the writer of the table and of ver. 17 should have mis- 
counted, the most natural supposition is that which Jerome was the first to 
put forward, distinetly, at least (on Matt. i. 11, Vallarsi, vii. 11; cf. Eus. 
Quest. ad. Steph., in Mai, Nova P. Bibl. iv. 1. 243), namely, that Ἰεχονίας in 
ver. 11 is an erroneous rendering of ap, while in ver. 12 the same form 
stands for ya», If the LXX represents both these names by Ἰωακείμ in a 
single sentence (2 Kings xxiv. 6; cf. xxiii. 36, xxiv. 1, 5=Jehoiakim ; xxiv. 
8, 12, 15, Jehoiachin—which led Eusebius, loc. cit., into very inapt com- 
ments), the Greek translator of Matthew may equally well have obliterated 
the distinction made in the original. In that case Matthew himself meant 
Jehoiakim, son of Josiah, eleven years on the throne, and in καὶ rods ἀδελφοὺς 
αὐτοῦ grouped the other princes with him, his brother Jehoahaz who reigned 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 565 


for three months before him, his brother Zedekiah who came to the 
throne later, and also his son Jehoiachin or Jeconiah who was king 
only three months. He does not refer to the latter by name till ver. 12, 
but he mentions him as the one who maintained the succession (1 Chron. 
iii. 17). 

5. ἣν 537.) The text of Matt. 1. 16 has been handed down in the three 
forms which follow, designated by the present writer as A, B,C. (A) Ἰακὼβ 
δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος 
Χριστός. So all Greek uncials, and all MSS. and versions except those 
named under B and C. (B) Ἰακὼβ de ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Ιωσήφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα 
παρθένος Μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν. So (1) the min- 
uscles 346, 543 (Scrivener’s, 556), 826, 828 (cf. Ferrar, Collation of four 
MSS. 1877, p. 2; Scrivener, Adversaria Critica Sacra, 1893, p. 1; Lake, 
J ThS, i. (1899) p. 119; Harris, Further Researches in the History of the Ferrar- 
group, 1900, p. 7). (2) This text forms the basis of the old Latin version. 
The Codex k, which is considered the truest witness for its oldest form, 
gives: “Et Jacob genuit Joseph, cui desponsata virgo Maria genuit Jesum 
Christum” (Old Latin Bibl. Texts, ed. Wordsworth, ii. 24). Essentially the 
same is found in other old Latin MSS. (op. cit. 1. 5, iii. 1; Bianchini, Ev. 
Quadruplex, i. 4, 5; also in d[D is defective]) and in Latin writers, cf. for 
example, Chron. Min., ed. Frick, i. 60. 24, 100. 7, 102.1. This text also 
underlies (3) Se: “Jacob begat Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the 
virgin, who bare Jesus Christ.” (4) The Armenian version presents a con- 
flation of texts A and B (according to Robinson, Euthaliana, p. 82): “Jacob 
begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, to whom being betrothed Mary the virgin, 
from whom was born Jesus, who was named Christ.” The words in 
italics have been introduced very awkwardly from Binto A. In the same 
way, moreover, only without παρθένος, the citation of the Christian, Timothy, 
is given in his dialogue with the Jew Aquila, concerning the Christ (ed. 
Fr. Conybeare, Anecd. Oxon., Class. Ser. viii. 76): Ἰακὼβ de (sc. ἐγέννησεν) 
τὸν Ἰωσήφ, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα Μαρία, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος 
Χριστός. Similarly, but still more freely, on p. 88 [C] Ss: “Jacob begat 
Joseph ; Joseph, to whom Mary the virgin was betrothed, begat Jesus, who 
is called Christ.” A trace of this text appears, as it seems, in a sentence of 
Dionysius Barsalibi on Matt. i. 18, perhaps copied from an older source, 
which Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. 266, gives, following the MSS. : 
“And when he (the Evangelist in his genealogy) comes to Joseph, he says, 
‘Who begat the Messiah,’ and for that reason afterwards he says, ‘The birth 
of Jesus the Messiah was thus,’ etc.” On the other hand, as Burkitt shows 
on p. 265, one has no right to discover in a passage of the dialogue of 
Timothy with Aquila (viii. 76, line 11f.) a Greek witness for the text ©. 
The Jew cites from the Gospel of Matt. (κατὰ Ματθαία !) exactly the text 
A, and adds to it: καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν, 
περὶ οὗ νῦν ὁ λόγος, φησίν, ἐγέννησεν ἐκ τῆς Μαρίας. Although the text 
does not appear to be entirely in order, still it is clear that these words are 
not a second eitation added to the first, but a Jewish interpretation of the 
A text. It is easy to understand that before the discovery of Ss no especial 
attention was paid to the variant readings of Matt. i. 16 (see Tischendorf 
and Westcott-Hort, 1881, i. 4; Appendix, p. 7); for it was and is evident 


566 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


that A did not arise from B, but B from A, and from the necessity to obtain 
a text which corresponded better with the belief of the Church. That the 
designation of Joseph as the husband of Mary (A) was found objectionable, 
is proved also by the fact that Sc, which is also a principal witness for B, 
i. 19, has omitted τὸν ἄνδρα, and in i. 20 has translated τὴν ἐμνηστευμένην 
σου instead of τὴν γυναῖκά gov. Even more necessary appeared a change of 
i. 16, since the relative sentence in that verse hints at the condition of 
affairs presented in i. 18 ff., but in no way clearly expresses it. Accordingly 
the meaning of Matthew would be made sure against any danger of mis- 
understanding by μνηστευθεῖσα and παρθένος, and at the same time, through 
a change of construction, an ἐγέννησεν substituted for ἐγεννήθη, and thereby 
an external harmony would be obtained with the form of the preceding 
sentences, which occurs thirty-nine times. In this last instance, however, 
ἐγέννησεν does not mean “begat” but “bare.” Moreover, τὸν λεγόμενον 
was in all probability struck out by the originator of the B text; for the 
agreement of the old Latin witnesses (and, judging by d, also D) with Se 
outweighs the evidence of the Greek min., which in this passage have 
accommodated themselves to the reading of the A text. τὸν λεγόμενον 
corresponds to the style of Matt. (iv. 18, ix. 9, xxvi. 3, 14, xxvii. 16, 17, 22), 
and is therefore surely genuine; however, not original to B, but omitted 
because of its indifferent tone. Consequently the B text in comparison 
with A is proved to bea secondary transformation, and the peculiar C text, 
which is found only on Syrian soil, a tertiary form. CO shares with B, the 
μνηστευθεῖσα and παρθένος, changes of the A text, prompted by dogmatic 
caution, and only in respect of the unimportant 6 λεγόμενος does it show 
dependence on the A text, as do the Greek MSS. mentioned above under 
B, No. 1, and the mixed texts under B, No. 4. These last disprove the 
assumption of Burkitt (p. 263), that on Syrian soil Ss represents the original 
(appearing essentially in the B text), and Se an emended form of the first 
Syriac translation. To be sure, Sc with its double relative sentence is an 
awkward rendering of the B text, but yet inexact only in so far as B, 
accurately translated, would read: “to whom being betrothed, a virgin 
(named) Mary,” etc., and Se translates as though it had found ἡ παρθένος 
before or after Μαριάμ. This inexactness is also found in Ss; and even if 
Burkitt were correct in his opinion that Ss connected the & found in B, 
both with ἐγέννησε and μνηστευθείσῃ (1.6. would perhaps read: “to whom 
the Virgin Mary, betrothed to him, bare Jesus, who is called the Christ”), 
would not this have been a very awkward and in the highest degree 
erroneous translation? And how then could the second Joseph peculiar to 
Ss be explained? For every uncritical reader would have understood it to 
he the subject of ἐγέννησεν. Why did Ss not write like Se a %, instead of 
repeating the name, in order to have the relative sentence depend upon it? 
The emendation of the reading of the B text, supported by a prevalent 
tradition, which was in essentials correetly rendered by the first Syriac 
translation, lacks support from any other tradition. The reason for the 
change is that he made Joseph the subject of ἐγέννησεν. His intention 
cannot have been to represent Joseph as the physical father of Jesus, for it 
is impossible that one who had this purpose should at the same time and in 
the same sentence speak even more clearly then the A text of Mary’s vir: 


THE FIRST 'THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 567 


ginity ; exclude the existence of marital relations between her and Joseph ; 
and in i. 18-25 emphasise as strongly as does the catholic text that Jesus was 
begotten through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, Ss does not 
show elsewhere either in respect of this or any other writer an especially 
dogmatic bias. Presumably the translator stumbled unawares into his 
strangely self-contradictory reading through the comparison of a Greek text 
with the form of the Syriac version which lay before him. As he took from 
this τὸν λεγόμενον, so also the ἐγέννησεν. The Greek MS. compared by him 
was similar to those mentioned under B, No. 1. Of this ἐγέννησεν, which, 
just as in the thirty-nine preceding instances, he thought, must be under- 
stood to designate the connection between father and son, only Joseph could 
be the subject. He must therefore repeat his name as subject of a new 
sentence. He could do this unhesitatingly, since also in many of the pre- 
ceding sentences (6.0. ver. 8) the same word in no sense expresses physical 
fatherhood. He wished by this to designate Jesus as Joseph’s son only in 
the same way as in i. 1 He was called David’s son. The zeal with which 
many haye seized upon the reading of Ss as a bit of the primitive Gospel, 
without looking to right or left, is explained by the old prejudgment that the 
genealogy of Jesus, leading as it does to Joseph, could have been prepared 
only by one who took him to be the actual father of Jesus. But the alleged 
contradiction between the genealogy and the following narrative is found 
equally in Luke—and so in both of the only old Christian writings extant 
which trace the Davidie descent of Jesus in a genealogy. That His Davidie 
descent was ever understood in the Christian community in any other sense 
is an hypothesis without support in the existing literature ; cf. with regard 
to the Gospel of the Hebrews, GK, ii. 670f., 686f., 690; and on the whole 
question, the writer’s Das apos. Symbol., 2te Aufl. S. 54-68. The hope of 
finding indications in old MSS. and versions that the authors of lost Gospels 
or brief writings which may have been worked over in our Matt. and Luke 
regarded Joseph as the physical father of Jesus, should at last be dismissed. 
An author who knew how to make even the dry material of a genealogy 
to its least detail contribute to the purpose of his thought regarding the 
slandered miracle of the Messiah’s birth (see p. 534 ff. above), cannot at the 
same time have taken over statements from a genealogy of Joseph or Jesus 
used by him which directly contradicted his conception of this fact. Any 
text of Matthew which contained such statements would be condemned in 
advance as one altered against the author’s intent. 

6. (Ὁ. 537.) The formula used nine times by Matthew, ἵνα or ὅπως 
πληρωθῇ κτλ. (to which the similar expressions in ii. 17, xxvi. 54, xxvii. 9 
should be added), appears elsewhere only in Mark xiv. 49 (a parallel to 
Matt. xxvi. 54), and seven times in John, referring to O.T. predictions and 
prophetic words of Jesus; it does not occur in Paul or in either of Luke’s 
books, and Jas. ii. 23 is the only further passage to be brought into com- 
parison. This is not the place to defend against unintelligent fault-finding 
the thoughtful conception of history which is set forth in these words, For 
a proper appreciation of the Gospel of Matthew in this regard, the point 
which is before all else decisive is the fact that the author, who in i. 23, ii. 6, 
xil. 18-21, xv. 8f., xxvii. 9 (also probably xiii. 13-15, see ZKom. Matt. 474) 
shaped the O,T. texts to his purpose with entire freedom, makes not the 


568 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


slightest attempt to transform historical statements, like those cited in in 
15, 18, viii. 17, into predictions of future events. 

7. (P. 539.) We must reject every interpretation of Matt. ii. 23 which 
disregards the fact that the passage differs from i. 22 f. (ii. 5), ii. 15, 17, iii, 3, 
iv. 14, viii. 17, xii. 17, xiii. 35 (xv. 7), xxi. 4 (xxii. 31, 43), xxvii. 9, first, in 
that it mentions not an individual prophet, but the prophets in general ; and, 
secondly, in the omission of the λέγοντος or λεγόντων of citation. These facts 
make it impossible to look here for a quotation from either a canonical or an 
apocryphal book. Moreover, örı cannot introduce, in indirect quotation, a 
summary of the whole prophetic teaching with regard to the lowliness of 
the Messiah and the possibility of misjudging Him (so practically Hofmann, 
Weiss. u. Erf. ii. 63-66, in an otherwise admirable discussion), nor yet a 
composite of passages like Isa. xi. 1; Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15; Zech. iii. 8, 
vi. 12; for it is not said in any of these passages that the Messiah is to bear 
any name approaching that of Ναζωραῖος, but He is spoken of figuratively by 
the prophets themselves as a 7x3 or nos. The appeal to the prophets col- 
lectively is not followed by any sort of citation, exact or inexact, any more 
than in xxvi. 56 or the other passages that might be compared (Mark xiv. 49; 
John xvii. 12). ὅτι, then, instead of which γάρ would be plainer and better 
Greek, is to be understood causally, as in Matt. xxvi. 54; Actsi. 17. In 
justification of his view that the settlement of the Holy Family in Nazareth, 
a city unnamed in promise, was not a mere accident, but a fulfilment of the 
whole tenor of prophecy, Matt. recalls that the Child who there grew to 
manhood was one day to receive from His people the opprobrious title of the 
Nazarene. The Promised One was to enter upon His mission misunderstood 
and misjudged. The harshness of the construction, which lies in the fact that 
κληθήσεται must be understood from the standpoint of a moment already past 
at the author’s time (= ἤμελλε yap Ναζωραῖος κληθῆναι), is paralleled in Rom. 
iv. 24, and for that matter also in Matt. xvii. 11, ef. 12, and is not without 
support in the best Greek ; ef. Kiihner-Gerth, i. 173f. The translation is 
obscure and liable to misunderstanding, perhaps in consequence of a too 
anxiously exact fidelity to the Aramaic original. It might also be doubted 
whether the translator himself understood the original correctly. 

8. (P. 540.) In Matt. ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν occurs thirty-three or thirty- 
four times; elsewhere in the N.T. only once (namely, John iii. 5), according 
to the correct text. The conception is thoroughly Jewish, and very common 
in the Mishnah and allied literature (cf. Schürer, Jb/PTh, 1876, S. 166 ff.) ; 
but it is there quite colourless and divested of its eschatological character. 
The root of the idea, to speak briefly, lies in Dan. ii. 34f., 44f. and its 
authentic interpretation in John xviii. 36 ; ef. ZKom. Matt. 124 ff. 

9. (P. 542.) On the 25th of April 1868, in Göttingen, the present writer 
publicly defended this thesis among others: “ Orationis montane a Matthao 
evangelista tradite summa in cap. v. 16 proposita est,” te. not in v. 17; for 
the latter statement covers only the discussion through v. 48 ; and even if one 
takes v. 17-20 as the theme, it is impossible to bring the whole content of the 
discourse within it. Moreover, while vii. 12 may appear to be a summing up 
of the whole with v. 17 in mind, it is only apparently so. Concern lest the 
accentuation of v.16 should result in a contradiction of vi. 1 is needless, for 
the discrepancy is not increased by taking v. 16 as the fundamental thought 


THE FIRST 'THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 569 


of the discourse. As a matter of fact, there is no contradiction. The only 
possible query is whether opposition to the Pharisees still exists in vi. 19- 
vii. 5; cf. xxiii. (14?) 25 ; Mark xii. 40 ; Luke xii. (1) 22-31, 34, xvi. 13-31. 
ὑποκριτά, vii. 5, would indicate that the contrast was still in mind. 

10. (P. 550.) We cannot introduce here an exposition of the passage 
xvi. 16-20, which, on account of the practical ecclesiastical interest which 
attaches to it, has been so variously misinterpreted. The present writer 
confines himself to the following suggestions : (1) The attempt to show from 
Tatian’s Diatessaron that even past the middle of the second century xvi. 18 f. 
was lacking in many or all manuscripts of Matt., and so that what we have 
before us is a later catholic interpolation, has been futile (Forsch. i. 163 f., 
243 f., 290f.; GK, ii. 546). How essential the statements about the Church 
are in the construction of Matthew’s Gospel appears above. (2) ἡ βασιλεία 
τῶν οὐρανῶν does not signify here, any more than elsewhere, the kingdom of 
God to be found in heaven, the other-world abode of the exalted Christ and 
the blessed who wait for the resurrection (2 Tim. iv. 18 ; John xiv. 2), but 
the kingdom of God from heaven set up on earth. Between Hades below and 
heaven above is the kingdom of God on earth. This kingdom is not repre- 
sented here, however, in its future completion after the parousia (xvi. 28), but 
in its preparatory, still imperfect form. Such a form the kingdom—in its 
essence invisible, and established in men’s hearts through God’s Word (xiii. 
18 ff., 37) and His Spirit (iii. 11)—already before its completion possesses in 
the Church of Jesus. This conception, so clear in xiii. 41, is demanded by 
the connection of thought in the present passage. The keys, ver. 19, belong 
to the house, ver. 18; the house, therefore, is identical with the kingdom, 
ef. xxi. 42, 43 and also xii. 25-29. (3) The key or keys are the symbol 
of the steward’s office, cf. Isa. xxii. 22 (in Rev. iii. 7 the master of the 
house himself carries them). Peter is the (chief) οἰκονόμος in the administra- 
tion of the Church ; cf. Matt. xxiv. 45-51; Luke xii. 42-48; 1 Cor. iv. 1, 
ix. 17; and, to the point, John xxi. 15-17. (4) To the administrative 
authority thus announced ver. 19) adds legislative power; for δέειν and 
λύειν correspond to the Rabbinic 1px “declare forbidden,” and nn “ declare 
permitted.” The reference, as a rule, is to courses with regard to whose per- 
missibility different opinions might be entertained, but never to past actions, 
sins committed. Matt. xvi. 19 has absolutely no connection with John 
xx. 23. 

11. (P. 555.) Origen (Gallandi, xiv., Appendix, p. 81; Comm. in Matt., 
Delarue, iii. 642, 918) found Jesus as the real name of Barabbas, Matt. xxvii. 
16 ff., “in very old manuscripts.” So also Ss (Sc is defective), Arm., Sh 
(which is entirely independent of the other Syriac versions), and also a few 
Greek minuscules and scholia. Tatian probably did not have it, for Bar- 
Bahlul refers to it expressly as a reading of the Gospel of the Separated (Forsch. 
i, 105 ; ef. 108, 211). Nor can it be established in the Gospel of the Hebrews ; 
GK, ii. 697-700. Still, the reading, which could easily give offence, and may 
for that very reason have been set aside by the redactor of the Gospel of the 
Hebrews also, is early and well enough attested to permit the conjecture 
stated on p. 555 above ; cf. ZKom. Matt. 702 ; Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mephar- 
reshe, ii. 178, 277. 

12. (P.561.) If the reading of the later MSS., οἱ λέγοντες, were authentic, 


570 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Matt. xxii. 23, like Mark xii. 18, Luke xx. 27, Acts xxiii. 8, it would be an 
instance of information to the readers with regard to the doctrines of the 
Sadducees. According to the original text without oi, the meaning is rather 
that the Sadducees disputed with Jesus concerning the Resurrection, which 
they denied, and in the course of a discussion of this sort laid before Him 
the captious question about the woman seven times married, 

13. (P. 562.) Among the many charaeterisations of the Gospel of Matt., 
the following are worthy of special attention :—Hofmann, Vermischte Aufsätze 
(1878, written in 1856), S. 15-33 (ef. also his N.T. ix. 297-317), and Aberle, 
ThQSc, 1859, S. 567-588 (cf. his Hinl. ins N.T., published by Schanz, 1877, 
S, 20-32). Aberle brought out the apologetic and polemic aim of the Gospel 
more clearly than others have done; but his idea that it was written asa reply 
to a document traducing Christ and His Church, circulated by the Sanhedrin 
and known to Justin (Dial. xvii. 108, 117) and even to Origen (ὁ. Cels. i. 38, 
vi, 27), has met with little acceptance. Neither Matt. (xxviii. 15, ἐφημίσθη ὁ 
λόγος οὗτος) nor Justin nor Origen refers to such a document. Eusebius (on 
Isa. xviii. 1 f.; Montfaucon, Coll. Nova Patr. ii. 424 f.) was the first to conceive 
of these Jewish slanders as taking the form of official communications from 
the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to the Jews of all the world ; and, while Eusebius 
appealed to older authorities, he wrote under the influence of the text upon 
which he was commenting, and for the purpose of contrasting the apostles of 
Christ, who were also letter-writers, with the “apostles” of the Jewish 
“patriarch,” This, then, is not old tradition, but learned invention. The 
passages in the N.T. which refer to Jewish calumnies and Jewish opposition 
to Christianity outside of Palestine (Rom. iii. 8, cf. Rom. as a whole, and 
vol, i, 424; .1 Thess. ii. 15f.; Gal. iv. 29; Rev. ii. 9, iii. 95: and the 
narratives in Acts, perhaps with the exception of ix. 2), convey no hint of 
any action of the Sanhedrin to that end, and Acts xxviii. 21f. is evidence 
to the contrary, It is true that the Jewish slanders, in oral cireulation, to 
which Matt. has reference, were still current to some extent in Justin’s time ; 
but the very ones which are most clearly indicated by the apologetic attitude 
of Matt. i. and ii. are hardly hinted at in Justin (see p. 563, n. 3). The 
alleged theft of Christ’s body by the disciples is known to Justin (Dial. 
evili) from Matt. xxviii. 13, 


§ 56. COMPARISON OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 
WITH THE TRADITION REGARDING IT. 


It has been established by the preceding investigation 
that Matthew was written for Jews and Jewish Christians 
in Palestine, as the tradition reports (above, pp. 521, 560 ἢ). 
The fact that in spite of this it was circulated as early 
as the first century even in Churches predominantly 
Gentile, was orally translated, and then finally translated 
into Greek (above, p. 513 ff.), is easily explained by the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND: ACTS 571 


richness of its contents, and by the absence of all such 
Jewish ideas as were out of harmony with the Christian 
confession in general, or with the views which prevailed 
in the Gentile Christian Churches at the beginning. Paul 
would have no objection to this Gospel, which represented 
Jesus as “a servant of the circumcision” under the law, 
and yet at the same time the King of heaven and earth, 
who bestows the gospel upon all peoples (Gal. iv. 4; Rom. 
xv. 8). Not until the true historical picture of Jesus and 
of the situation of His first Church had faded out, did 
critical questionings arise among Gentile Christians as 
to the truth of Matthew’s peculiar setting forth of the 
history and his new uncritical interpretations of it (n. 1). 

There is nothing in the Gospel which contradicts the 
tradition that it was written between 61 and 66. If the 
“to this day ” (xxvii. 8, xxvill. 15) were after the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem and the temple, we would expect that 
an author who values so highly as does Matthew proof 
based upon the concurrence of prophecy and its fulfilment 
for the justification of Christ over against Judaism, would 
indicate somewhere and in some manner that the prophecy 
of Jesus had been fulfilled in this judgment (xxii. 7, xxiii. 
35-xxiv. 2, xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40). Matthew makes no 
attempt whatever to separate the prophecy concerning the 
parousia from the prophecy concerning the judgment upon 
Jerusalem and the Jewish contemporaries of Christ (xvi. 
28, xxiv. 3, 34, xxvi. 64; see above, p. 449f.). There are 
sayings which make it appear as if the apostolic preaching 
was to continue in Israel until the parousia of Christ, and 
as if the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles was not 
to begin until after the destruction of Jerusalem (x. 23, 
xxi. 7-10, xxiii. 34-36), standing alongside of other say- 
ings in which the completion of the preaching among all 
peoples is made the condition of the parousia (xxiv. 14, ef. 
v. 14, vii. 11, xii. 18-21, xiii. 38, xxiv. 31, xxv. 32, xxvi. 13, 
xxvill. 19). The author makes no attempt to harmonise 


572 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


these differences. Because when Matthew was written 
there was as yet no sign of fulfilment, the relation in which 
the predicted setting up of the idolatrous abomination in 
the temple, with the accompanying desolation, 1.6. desecra- 
tion of the temple (xxiv. 15), stood to the other event 
prophesied at the same time, namely, the destruction of 
the temple and of the city (xxi. 7, xxii. 38-xxiv. 4), is 
left obscure. It is evidence of the faithfulness with which 
this particular prophecy is recorded in Matthew, that the 
author, unlike Mark (xiii. 14; above, p. 500f.), does not 
employ the language in keeping with the later under- 
standing of apostolic Christianity which was the result of 
actual experience (n. 2). In the prophecy of the fall of 
Jerusalem itself we do not find such features in Matthew 
as appear in Luke’s account (xix. 41-44, xxi. 20, xxiii. 
28-30), which could be judged a reflection of the event 
after its fulfilment. The attempt has been made to derive 
from Matt. xix. 1 the idea that, from the point of view of 
the author, Judea lay on the other side of the Jordan, 
and that accordingly the book, or this portion of it, 
was written on the east side of the Jordan, about 
the time when the Christian refugees from Jerusalem 
found a place of safety in Pella. This would bring us 
down a little beyond the time limits drawn by Ireneeus, 
since the departure from Jerusalem certainly did not take 
place before the year 66 (n. 3). It is, however, incon- 
ceivable that merely in consequence of a change of 
residence to the other side of the river, which had taken 
place shortly before, and against the regular Jewish usage 
and the usage which he himself follows in other passages 
of his book, a Jew, who up to this time had lived west of 
the Jordan, should have characterised the latter region 
πέραν τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου in a narrative the scene of which up to 
this point had been Galilee. The words themselves do not 
forbid, but favour the interpretation that on this occasion 
Jesus made the journey from Galilee to Judea through 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 573 


Perea instead of Samaria (n. 4). Equally erroneous is the 
opinion that in Matt. xxiu. 35 Jesus is made to refer to 
an event which took place in the year 67 or 68, not 
prophetically, but in historical reminiscence (n. 5), If this 
were an unintentional error, the composition of Matthew 
would have to be brought down at least to the year 100, 
a date which, as has been shown, does not agree with the 
other contents of the book. If, on the other hand, it were 
an intentional modification of a word of Jesus in the 
tradition (Luke xi. 51), it would represent an inconceivable 
mixture of thoughtlessness and perverseness. In reality 
the occurrence of the name Barachiah instead of Jehoiada 
is only one of those oversights on the part of Matthew 
which the learned redactor of the Gospel of the Hebrews 
saw fit to correct (n. 5). There are no critical reasons 
why we should not accept the tradition according to which 
Matthew wrote his Gospel in Palestine between the years 
61 and 66 (n. 6). 

Likewise the supposition that he wrote in the common 
language of Palestine, and that our Greek Matthew is a 
translation from the Hebrew, 1.6. Aramaic, made con- 
siderably later (above, pp. 506-522), finds support in the 
text. In the discussion of this question it is first of all 
to be kept in mind that Jesus made use of Aramaic (§ 1) 
in His preaching to the people and in instructing His 
disciples, as well as in all His intercourse with His contem- 
poraries, so that «ll the discourses of Jesus and the words 
spoken by Him to the Jews, who had intercourse with 
Him, preserved to us in Greek books, are only translations. 
And we are not the first to be dependent on such trans- 
lations; but this was likewise true for the Christians in 
Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome in the days of the 
unwritten Gospel (§ 48). The possibility or the necessity 
of referring one of Jesus’ words to an Aramaic original in 
order to understand it fully or to explain the different 
forms in which it occurs in the tradition, proves nothing 


574 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


as to whether the writings in which it is found were 
originally Greek or translations from the Aramaic. The 
material which an evangelist like Luke, who knew little 
or no Aramaic, took from the oral or written tradition 
must have been already in Greek, and the Hebrew or 
Aramaie idioms which are observable in his accounts may 
be regarded as in so far proof of the faithfulness with 
which he reproduces what he received from the tradition. 
lt does not, however, establish anything with reference 
to his linguistie ability, nor prove that one of his sources 
was in Aramaic, since the oral account or writing at the 
basis of his narrative can go back either directly or 
indirectly to a Jewish Christian who knew Greek enough 
to be able to give an oral or written account of Jesus 
in this language, and who at the same time was still 
“Hebrew” enough to betray himself in his language 
either intentionally or unintentionally. Even an evan- 
gelist like Mark, whose native language was Aramaic, but 
who for decades had been in the service of missionary 
work outside of his native land, and had finally come ‘to 
know Greek well enough to undertake composition in this 
language, did not have to construct the Greek form of his 
Gospel entirely new. He was influenced by the manner 
in which the words and deeds of Jesus were customarily 
related in Greek in connection with the missionary work. 
This would be even more true in the case of a translator 
who put the Aramaic Matthew into Greek after it had been 
translated orally for a number of years, especially if the 
work was done at a time when Greek Gospels were already 
in existence and circulated in the circle to which the trans- 
lator belonged. In the case before us, however, this is at 
least very probable. Besides Mark (above, pp. 444, 516 ἢ), 
still other Greek Gospel writings could have been in exist- 
ence in the vicinity of the Greek translator of Matthew, 
as the Gospel of Luke or one of the writings mentioned in 
Luke i. 1 which have not come down to us. Besides being 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 575 


influenced by the ecclesiastical language of the Greek 
Churches, it was unavoidable that the author should be 
affected also by the oral translation of the Aramaic 
Matthew, which had been practised for years, and from 
which, finally, the written translation originated, as well 
as by Greek Gospels like that of Mark. We must also 
remember that translations made in ancient times varied 
greatly in character. We find a disposition to translate 
a text which was already regarded as Holy Seripture with 
slavish literalness. For this reason the LXX is on the 
whole a very literal translation which everywhere does 
violence to the genius of the Greek language, a particular 
in which Aquila’s translation is even a greater offender 
(vol. i. p. 56). The Old Latin translation, particularly 
that of the N.T., which was not made until the N.T. had 
long been accepted as Holy Seripture by the Church, 
was designed to be literal. In this point the revisers 
had few changes to make; they simply freed it from its 
slavish dependence upon the original, and made the Latin 
smoother. The translation of the Gospels among the 
Syrians exhibits the reverse process. From the Diates- 
saron or Syrus Sinaiticus to the work of Thomas of 
Heraclea we notice a constant development away from 
great freedom to slavish literalness; a tolerably good 
manipulation of the native language gives place to a 
handling of the same which grows constantly worse and 
worse as the attempt is made to render the original 
more and more faithfully. When the Greek Matthew was 
produced (above, p. 516), the development in the direetion 
of treating the original upon which it is based as Holy 
Seripture could not yet have gone very far. The trans- 
lator could not have been a pure Hellenist, since as such 
he would not have understood the original, but was 
simply one of those ‘‘ Hebrews” who, like Paul, was not 
only proficient in his own language, but master also of 
Greek (vol. i. p. 48 ff.). He must have been born or have 


576 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


grown up among the Hebrews, and therefore have been 
accustomed to the oral translation of the Hebrew original 
into Aramaic as it was practised in the synagogues of the 
Hebrews. Here literal exactness was not regarded as 
essential even in relation to the O.T. Much less, then, 
could it have appeared to the translator to be his first 
and only duty with reference to Matthew,—a writing not 
yet old enough to be regarded as sacred. Finally, it is 
to be remembered that the language of a translator does 
not always show stronger traces of dependence upon the 
original language than that of an independent author who 
is under the necessity of using a language other than 
his own. A German writing in English and for English 
readers about conditions in his native land would be far 
less careful to avoid Germanisms than a German trans- 
lating a work of Goethe or Ranke into English. 

The style of Matthew shows throughout fewer Hebra- 
isms than that of Mark and Revelation. Constructions 
entirely foreign to Greek idiom do not occur, and the use 
of καί in, the narrative is much less frequent (n. 7, and 
above, p. 502, n. 2). Indeed, the question arises whether 
the painful frequency of certain formule and construc- 
tions which take the place of the Semitic form of narrative 
are not due to the translator’s effort to avoid the latter 
(n. 7). That Matthew is a translation from a Semitic 
original is proved primarily on other grounds. An author 
writing originally in Greek could not have written 1. 21. 
A Greek reader unfamiliar with the etymological meaning 
of yw» could not see the logical force of the explanation 
of the choice of the name here given, and, therefore, for 
such the sentence is simply unintelligible. The Aramaic- 
speaking Jews, among whom the Hebrew proper name 
Jesus was very common, and to whom the meaning of 
the stem must have been generally familiar from the 
liturgical use of hosanna, understood the sentence at once 
even if the σώζειν of the Greek Matthew did not represent 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 577 


the corresponding Hebrew verb, but the purely Aramaic 
pr» (n. 8). The Greek translator could or should have 
helped his reader out of the difficulty by a 6 ἐστιν 
μεθερμηνευόμενον σωτήρ OY σωτηρία κυρίου, which would have 
rendered the following αὐτὸς yap σώσει intelligible. Justin 
(Apol. i. 33) did so. That the author of the Greek 
Matthew omits this explanation, is proof of the exactness 
of his translation, but not of his skill as a translator. The 
case is similar ın Matt. x. 25, where the connection between 
the literal meaning of the name Beelzebub and the figure 
of the οἰκοδεσπότης and the οἰκιακοί (vol. i. p. 20) is lost to 
the Greek reader, and therewith the point of the discourse. 
If they had recorded this saying at all, Mark, and certainly 
Luke, would not have omitted an explanation of the word. 
A simple explanation of the content such as we have in 
Matt. xu. 24 (ef. Mark in. 22; Luke xi. 15), would not 
have been sufficient. The absence of an explanation of 
the word κορβανᾶς, xxvii, 6, is all the more striking, because 
in xv. 5 the Hebrew and Aramaic word, which was un- 
intelligible to Greek readers, is replaced by the Greek 
translation which Mark found it necessary to add in 
vil. 11. Here and in other places the Greek Matthew 
not only makes less effort than does Mark to retain the 
form of the original language, but rather betrays a purpose 
to furnish his Greek readers with a text at once intelli- 
gible, with the fewest possible foreign expressions (n, 9). 
This fact makes the other cases where Hebrew and Aramaic 
words and names are left unexplained, as in ᾿Ιησοῦς, i. 21; 
BeedfeBovr, x. 26; ῥαχά, v. 22; kopßaväs, xxvii. 6, seem 
to be due to dependence upon the Aramaic original, and 
to a lack of courage on the translator's part to render 
this freely. In the same way is to be explained the 
obscurity of the expression in ii. 23 (above, p. 568, n. 7); 
further, the use of πέραν τοῦ ’Iopdavov as a substantive 
without the article in iv. 25, which is contrary to Greek 
idiom, and also the occurrence of genitives like Γαλιλαίας 
VOL. 1. 37 


578 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


and ᾿Ιουδαίας governed by ἀπό (iv. 25, cf. iv. 15), likewise 
the translation of Jewish scholastic terms by öde» and 
λύειν (Xvi. 19, xvill. 18; above, p. 569, ἢ. 10), which is 
literal but unintelligible to Greek readers. If, according 
to John 1. 42, xxi. 15-17, and the Gospel of the Hebrews, 
Peters father was called Jochanan, the Bar-Jonah of 
Matt. xvi. 17 is a mistake more likely to have been made 
by a translator than by the author (vol. 1. 17). The 
retention of the Aramaic bar without an added translation 
seems to be without purpose, and its employment along 
with the Greek form Πέτρος (cf. per contra, John i. 42) 
is inconsistent, and exhibits poor style. Kavavatos (x. 4), 
which an ignorant scribe changed to Kavavérns, and 
Xavavaia (xv. 22), are correct transcriptions of 8282? (Dal- 
man, Gr.1 188, better than 2te Aufl. 174) and xn»; but 
it would have been better for his Greek readers if the 
author of the Greek Matthew had given the translation 
of the first, which is customary in Luke and Josephus, 
ζηλωτής, and if he had substituted for the latter the 
specification which we find in Mark vii. 26. Perhaps if 
we could compare the original with the translation, we 
should be able to make the same definite claim with 
regard to other passages where now we must be content 
with modest conjectures (n. 10). The omissions of things 
it was incumbent upon a translator to say, which are noted 
above, lose none of their force as proof because in other 
places the translator is more careful to make himself in- 
telligible to his readers. In xxvii. 46 he himself must 
have felt that a translation of the Aramaic words was 
quite as indispensable as the translation of the Hebrew 
name Immanuel in i. 23 (n. 9). Familiarity of his readers 
with Mark xv. 22, 34 (ef. John xix. 17) may have induced 
him to retain the original in xxvii. 46, and to add the 
translation of the Hebrew name in xxvii. 33, which was 
not absolutely necessary. 

Stronger proof that Matthew is a translation is to be 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS κ79 


derived from a consideration of the form of its eitations 
from the O.T. When a Hebrew like Paul makes only 
very moderate use of his knowledge of the Hebrew O.T., 
and when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who 
was likewise learned in the Scriptures, takes his citations 
wholly from the LXX, it is inconceivable that an evan- 
gelist writing originally in Greek for Greek or Hellenistic 
readers, whose knowledge of the Scripture was inferior 
to that of the persons mentioned (n. 11), should, while 
following the LXX in many instances, still, wherever 
he felt it necessary, give a translation of the Hebrew 
text entirely independent of the LXX. On the basis of 
the differences observable in Matthew in this respect, the 
attempt has been made to distinguish two elements in 
our Gospel, and to prove, on this ground, that it is a 
compilation. Where the redactor cites the O.T. on his 
own responsibility, he takes his quotations direct from the 
Hebrew original, without paying much regard to the 
LXX, and reproduces them in free translation. On 
the other hand, citations which occur in the discourses of 
Jesus, and such as are made by other persons represented 
in the narrative as speaking, he takes from a Greek book 
before him in which all the citations were quoted from 
the LXX (n. 12). The röles here assigned are impossible. 
Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, it is extremely improbable 
that His own quotations from the O.T. were influenced 
by the LXX. The same must have been true of the oral 
tradition of the discourses among the Hebrews in Pales- 
tine, and of the supposed record of these discourses by 
Matthew. Therefore the person who translated into 
Greek the Hebrew or Aramaic Adya, discovered by 
Schleiermacher, must have obliterated all traces of his 
original’s independence of the LXX, looked up all the 
passages cited in the LXX, and have copied them 
from this source; while, on the contrary, the author of 
Matthew, who wrote in Greek, to begin with, for Greek 


580 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


readers, ignored the existence of an O.T. in Greek, and 
everywhere paraded his Hebrew learning. The real state 
of the case was different, and is very easily explained if 
we recognise what is not only handed down by the tradi- 
tion, but also sufficiently proved from what precedes, 
namely, that our Greek Matthew is the result of an 
effort to give a literal translation of a uniformly Aramaic 
original document. Since the translator was proficient 
in Greek, he must have been familiar also with the LXX, 
which was industriously read by those about him. In 
the translation of an Aramaic book he used the LXX as 
one of his models. He made use of its expressions where 
it was not easy to produce better ones of his own (i. 1; 
above, p. 532). Sayings such as must have been often 
employed in preaching the gospel in Greek, and in 
instruction within the Church, in part also to be found 
in the Greek Gospels which existed in his vicinity (e.g. 
ii, 3), he reproduced as he found them in the LXX, 
especially if no violence was done to the sense of his 
original, In other passages it must have seemed to him 
that the substitution of the text of the LXX would 
obseure the sense of his original and the purpose of the 
citation. In such cases he translated the O.T. quotations 
of his original in exactly the same way that he did the 
rest of the Aramaic book. Familiarity with the LXX, 
and with the language employed in the Church in his 
vicinity, made it inevitable that expressions which we 
find in the LXX should flow from his pen, especially in 
such passages as were often read in Christian cireles. 
That he looked up the quotations and allusions regularly 
in the LX X, and translated them with this before him, is 
extremely improbable, otherwise he would have corrected 
a number of mistakes in his original, as the learned 
redactor of the Gospel of the Hebrews did in at least one 
case (n. 11) 

The question remains still as to whether or not the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 3581 


unanimous tradition which assigns the authorship of our 
Gospel to the apostle Matthew is borne out by the book 
itself. Scholars who deny this claim base their opinion 
partly upon the content,—which, it is elaimed, is incon- 
sistent with authorship by one of the twelve apostles,— 
partly upon the dependence of the account upon older 
documents of similar content, either still extant or to be 
assumed. With regard to the latter point, the real rela- 
tion that exists between Matthew and Mark deserves 
special investigation (ἢ 57). Particularly, certain repeti- 
tions of the same or similar words and actions—the so- 
called doublets—have played an important röle in proving 
Matthew's dependence upon various written sources. 
Evidence, convincing to one who does not already believe 
the point to be proved, has not been produced (n. 13). 
Granted, however, that it is possible to prove—a_possi- 
bility which is here contested—that the original Matthew 
is dependent upon our Mark or a similar document, it 
would not follow that it was not written by an apostle. 
It must always be borne in mind that Matthew became a 
disciple and companion of Jesus comparatively late. It 
cannot be proved at this point, but simply claimed on 
the assumption that the order of events accepted as 
correct by the present writer is, that Matthew was no 
more an eye-witness of what is recorded in Mark i. 4-39, 
ii 1-12; iii. 20-v. 20 (Matt. ii. 1-iv. 25, viii. 14+ix: 8) 
xil. 22-xill. 52, possibly xiii. 58) than he was of the events 
narrated in Matt. 1-11. or John 1. 19-v. 47. With refer- 
ence to such portions of the history, Matthew was less 
favoured than Mark, if the latter was able to draw upon 
the narratives of Peter, who became a disciple of Jesus 
so much earlier. Further, it is hard to understand why 
an apostle should have hesitated to make use of the record 
by a disciple of one of the apostles for such parts of his 
book. But even in connection with the narration of such 
events as he may have witnessed, an intelligent author 


582 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


is always glad to make use of existing records in prepara- 
tion for his own work, no matter from whom they may 
have originated. In his own recollection he has a certain 
standard by which to estimate its worth and to correct its 
errors. 

With reference to the content of the book and 
Matthew’s method of exposition, apart from the question 
of its dependence upon older written sources which cannot 
be demonstrated, it cannot be considered the task of a 
text-book like this to combat the dogmatic prejudices of 
those who conclude, from the miraculous character of the 
events recorded in Matthew, as in all the Gospels, that 
none of these books could have been written by a com- 
panion of Jesus and an eye-witness of even a part of the 
history here recorded. It was necessary to touch upon 
this question earlier in connection with 2 Pet. i, 16-18, 
and it will recur again more pointedly in the consideration 
of the Fourth Gospel. Whoever finds one miracle of 
feeding a difficulty to begin with, will be under the 
necessity of regarding the feeding of the 4000 (Matt. 
xy. 32; Mark viii. 1), and that of the 5000 (Matt. xiv. 
15-21; Mark vi, 34;| Luke ix. 12; John, vi. 5), asa 
double form of one and the same fact, exaggerated by 
legend. In the same way he must regard the conversa- 
tion connected with the two events (Matt. xvi. 5-11; 
Mark viii. 14-21) as the patchwork of a compiler whose 
attitude toward the traditions, already varying widely 
from the truth, was uncritical and generally helpless. 
This judgment would apply in the same way to Mark, 
and finally to all Gospel tradition. Hypothetical refer- 
ence of the existing Gospels to written sources which are 
now lost, the content and form of which each constructs 
according to his own liking, puts us in a position where 
we can neither answer nor escape the great dilemma 
whether the Gospel history is unconscious and conscious 
mythologising, or whether it goes back to actual facts. 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 583 


Criticism of the Gospel literature, and the counter criti 
cisms, can render at best only preliminary service. For 
this end it is, to be sure, important to observe that 
Matthew’s narrative lacks the clearness which character- 
ises that of the eye-witness. It must be admitted that 
we cannot make such observations in connection with this 
Gospel as led us to refer Mark’s account to an eye-witness 
(above, p. 491 ff.). The theological thought which domi- 
nates Matthew, determining the choice as well as the 
form of the subject-matter, does not admit ample breadth 
of narrative, depiction of the scene, and delineation of the 
characters. But we must remember, ın the first place, 
that the purpose of the writing, as developed in § 55, 
gave little occasion for the features which we miss in 
Matthew. The Roman Christians for whom Mark wrote 
desired a narrative concerning Jesus, whom they had not 
seen, but whom they nevertheless loved (1 Pet. 1. 8). To 
the Jews and Jewish Christians for whom Matthew wrote, 
it needed to be proved that, in spite of all Jewish pre- 
judices to the contrary, Jesus was the promised Messiah. 
For this purpose the appropriate material was a few 
characteristic actions and detailed discourses. In the 
second place, it betrays ignorance of real life to decide 
a question of this character by reference to a common 
standard, instead of by the actual diversity of individual 
inclination and capacity. It is possible for everyone to 
find, in his daily experience, examples of such difference 
between a fact and the same as reported by two different 
persons, when exactly similar conditions had existed for 
both. In the third place, in the criticism of Matthew we 
must take into consideration also the fact that narratives 
which, in comparison with those of Mark, make the 
impression of unelaborated sketches, e.g. Matt. vii. 18- 
ix. 8, could have been reproduced by Matthew in part 
only from extraneous accounts. Further, he purposed in 
this whole section,—viii. 18-ix. 34,—by a rapid succession 


584 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of chronologically connected events, and by constant 
change of scene, to give us a pieture of the restless 
activity with which Jesus performed His lifework (n. 14). 
Is it to be considered a coincidence that Matthew, who 
follows the Jewish method and reckons the day from 
evening to evening, chooses for this purpose the parti- 
cular day in the middle of which his own call took place, 
and that an apostle selects, as an example of Jesus’ teach- 
ing, the great discourse which followed directly upon the 
choosing of the apostles, perhaps the first longer discourse 
which Matthew, who had been called shortly before from 
the stall of the tax-gatherer to be a disciple, had heard 
from Jesus’ lips? Most of the objections to the apostolic 
authorship of Matthew are due either to a failure to 
recognise its plan and method of exposition, or to opinions 
about the history, which, in their turn, lack sufficient 
basis ; or, finally, to preconceived opinions with reference 
to the uncertain beginnings of literary activity in eonnee- 
tion with the Gospel. If the outline of the plan and 
character of the book given above, pp. 531-562, is relatively 
correct, the complaints about the lack of chronological 
order in Matt. iii. 1-xiv. 12, and the contradictions between 
the arrangement of material in this part of the book and 
the more trustworthy accounts in Mark and Luke, are 
without purpose. The requirement that a historian, in 
close touch with the events which he narrates, must main- 
tain a chronological order in all details, is not met even 
by Luke in either his Gospel or in Acts, though in the 
former this appears to be promised, i. 3 (καθεξῆς). It is 
entirely inapplicable to Matthew, who is in no sense 
primarily a historian, but an apologetic preacher in Israel 
of the Nazarene denied by His own people. The freedom 
with which Matthew handles the form of the great dis- 
courses (above, p. 558 f.) is much more conceivable in case 
of an apostle, who is not called to write history, but to 
publish the commandments of Jesus to others (Matt. 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 58; 


xxvill. 20; cf. 2 Pet. iii. 2), —and who, moreover, felt con- 
fidence on account of his own recollection,—than in that 
of a younger contemporary who constructed his work from 
the narratives of those who heard the discourses, or from 
documents in which the same could have been recorded, 
part of them not without historical setting. The idea. 
that the first records of the words and deeds of Jesus 
must have been simply collections of material, with no 
other purpose than to preserve the memory of them, and 
that for this reason a book so thoroughly planned as is 
Matthew, so rich in thought, and written with such a 
clear purpose, could not have originated except upon the 
basis of such purposeless collections of material, is a pre- 
judgment. Of course, lack of knowledge on the author's 
part with regard to important facts in the Gospel history, 
especially with regard to events which took place when 
the apostles were present, would be proof that the book 
was not written by an apostle. Apart, however, from the 
consideration that, as far as this point is concerned, it 
does not make any essential difference whether the book 
was written by an apostle or some other Palestinian 
Christian in the year 65, or even 75, such ignorance on 
Matthew's part remains to be demonstrated (n. Ey) oT he 
older criticism of Matthew, which in many instances pro- 
ceeded upon the presupposition of the apostolic origin and 
essential trustworthiness of the Fourth Gospel, is incon- 
sistent, to the extent that objections to the apostolic 
origin and historicity of this Gospel are as strong as those 
against Matthew. The more important points of difference 
will not be considered until we discuss the Fourth Gospel. 
Also the question as to why Matthew and Mark begin the 
account of Jesus’ publie work with the arrest of the Baptist, 
thereby limiting their narrative practically to Galilee, must 
be postponed, in order to avoid repetition (§ 63). 


1. (P. 571.) Marcion contended that Matt. v. 17 was not spoken by 
Jesus (Tert. c. Mare. iv. 7, 9, 12, 36, v. 14), that either He Himself spoke ita 


586 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


direct opposite or His disciples after Him (and before the fourth century) 
substituted it for this saying, which was alleged to have been smuggled into 
the Gospel by the Judaists (@K, i. 609, 666-669). Holsten (Die drei ursprüngl. 
Ew. 61 ff.) and Holtzmann (HK?, i. 5) still take practically the same position 
with regard to Matt. v. 17-19, and the latter with regard to xxiii. 3, xxiv. 20 
also. According to Weizsäcker, also (Unters. über d. ev. Gesch. 125), xxiv. 20 
contradicts “the whole gospel tradition concerning Jesus’ attitude in regard 
to this day.” But the fundamental principle on which all depends is preserved 
besides in Luke xvi. 17, and also in Matt. iii. 15, only in a still more general 
form. Nothing is gained by the excision of xxiii. 3 as long as xxiii. 23 (ταῦτα 
ἔδει ποιῆσαι) remains. That Jesus assumed and required the observance of 
the ceremonial law by His disciples, and consequently also that xxiv. 20 is in 
entire accord with the historical conditions in which Jesus and His disciples 
moved, is one of those facts which can be disputed oniy by a dogmatism, 
whether orthodox or heterodox, which is absolutely devoid of historical insight. 
According to John, as well as according to Matthew and the other Synoptists, 
Jesus never conceded to His accusers that He had annulled one jot or tittle 
of the law, and never claimed for Himself a peculiar position either above 
or outside the law. On the contrary, He repeatedly proved from the law and 
the prophets, from the recognised requirements of the temple service, and from 
His opponents’ own practice, that His attitude toward ceremonial regulations 
—so much freer, as compared with Pharisaism—was the only fulfilment of 
the law which answered to the will of the divine lawgiver, the idea of the 
regulations themselves, and the patterns of O.T. history. It was rather His 
opponents who made empty the law, who nullified and evaded it (Matt. v. 
20-48, xii. 1-13, xv. 1-20, xix. 3-12, xxi. 30, xxiii 1-33 ; John v. 16-18, 42, 
45, vii. 19-24). Matt. ix. 14-17 (ef. xv. 2, 7-20) has nothing to do with the 
law, which prescribed fasting only on the Day of Atonement, and neither 
there (ix. 15) nor elsewhere (vi. 16-18, xvii. 21) does Jesus belittle the pious 
observance of voluntary fasting. On the other hand, also, Jesus never taught 
that the law given to the people of Israel (Mark xii. 29), to His own and His 
disciples’ forefathers (Matt. v. 21, τοῖς ἀρχαίοις), was to be extended to all 
nations. Yet His Jewish disciples were not to imagine that the nearness of 
the kingdom of heaven and of the accompanying collapse of the hitherto exist- 
ing order, released them from their duty toward the God-given though nation- 
ally limited appointments of the O.T. Jesus did not touch upon the question of 
the Gentile Christians’ position with regard to the law. Only in regard to His 
own commands is it His will that they be communicated to all peoples (xxviii. 
20). Even according to Matthew no details of the future form of life in His 
Church, composed as it was of Jews and Gentiles together, were legally 
prescribed by Jesus. Rather was it left to the Church and its leaders to 
institute such rules of administration as might be required (xvi. 19, xviii. 
18; above, p. 550f.). Intimations are not lacking that in the course of the 
historical development even essential portions of the law would be set aside 
(xvii. 24427; ef. John iv. 21; above, p. 552). In the two ideas, namely, 
that Jesus Himself recognised it as His ealling to bring the law to its ful- 
filment, and that so long as the world stands no element of the law can perish 
unfulfilled, lie the fruitful germs of thought which were to be developed 
later. Hilgenfeld attempted (above, p. 414) to distinguish in Matt. be- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 587 


tween a Jewish particularistic tendeney derived from the primitive Matt. ir 
Aramaic or from the Gospel of the Hebrews, and a universalistic tendency 
attributable to the Greek redactor, and to sort out the inserted sections. In 
this he could not possibly succeed ; for, as (pp. 531-556) has been shown, the 
whole book is built up upon the antithesis which he would thus explain. 
The supposed redactor speaks of Jesus’ redemptive mission in i. 21 as if it 
were confined to Israel, while the supposedly Jewish writer of the Sermon 
on the Mount points (v. 13-16) to the whole world as the sphere of the dis- 
ciples’ labour and the field of the Gospel, as clearly as does the universalistic 
editor in xiii. 38, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 13, xxviii. 19. If vil. 6 were a prohibition 
of preaching among the Gentiles, Matthew would reduce Jesus toa standpoint 
lower not only than that of the O.T., but lower than that of the Pharisees 
(Matt. xxiii. 15) and the narrow-minded Jewish Christians, who never 
doubted that the Gospel was intended for all mankind, but simply disagreed 
with Paul and others as to the conditions upon which this was to be realised. 
Indeed, that group of Jewish Christians which made use of the Gospel of the 
Hebrews, alleged to be the primitive Matt., fully recognised Paul’s Gentile 
mission (GK, ii. 669). But Matthew has nothing to say about these conditions 
for the reception of the Gentiles; there is simply a certain obscurity as to 
when and how the Gospel is to pass from Israel to them, which, however, is 
only a proof that Matthew has preserved the words of Jesus with remarkable 
fidelity uncoloured by later conceptions (above, p. 571). Jesus Himself knew 
that for the period of His earthly life He was confined to Israel (xv. 24); it 
would have been unfair to the privilege which rightly belonged to that 
nation if He had withdrawn from it and turned at once to the Gentiles 
(xv.26). This is quite in accord with Rom. xv. 8 and with the Fourth Gospel, 
which represents Jesus’ death and exaltation as the indispensable precon- 
dition of the extension of His work to the Gentiles (iii. 14-16, x. 16-18, xi. 
51£., xii. 20, 23, 32; cf. per contra, vii. 35). From this followed naturally 
the similar restriction of the apostles; primarily for the like period (Matt. 
x. 5f.). But in accord also with the actual situation until after 60 a.p., 
which Paul himself acknowledged to be justified (Gal. ii. 7-10), and with 
another report of Jesus’ words (Luke xi. 49, xxiv. 47; Acts i. 8), it is inti- 
mated that even after His departure the disciples were to preach first in Israel 
(Matt. xxiii. 34, xxii. 4). Neither the promise of x. 23, nor the expectation it 
presupposed, namely, that the Twelve would preach in Israel until the time 
referred to (the destruction of Jerusalem), failed of fulfilment. It was only 
when the signs of the approaching end were multiplying that Peter went to 
Rome. The other apostles remained still longer at their posts, and not till 
about 70 and from then onwards do we find John and others of the early 
apostolic circle, like Philip and Aristion, at work among the Gentile Churches 
of Asia Minor. With this corresponds the representation of Matt. xxii. 7-9, 
that the Gospel is to turn from Israel to the Gentiles only after the destrue- 
tion of Jerusalem, and it is not at variance with the missionary command, 
xxvii. 19; cf. Luke xxiv. 47, and all the similar sayings recorded in Matthew. 
For (1) Israel also belongs among “all the nations” (vol. i. 370, n. 2). 
(2) The allegorical language of the parable, xxii. 1-14, makes it necessary to 
represent the call of Israel and the call of the Gentiles as two absolutely 
distinct acts, the latter taking the place of the first. (3) According to 


588 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Matthew, Jesus represents His future Church as a community separated from 
the Jewish nation and open to non-Israelites, which comes into independent 
existence immediately after His rejeetion by the Jewish authorities (xxi. 40- 
43; above, p. 550ff.). (4) Only a part of this Church is to be found in 
Judea at the time of the parousia (xxiv. 16); others are scattered among 
the Gentile nations of the world (xxiv. 9, 31). One who, with the fullest 
recognition of Israel’s prior claim upon its Messiah, repeatedly noticed the 
call of the Gentiles to salvation and the universal significance of Christ and 
His Church (ii. 1-12, iii. 9, iv. 24, v. 13-16, viii. 11, 12, x. 18, xii. 18-21, 
xiii. 31-33, 38, xxii. 7-14, xxiv. 14, 31, xxv. 32, xxvi. 13, xxviii. 19), certainly 
did not look askance at the mission to the Gentiles which was undertaken 
before the fall of Jerusalem and independently of the twelve apostles of the 
twelve tribes of Israel. He found in it no violation of a single command or 
prohibition of Christ’s which he reported, and no unfaithfulness, furthermore, 
to Jesus’ example. For Jesus marvelled at the faith of a Gentile man and 
a Gentile woman (viii. 10, xv. 28), granted His assistance to them both ; and 
though He in neither case permitted the great faith which He found among 
Gentiles to draw Him away from Israel and His primary calling, He did 
not conceal from the Canaanitish woman that after the children were satisfied 
the dogs should have their turn. It is the more impossible to find a con- 
tradiction between the two narrativesif one recognises what Fritzsche pointed 
out as long ago as 1826 (Comm. in Mt. p. 311), that ἐγὼ ἐλϑὼν θεραπεύσω 
αὐτόν, viii. 7, is to be taken interrogatively (cf. ZKom. Matt. 335). Astonished 
at the implied request of the centurion, and hesitating to comply with it, 
Jesus asks, “I am to come and heal him?” Only so can we understand 
the emphatic ἐγώ and the eenturion’s second remark. He divined the Jew’s 
hesitation to enter a Gentile house (cf. Luke vii. 3 ff.), and, by the opposition 
it at first met from Jesus, his faith was roused to unexpected earnestness, 
to which Jesus yielded in this instance as in xv. 28. 

2. (P. 572.) Whereas Colani, Jésus-Christ et les Croyances Messianiques de 
son Temps, 1864, p. 201 ff., explained the whole eschatological discourse (Matt. 
xxiv., Mark xiii.) as an apocalypse from the later apostolic period, Weizsäcker, 
Unters. d. ev. Gesch. 124 {¥., would find in Matt. xxiv. 6 ff. and Mark xiii. 7 ff. a 
Jewish apocalypse under the name of Enoch, referred to also in Barn. iv., and 
dating from the time immediately before the destruction of Jerusalem, just 
as he considers also that Luke xi. 49 (= Matt. xxiii. 34) points to the use of a 
Jewish writing. It follows next from this that there is nothing to be said 
for the Petrine origin of Mark (127), and—though not on this account alone, 
to be sure—that Matt. was not written till soon after 70 (201 ff.). Similar 
conjectures, which cannot be supported at any point by valid proofs, were 
put forward by Renan, L/Antéchrist, 3me ed. pp. 289-300. 

3. (P. 572.) Bus. H. E. iii. 6. 3. After the death of the bishop, James, 
and the expulsion of the apostles from Judea, and before the outbreak of the 
Jewish war, the Jerusalem Church removed to Pella in Perea, in accordance 
with the revelation made to its leading members (κατά twa χρησμὸν τοῖς 
αὐτόθι δοκίμους δὲ ἀποκαλύψεως ἐκδαθέντα). Epiphan. de Mens. xv: ἡνίκα yap 
ἔμελλεν ἡ πόλις ἁλίσκεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν Ρωμαίων καὶ ἐρημοῦσθαι, προεχρὴματίσ- 
θησαν ὑπὸ ἀγγέλου πάντες οἱ μαθηταὶ μεταστῆναι ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως, μελλούσης 
ἄρδην ἀπύλλυσθαι' οἵτινες μετανάσται γενύμενοι ᾧκησαν ἐν Ἰϊέλλῃ κτλ. (cf. Her, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 358g 


xxix. 7, xxx. 2). These accounts probably go back to Hegesippus, ef. Forsch, 
vi.269f. The time was the year 66 at the earliest, 69 at the latest. Josephus 
(Bell. ii. 20, 1, iv. 6.3; Ant. xx. 11.1) also says that many Jews fled from 
Jerusalem for fear of Zealot rule and of siege ; and in Bell. ‘iv. 6. 3 end, vi. 
5. 3, tells of prophecies old and new announcing the city’s fall. 

4. (P. 573.) It is needless to say that under certain circumstances πέραν 
τοῦ ‘lopdavov=j119 729 can denote the west side of the Jordan, namely, when 
it is clear from the connection of a narrative, or from an express statement, 
that the speaker’s standpoint is east of the Jordan (Deut. iii. 25). But it is 
just this condition which Matt. xix. 1 does not present. The term can be 
understood, therefore, only in its invariable, technically geographical sense, 
a fully established usage in the N.T. period, especially where two other sec- 
tions of the Holy Land are mentioned at the same time; cf. Mishnah, Baba 
Bathra iii, 2 ; Shebiith ix. 2, 53m jrinagyyapm. So Pliny, H. N. v. 14.70, 
Perea along with Galilea and reliqua Judea, from which Perea is separated 
by the Jordan. In Josephus, regularly ἡ Περαία, Bell. i. 30. 3, iii. 3, 3, and 
less frequently ἡ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Ant. xii. 4.9 end. So, also, unquestion- 
ably the substantive adverbial phrase Matt. iv. 25 (iv. 15) and the simple 
adverbial phrase everywhere in those Gospels which were written neither east 
nor west of the Jordan (Mark iii. 8, x. 1; John 1. 28, iii. 26, x. 40). The 
idea that Matt. departed here from his own usage and set πέραν τοῦ 
Ἰορδάνου as an attribute to ra ὅρια τῆς Ἰουδαίας, thereby indicating his 
east-of-the-Jordan standpoint, is to be dismissed for this further reason also, 
that he nowhere else found it necessary to give his Palestinian readers such 
information with regard to the divisions of the country. Again, it would be 
impossible to speak of a part of Judea as situated across the Jordan, for 
this would require the article before mépay, and would be an incompre- 
hensible error, not to be explained by Ptolem. Geogr. v. 16.9. Ptolemy did 
not know the term Perea at all, but divided Palestine, or Judea in the 
wider sense (y. 9. 1), exclusive of the coast towns (8 2), into the districts of 
Galilee, Samaria, Judea (including Perea), and Idumea, Everyone knows 
that designations of locality with eis by no means denote invariably the 
place into which, but very often the point toward which the motion is directed 
(Matt. xvi. 21, xvii. 27, xx, 17, xxi. 1), and everyone might know that in such 
connections ἔρχεσθαι means “go” as well as “come” (cf. Matt. xvi. 5, and 
above, p. 505, n. 7). What Matthew says, then, is this: Jesus left Galilee 
and journeyed to Judea (choosing of the two possible routes the one) east of 
the Jordan. Mark x. 1 means the same thing, but expresses it still more 
clumsily, mentioning first the main goal of the journey, and then connecting 
the nearer and less important objective with the other by means of καί (“ and, 
indeed, first of all”), 

5. (Ὁ, 573.) Acting upon a suggestion of Grotius (i. 454) with regard to 
Matt. xxiii. 35 (already Lightfoot, Opp., ed. Rotterdam, 1686, ii. 361, had 
rejected this view which had been widely accepted), many even down to the 
present time have ventured the assertion that the author or redactor or trans- 
lator of Matt. made the Zachariah here intended—the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 
xxiv. 20-22), as he is correctly called im the corresponding passage in the 
Gospel of the Hebrews (Jerome in Matt. xxiii. 35, Vall. vii. 190; ef. GK, ii, 
695)—into a son of Barachiah, in order to identify him with the Zachariah 


590 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


who, according to Jos. Bell. iv. 5. 4, was murdered by the Zealots. This ie 
attributing a senseless piece of folly to the editor, who must have said to 
himself that at most Jesus might have foretold this deed. The name of the 
father of that Zachariah, mentioned by Josephus, is very uncertainly reported. 
Niese writes it Bapeıs, and we find besides, Bapırkalov and Bapovxov, but not 
Βαραχίου. The scene of the event is given merely as ev μέσῳ τοῦ ἱεροῦ. The 
designation of the place in Matt. xxiii. 35 points to 2 Chron. xxiv. 21 (LXX, 
ἐν αὐλῇ οἴκου κυρίου). The martyr death of a righteous man and a prophet, 
recorded in the last historical book of the O.T., corresponds with the murder 
of Abel reported in its first book ; ef. Gen. iv. 10 with 2 Chron. xxiv, 22. 
The mistake of our Matt. in calling him the son of Barachiah is due to a 
confusion of the martyr of 2 Chron. xxiv. 20 ff. with the prophet Zechariah, 
i. 1 (ef. Isa. viii: 2?; 2 Chron. xxvi. 5?) as it also appears in the Targum to 
Lam. ii. 20; ef. ZKom. Matt. 649 ; Lightfoot, ii. 362 ; and concerning other 
instances of confusion in respect of these persons, Fürst, Kanon des AT’s, S. 
44; Hamburger, RE, i. 887. For the fable identifying the Zachariah of 
Matt. xxiii. 35 with that of Luke i. 5 ff. (Protev. of James, xxiii. xxiv.), cf. 
GK, ii. 695, 711f. 776f. Berendts, Studien über Zacharias-apokryphen u. 
Zachariaslegenden, 1895, gives a more detailed account, not all of which, 
however, is beyond dispute. 

6. (P. 573.) F.L. Sieffert, Ueber den Ursprung des ersten kanon. Ev. 1832, 
and M. Schneckenburger under the same title, 1834, have already stated with 
measurable fulness what seems to weigh against the apostolic authorship of 
Matt. Mistakes with regard to the political history, at points where it comes 
in contact with the Gospel story, would not furnish sufficient ground for 
assuming that the author must have been somewhat widely removed in time 
or place from the events recorded. The historical trustworthiness of the 
narratives in Matt. ii. 1-18, xvii. 1-13 (cf. Mark ix. 2-10; 2 Pet. i. 16-18), 
xvii. 24-27, xxvii. 51-53, xxviii. 11-15, cannot be investigated here. It is 
unthinkable that a Christian in Palestine should have invented the Jewish 
explanation of Jesus’ resurrection (xxviii. 15) and the Jewish insinuations 
to which he replies in chaps, i. ii. ; and it will be impossible also to discover 
any middle ground between the Jewish and the Christian estimate of the 
beginning and the close of Jesus’ life. If the word βασιλεύει is used of 
Archelaus in ii. 22, although he had simply the rank of ethnarch and the 
royal title in expectation only (Jos. Ant. xvii. 11.4; Bell. ii. 6. 3), Josephus 
himself, notwithstanding that he is the source of this very information, does 
the same thing (Vita, 1); in fact, he calls him βασιλεύς outright, Ant, xviii. 
4. 3; cf. above, p. 503, n. 3. If the name Philip were authentic in Matt. 
xiv. 3, we should have there the same confusion with another brother of 
Herod Antipas named Herod that actually occurs in Mark vi. 17 (ef. Schiirer, 
i. 435 [Eng. trang. τ. i. 401 f.]) ; but it is most improbable that the MSS. (D and 
important Latin witnesses) which left the name unquestioned in Mark vi. 17 
should have erased it in Matt. xiv. 3 for reasons of historical erudition. 
Rather have they preserved the original, while the great body of MSS. and 
versions (also Ss) have interpolated the mistaken name here (and many of 
them in Luke iii. 19 also) from Mark vi. 17. Mark alone is open to the 
charge of being somewhat leas familiar than Josephus with the complicated 
relationships and scandals of the Herodian family. Matt. xvii. 24-27 is 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS τοὶ 


intelligible only in a work written before the year 70, see above, p. 552 f. 
The gist of the narrative in xxvii. 51-53 is confirmed by the statements of 
two Jewish contemporaries of Matthew, independent of each other and of 
him ; ef. the writer’s article, “Der zerrissene Tempelvorhang,” NKZ, 1902, 
S. 729-756. It has been argued against the authenticity of Matt. xxviii. 19 
and against the apostolic authorship of the first Gospel, that according to 
Acts ii. 38, viii. 16, x. 48, xix. 5, ef. 1 Cor. i. 13-15, vi. 11, believers in the 
early apostolic times were baptized into or in the name of Christ, not into 
the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. But these passages do not give a 
formula used in Church baptism any more than Gal. iii. 27 or Rom. vi. 3 
(ef. 1 Cor. x. 2, xii. 13), and, on the other hand, in Matt. xxviii. 19 the use of 
the threefold name in administering baptism is not commanded. In the 
Didache we find a reference to Christians as οἱ βαπτισθέντες eis ὄνομα κυρίου 
(ix. 5) along with the trinitarian formula (vii. 1,3). Why should the oecur- 
rence of this phrase of the Didache in the time of Paul or Acts disprove the 
use of the trinitarian formula, or its origin from a saying of Jesus in refer- 
ence to baptism? That arbitrary assumption deprives us of an explanation 
for the other trinitarian formulas in the N.T. (2 Cor. xiii. 13 [Eng. 14]; 
Rev. i. 4f.). Nor is it strange (ef. John xvii. 3) that precisely in such a 
formula as this Jesus should have spoken of Himself thus objectively as 
the Son without qualification (cf. Matt. xi. 27). Against the attempt of 
Conybeare, Z/NTTh, S. 275 ff., to prove that the trinitarian formula is a late 
interpolation in the text of Matt. xxviüi. 19, ef. ZKom. Matt. 718. 

7. (P. 576.) Such sentences as xix. 1-3, καὶ ἐγένετο, ὅτε... . nernpev 

. καὶ ἦλθεν... Kal ἠκολούθησαν. . . καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν... καὶ προσ- 
nAdov, are not common in Matt. According to the Concordance, the use of 
δέ is about as frequent as in Luke, and twice as frequent as in Mark, and 
pev— de considerably more common than in Luke, and decidedly more so 
than in Mark. It is quite noteworthy that the asyndetic use of λέγει, λέγουσιν, 
so frequent all through John, does not occur at all in Matt. i.-xviii. (for in 
viii. 7, as also in vill. 4, 20, 26, ix. 9, καὶ λέγει has quite the preponderance 
of evidence), whereas it is found in rapid succession in xix. 7, 8, 10, 20, 21 
(ἔφη), xx. 7 (twice), 23, 33, xxi. 31 (twice), 41, xxii. 21, 43; also in xxvi. 25, 
64, xxvii. 22. The construction and order, ἐγερθεὶς δὲ Ἰωσήφ. . . ἐποίησεν, 
oceurs repeatedly, i. 24, ii. 3, viii. 8, 10, 14, 18, ete. (cf. Gersdorf, Beiträge 
zur Sprachcharacteristik, 90 f.) ; also without mentioning the subject by name, 
ii. 10-12, 22, iv. 12, 18, v. 1, and in other cases than the nominative, karaßavrı 
δὲ αὐτῷ . . . ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ, Vili. 1, 23 ; εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ... mpoc- 
nAdev αὐτῷ, viii. 5, 28. Cases of the genitives absolute followed by ἰδού are 
not infrequent, i. 20, ii. 1, 13, 19, ix. 10, 18, 32, xii. 46, xvii. 5, xxviii. 11, 
and it is noticeable that the formula occurs repeatedly in some passages and 
then again is quite absent. 'The commonest formula for the continuation of 
the narrative is τότε, which is used in Matt. some ninety times in all. This 
usage is quite unknown to Mark, nor is it exactly paralleled in Luke and 
John, for in Luke xi. 26, xiv. 21, xxi. 10, xxiv. 15, τότε signifies “at that 
moment,” immediately after the occurrence of what has just been related, 
1.6. in reality, “thereupon” ; so also τότε οὖν in John xix. 1, 16, xx. 8. Matt. 
also, to be sure, uses the word sometimes to denote immediate sequence, ii. 7, 
16, iii. 15, iv. 1, 5, 10, 11, ix. 6, 14, but very often, also, as an indefinite term 


592 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


for approximate correspondence in time, where there is no single preceding 
incident which leads up to the account that follows, iii. 5, 13, xii, 22, xv. 1, 
xx. 20, xxiii. 1, xxvi. 3, 14, so that the phrase does not differ appreciably from 
ἐν ἐκείνῳ TO καιρῷ, Xi. 25, xii. 1, xiv. 1.. This latter expression, which is not 
found elsewhere in the N.T, (cf., however, Acts xii. 1), is confined in Matt. 
itself within narrow limits. Semitic scholars may decide whether the Aramaic 
pix, with and without j2 or 3, does not after all underlie τότε and ἀπὸ τότε 
(iv. 17, xvi. 21, xxvi. 16; elsewhere in the N.T. only Luke xvi. 16), as in 
the LXX, for example, Ezra v. 16; ef. Dalman, Gr.? S. 213 (different from 
lte Aufl. S. 169) and the lexicons under px, jy. The participial construc- 
tions just mentioned give the style a more pleasing effect as compared with 
that of Mark, but may also create the impression of a closer connection in 
time and occurrence than was intended by the original. If in viii. 5, 14, 
xii. 9, for example, the narrative were carried forward simply in independent 
clauses connected by «ai, as in xix. 1-3, it would not seem that the last inei- 
dent related was immediately connected with that mentioned just before, or 
even fell on the same day. 

8. (P. 577.) With regard to Hosanna and the root pw see vol. i. 21. 
Delitzsch translates Matt. 1. 21, yw map yw. Cf. the explanation of the 
change of name Hoshea-Joshua, Num. xiii. 16, in Sota, 34) (qywyr m), and 
also in the Midrash on the passage (translated by Wünsche, 8. 418). Cf. still 
other passages in Jastrow, 6015, 751b. The fact that in the Talmud the name 
of Jesus of Nazareth is constantly given in the mutilated form sw, while 
others of the same name are always written yw, serves to mar that καλὸν 
ὄνομα (Jas. ii. 7) whose literal meaning was understood by every Jew ; ef. 
ZKom. Matt. 76, A. 48, 49. 

9. (Pp. 577, 578.) Matthew contents himself with the Greek term where 
Mark has attached it as a translation to the Aramaic original ; Matt. xv. 5, ef. 
Mark vii. 11; Matt. xxvi. 39, cf. Mark xiv.36. Mark vii. 34 has no parallel in 
Matt., and Matt. ix. 25 corresponds but partially to Mark v. 41. Here, too, 
we note that Matt. uses ὁ διάβολος, iv. 1, 5, 8, 11, xiii. 39, xxv. 41; ὁ πειράζων, 
iv. 3; ὁ πονηρός, xiii. 19,38, where Mark in the parallel passages, so far as there 
are such, has σατανᾶς, i. 13, iv. 15. Inconsistently, the latter appears also in 
Matt, xii. 26, xvi. 23. In this case the Greek translation was not needed. 
On the other hand, the. necessary Greek interpretations, which cannot have 
been found in the original, are introduced in Matt. xxvii. 46 just as in 
Mark xy. 34. Perhaps also xxvii. 83=Mark xv. 22. The explanation in 
i. 23 might also be an addition by the Greek translator, although the cor- 
responding statement may equally well have stood in the Aramaic original, 
since Immanuel was a Hebrew name whose Aramaic interpretation would 
not sound absolutely tautological. The name of the city Jerusalem must 
also be mentioned here. Like Strabo, pp. 759-762 ; Ptolem. v. 16. 8, viii. 20. 
18; Josephus, Tacitus, and others, Mark (ten times—also xi. 1) and John 
(twelve times) use only (τὰ) Ἱεροσόλυμα, and never Ἱερουσαλήμ. The latter 
genuinely national form, which seemed to Aristotle (in Jos. c. Apion. i. 
22. 7) an ὄνομα πάνυ σκολιόν, is used by Paul, Gal. iv. 25, 26, in elevated 
theological discourse, alongside of the Hellenised form in the simple narra- 
tive, Gal. i. 17, 18, ii. 1. Similar is the use of -λημ in Rev, along with 
-Avua in John. In the diseourses of Jesus and others, Luke writes always 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 593 


“Anp (xiii. 33, 34, xxili. 28, xxiv. 18, 47; also certainly xviii, 31), and 
so also in Acts, with the exception of Paul’s addresses before a Gentile 
audience in Cesarea, xxv. 15, 24, xxvi. 4, 10,20. It should be noted in this 
connection that in Mark the name does not occur in a discourse of Jestis 
and in John only once (iv. 21), and that with Luke, as with Paul, -Anp is 
much commoner than -Avua, the latter occurring in Luke only four times, 
and -Anp twenty-six or twenty-seven times, and irregularly interchanged 
(cf. Luke ii. 22, 43, xix. 11, 28). Matt., on the other hand, has Ἱεροσόλυμα 
throughout (eleven times, including words of Jesus, v. 35, xx. 18), except in 
xxiii. 37=Luke xiü. 34, Ἱερουσαλήμ. Whoever traces this exception to a 
source used by Matthew here, but not in v. 35, xx. 18, ought also to divide 
Gal. between two writers, and would have to refer the alternation of terms 
in Luke’s two books to similar causes. The real reason, however, for the 
change is easy to understand ; even in Matt. -Ann was better suited to the 
solemn declaration of xxiii. 37 ; and, besides, in this address to a personified 
Jerusalem (ἡ ämorreivovoa . . . τὰ τέκνα σου), the form (ra) Ἱεροσόλυμα would 
have been very inconvenient rhetorically ; likewise for Paul, where he 
represents Jerusalem as mother. The translator would not care needlessly 
to repeat the awkward treatment of the Greek form as a feminine singular, 
iil. 3 (along with neuter plural, ii. 1) and perhaps iii, 5 (where, however, 
πᾶσα is a spurious addition). He might have used -Anu everywhere in Jesus’ 
discourses, as Luke did. But the Greek form is more easily declined (v. 35), 
and directly after xx. 17 -λημ in xx. 18 would have been forced. And, finally, 
what translator is ever consistent in such matters ? 

10. (P. 578.) The traces of Hebrew or Aramaic originals in Matt. and 
in the Gospels generally were investigated as early as Michaelis, Einl. 982- 
1003, and Eichhorn, Einl.2 i. 510-530. Cf. the bibliography, vol. i, 14 ἢ. 
It requires a better knowledge of the Aramaie dialeet than the present writer 
possesses, and more caution than others have shown, to arrive at trustworthy 
conclusions in this matter. Merely by way of example, and without elaiming 
originality for the observations, the following illustrations are adduced in 
addition to the remarks above, p. 577 ff., and in nn. 7-9, 12: (1) iii. 15, 
πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην, can mean nothing else than πᾶν dixaiwpa=every legal 
requirement or ordinance. Now, as the LXX translates npıs and wavy 
without fixed distinction by δικαιοσύνη (which stands, besides, also for prs, 
nox, Aram. 131, Dan. vi. 23, ete.), as well as by δικαίωμα (which also represents 
pn, ms», etc.), it would seem that yawn, or rather one of its Aramaic equivalents, 
underlay Matt. iii. 15. As such equivalents we may mention xm, Targ. Onk. 
Ex. xxi. 1, 31; Num. xv. 16; Deut. vii. 11, 12; also Targ. 1 Sam. viii. 3; 
Isa. xlii. 1, 2 (LXX and Matt. xii. 18, 20, κρίσις), sows or xDD (νόμος), 
1 Sam. ii. 18, viii. 9, 11; Ποῖ. xx. 25; especially, however, xnasa, Onk. Er. 
xxi. 9. (2) Since δικαιοσύνη in the LXX not infrequently stands for nox 
(Redpath’s Concordance gives seven instances), to which Dwp, Kbrnp corre- 
sponds in Aramaic, the phrase ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης, xxi. 32, which is unnatural 
as Greek, and unusual in conception as well, is to be explained as a literal 
translation of wwp nxz, Onk. Gen. xxiv. 48 (LXX, ἐν ὁδῷ ἀληθείας) ; cf. 
Matt. xxi. 16; but ef. also Prov. viii. 20 in original, Targ., and LXX, 
(3) Since apis and xnprs, like the Syr. xnpn also, acquired the meaning of 
charity, alms, which led even the LXX to translate the first-named nine or 

VOL, II. 38 


594 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ten times by ἐλεημοσύνη (ef. also Clem. Strom. vii. 69, ἡ ἕξις ἡ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν» 
μεταδοτικὴ δικαιοσύνη λέγεται, and Acts x. 2 with x. 35), we have eonstantly 
to consider whether δικαιοσύνην (vi. 1), if it is the true reading, may not 
represent this Aramaic word in the sense of ἐλεημοσύνην, and whether the 
very early variants of this saying do not finally go back to the time when the 
Aramaic Matt. was still translated orally in these various ways: N*BD Ss 
(this latter, also, distinguishing clearly between vi. land vi. 2), τὴν δικαιοσύνην 
ὑμῶν. Se “your gifts,” cf. Ephr. en Epist. Pauli, p. 74, dona vestra; Na τὴν 
δόσιν ὑμῶν, S! and the later Greek authorities, τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην ὑμῶν. (4) In 
Aramaic, 8729 means servant; x73%, (x17%y, ΝῊ ΔΨ, anı'2y fem.), work, act. Con- 
sequently the Syriac translator of Clem. 1 Cor. xxxix., or one of his copyists, 
has rendered 129 by ἔργων instead of παίδων (Lightfoot, St. Clement, i. 138, 
ii. 119). Lagarde, in his Agathangelos (Abh. der gött. Ak. 1889, xxxv. 128), 
commenting upon the variants, Matt. xi. 19, ἔργων ; Luke vii. 35, τέκνων, 
recalls Orig. Hom. xiv. 5 in Jerem. (Delarue, iii. 211 ; an earlier commentator, 
he says, understood by the “mother” in Jer. xv. 10, Wisdom, ra δὲ τέκνα τῆς 
σοφίας Kai ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ἀναγέγραπται “Kal ἀποστέλλει ἡ σοφία ra τέκνα 
αὐτῆς," ef. Luke xi. 49). If ἔργων is the original reading in Matt. xi. 19, it 
is then the correct rendering of the Aramaic word spoken by Jesus (see 
ZKom. Matt. 431 f. in contradiction of the Ist and 2nd editions of the Einlei- 
tung). Luke, or rather the earliest authority for the tradition, which Luke 
followed, heard and spoke abdeh (your servants), instead of abadeh (your 
works). He thought of wisdom as a person ; cf. Luke xi. 49, and found in 
this passage the children of the divine wisdom contrasted with the capricious 
children of that generation. Instead of the more exact παῖδες (servants, ef. 
Matt. xiv. 2; Luke i. 54, xii. 45), he chose τέκνα, having in mind, doubtless, 
such Wisdom passages as Prov. i. 8, ii. 1, xxxi. 2; Sir. ii. 1. He might 
equally well have said υἱοί (cf. John xii. 36 with Eph. v. 8). (5) If the Gospel 
of the Hebrews has preserved the original form of the fourth petition of the 
Lord’s Prayer as it was offered from the beginning by Aramaic-speaking 
Christians (Lat. “panem nostrum crastinum da nobis hodie,” GK, ii. 693, 
709 f., recently confirmed anew, Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 2. 262), we have a sub- 
stantially correct translation of it in Matt. vi. 11; ἐπιούσιος is derived from 
ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, sc. ἡμέρα. But Matthew’s phrase is not a natural one, for the 
proper antithesis to σήμερον is αὔριον, ποῦ ἡ ἐπιοῦσα. ‘The latter denotes the 
day next following, as reckoned from whatever day may have been previously 
mentioned (Acts xvi. 11, xx. 15, xxi. 18; ef. vii. 26, xxiii. 11). Hence it 
is approximately used in Luke xi. 3 in contrast with τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, but in- 
appropriately by Matthew, who might more properly have written τὸν τῆς 
αὔριον or eis τὴν αὔριον instead of τὸν ἐπιούσιον. Observe that Greek, like 
German (and English), has no proper equivalent for crastinus (but cf. Pape 
under aöpıos, and Heyne, Deutsche Wörterbuch, ii. 867, under “morgend”). 
Of. ZKom. Matt. 275 ff. The wording of the Greek Matt. can be explained 
only on the supposition that the translation was influenced, not direetly by 
the Gospel of Luke, but by the Church usage of those regions where the 
Lord’s Prayer was customarily spoken in the form which Luke has preserved. 
Here, then, we have strong evidence that our Greek Matt. is (a) a translation ; 
(b) a translation made in the Greek Gentile Church ; (0) a translation not 
always felicitous, but in its intent exceedingly faithful. It has not sub 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 598 


stituted traditions of a later time or other localities for the original, but has 
translated the Lord’s Prayer just as the Jewish Christians said it in J erusalem, 
Kokaba, or Bercea about 60-70 a.p., and even down to about 400. (6) The 
saying, Matt. v. 34-37, yields no other meaning than: “Thstead of using 
all manner of oaths, let your speech be confined to a double Yea or Nay.” 
One might compare the reduplicated ἀμήν of Jesus Himself in the Fourth 
Gospel, and the vai, ἀμήν of Rev. i. 7, ef. xxii. 20. It-would be less strange 
that Christians should thus emphasise their affirmations and denials than 
that, in spite of the Sermon on the Mount, they should take oaths and, as 
in Paul’s case, use other strong forms of assertion as well ; yet it is hardly 
thinkable that, in the very connection where he declared all περισσόν in the 
attestation of truth to be a consequence of evil,and therefore unworthy of the 
sons of God, Jesus should have recommended a reduplication of the Yea and 
Nay which in itself is needless. If we compare the saying in Jas. v. 12 (which 
can hardly be independent of Matt. v. 37, if the latter really originated with 
Jesus) and other citations of Jesus’ words which correspond with Jas. v. 12 
(Just. Apol. i. 16; Clem. Strom. v. 99 [al. 100], vii. 67; Clem. Hom. xix. 2; 
Epiph. Her. xix. 6), we must give the preference to the form ἔστω ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ 
val, καὶ τὸ οὗ οὔ. This seems the more certain, since it accords with an actual 
Jewish idiom. Jesus had eited Lev. xix. 12; on Lev. xix. 36 the Talmud 
(Baba Mezia, 49a) makes the exegetically impossible comment, “ That thy yea 
may be a true (yea) and thy nay a true (nay).” Cf. Midrash on Ruth iii. 18 
(Wiinsche’s trans. 8S. 53), and several similar passages in Levy, i. 465; 
Jastrow, 348, 365, under yn, jn=yes. Jesus doubtless said rs, cf. Levy i. 67; 
Dalman, Gr.? 223; also Paul, the Pharisee, assumes in 2 Cor. i. 17-20 that 
the yea must be ἃ real yea, and not nay at the same time. The original of 
Matt. v. 37 need not have been absolutely identical with the original of 
Jas. v.12; ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν suggests some such form as “let your yea-saying 
be a yea,” etc. Jas. v. 12 may have had an influence in spreading the 
uncanonical form of the saying (GK, i. 323, A. 2). But we must reckon also 
here with the possibility that forms of much-quoted sayings which date from 
the time of the oral translation of Matt. were preserved in Church use till 
Justin’s time or beyond it. (7) With regard to the use of participles in the 
N.T., it must always be remembered that in Aramaic, as in Hebrew, these 
forms are entirely timeless. A noteworthy example is Matt. v. 10, where 
the context makes it impossible that those should be called blessed who have 
survived a persecution, so that δεδιωγμένοι stands for διωκόμενοι. Polycarp 
(baptized in 69), who writes the latter form (ad Phil. ii.), might have heard 
in his youth some interpreter who did his work better than the Greek Matt. 
Perhaps a participle underlies the äprı ἐτελεύτησεν of ix. 18, which Luke’s 
authority rendered more satisfactorily by the imperfect ἀπέθνησκεν (viii. 42) ; 
cf. Matt. v.23. We might point also to ζητοῦντες for ζητήσαντες, ii. 20, and 
the uncertain interchange of παραδούς and παραδιδούς, X. 4, xxvi. 25, 46, 
xxvil.3,4. If the very common use of the partieipial constructions (see above, 
τι. 7) seems on superficial observation to give to the style of Matthew a more 
distinctively Greek impress, in comparison with the stronger Hebraistic 
character of Mark and also John, then the hand of a translator, who seeks to 
avoid the monotony of the Semitic narrative style by employing the correct 
Greek expression, is betrayed in the immoderate use of this construction in 


596 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the resultant awkwardness of expression (concerning xiv. 6, see ZKom. Matt 
504, A. 79), and in the consequent obseuring of the facts. Im ὀψὲ σαββάτων, 
xxviii. 1, which appears strange to us, Eus. Quest. ad Marin (Mai, Nova Patr. 
Bibl. iv. 1. 255 ff.), and Jerome, Epist. exx. 4 ad Hedib., think they have dis- 
covered a mistake of the translator ; but it corresponds to later Greek usage 
(cf. ZKom. Matt. 710, A. 1). For possible Hebrew or Aramaic equivalents, 
cf. Lightfoot, Opp. ii. 389; on the other hand, however, Dalman, Gr.1 197, 
and positively @r.? 247. 

11. (Pp. 579, 580.) As to the pardonable error in xxiii. 35, see above, 
p. 589, n. 5. Matt. ii. 23 is not an error on the part of the evangelist (see 
above, p. 568, n. 7). The Gospel of the Hebrews, or, as Jerome calls it in 
Vir. Ill. iii. and elsewhere, the ipswm Hebraicum of Matt., also contained the 
words quoniam Nazareus vocabitur, and, as one must infer from Jerome’s 
silence in the passage where this is mentioned, introduced the alleged eitation 
with no different formula. The learned but mistaken conjecture of certain 
Hebrew Christians, whose guidance Jerome followed (Comm. in Jes. xi. 1, 
Vallarsi, iv. 155; cf. Comm. in Mt. ii. 23, Vall. vii. 17), that the passage 
presents a citation from Isa. xi. 1, is not to be imputed to the redactor of the 
Gospel of the Hebrews some 250 years earlier. There is a mistake in Matt. 
xiii. 35, in that Ps. lxxviii. 2 (entitled a psalm of Asaph) is cited as τὸ ῥηθὲν 
διὰ Ἡσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου. The genuineness of Ἡσαΐου (wrongly placed in 
Tisch. ed. 8) is attested by N* min. 1, 13, 124 (these two belonging to the 
Ferrar group), 33, 253 ; and, further, many MSS. seen by Eusebius (Montf. 
Coll. nova, i. 462) and Jerome (in Mt. xiii. 35, Vall. vii. 94), and especially by 
its offensiveness, which would be the more keenly felt because Porphyry had 
made use of it to prove Matthew’s ignorance (as shown by the Breviar. in 
Psalmos under Jerome’s name, which is now proved to be genuine in this 
portion ; see Anecd. Maredsol. iii, 2. 60). When Eus. loc. ett. maintains that 
in the accurate MSS., and Jerome in Mt. that in the vulgata editio, the 
name Isaiah is wanting, it only indicates the early date of the emendation, 
which is apparent also from its wide attestation (add Ss, Se, and Clem. Hom. 
xviii. 15), Jerome conjectured (Comm. in Mt.) that “ Asaph” was originally 
written, then exchanged by an early copyist for the better known name of 
the prophet Isaiah, and finally that the mistaken emendation was set aside 
again by the deletion of the name. This supposition is valueless, but still 
it is better than the bold assertion in Breviar. p. 59f., that all the old MSS. 
of Matt. read in Asaph propheta, which was altered by stupid persons. Since 
Jerome nowhere appeals to the Gospel of the Hebrews to establish the original 
text of Matt. xiii. 35, we must infer that the error was found there also, and, 
furthermore, that the reading which in substance is incorrect was the original 
one, The same is true of Matt. xxvii. 9, where one would look for a refer- 
ence to Zechariah rather than to Jeremiah. If the former had appeared in the 
Gospel of the Hebrews, it would be hard to explain not only the silence of those 
familiar with that book, who diseussed the problem of Matt. xxvii. 9, namely, 
Orig. Comm. in Mt. (Lat.), Delarue, iii. 916; Eus. Demonstr. x. 4. 13 ; 
Jerome in Mt. p. 228; Breviar. p. 60f., but especially the appearance of 
an apocryphal Hebrew or Aramaic Book of Jeremiah, containing word for 
word the quotation which is not to be found in the canonical Jer. Because 
the Gospel of the Hebrews also assigned the words in Matt. xxvii. 9 to Jeremiah, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 597 


the Nazarenes fabricated the apocryphal book, or booklet, which they showed 
to Jerome; cf. his Comm. in Mt. xxvii. 9, and GK, ii. 696f. The only 
instance in which the Gospel of the Hebrews evidently corrects a mistake due 
to imperfect knowledge of the O.T. is Matt. xxiii. 35; see above, p. 589, 
n. 5; GK, ii. 711f. The incorrect forms of the names in i, 5, 7, 8 (see fol- 
lowing note) are due probably to the translator, not to the author. 

12. (P. 579.) Eusebius (on Ps. Ixxviii.—ef. above, p. 528) explained the 
variation of citations in Matt. from the text of the LXX on the ground that 
the Hebrew Matthew made use of the Hebrew O.T. Jerome’s opinion was 
that both Matthew and John in their Gospels quoted directly from the 
Hebrew original without reference to the LXX (Comm. in Osee xi. 1; in 
Isaiam vi. 9, ix. 1; Prol. in Pentat., Vall. iv. 97, 128, vi. 123, ix. 3), and he 
appealed in proof of his opinion to the supposed Hebrew original of Matt. 
in the library at Czsarea, 1.6. to the Gospel of the Hebrews (Vir. Ill. iii. ; cf. 
GK, ii. 697f.). The view to which exception is taken on p. 579 was first 
developed by Bleek, Beiträge zur Evangelienkritik, 1846, S. 57f. Since 
then the matter has been repeatedly discussed without convincing results. 
Anger, “Ratio qua loci VTi in ev. Matt. laudantur, quid valeat ad illus- 
trandam huius ev. originem,” parts i.-ii., Leipziger Programme of 1861 and 
1862, collated the material most thoroughly. The hypothesis defended by 
Bohl (Forschungen nach einer Volksbibel zur Zeit J. esu, 1873 ; cf. his Atl Citate 
im NT, 1878), that in Jesus’ time there was an Aramaic translation of the 
O.T. dependent on the Greek LXX, and that this was used by Jesus and the 
apostles (by the latter in conjunetion with the LXX), would have thrown 
everything into confusion, if anyone had accepted it. The comparison of 
Matthew’s quotations with the LXX is made more difficult by the fact that 
in those MSS. of the latter which were transcribed by Christian hands, 
especially the Cod. Alex., the O.T. text has frequently been altered to corre- 
spond with the wording of the citation in the N.T. Moreover, also, the 
text of the citations in Matt. is in many passages by no means certain. It 
remains to be proved whether it be allowed, as the present writer has sought 
to prove in detail (ZKom. Matt. 474 ff.), that the citation in xiii. 140-15 
originally consisted only of the words: πάχυνε τὴν καρδίαν τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου 
καὶ τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν βάρυνε καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν κάμμυε, or that the incor- 
rect forms of the names Ioßnd (for Ωβηδ), i. 5, Αβιουδ (Αβια), i. 7, Ασαφ (Aca), 
i. 7f., Ayos (Αμων), i. 10, were original in the Greek Matt. (see ZKom. Matt. 
57-61). The familiarity of the one, who gave Matt. its present Greek form, 
with the LXX is very evident. Just as clear, however, is his relation to the 
Hebrew text of the O.T.—a relation which was not brought about by the 
LXX or by any other known Greek translation whatsoever, This double 
relation, which can be accurately determined in a single instance, is also on 
that account an extremely complicated task, since Matthew gives many and 
especially the more extended citations with great freedom, in order to make 
the text serve the purpose of its use, for example, ii. 6, iv. 15f., xi. 10, xii. 
18-21, xiii. 14-15 (see above), xxii. 24, xxvi. 31, xxvii. 9, The erroneous 
reference of the citation in xiii. 35 to Isaiah instead of to Asaph—the 
composer of Ps. Ixxviii.—as of that in xxvii. 9 to Jeremiah instead of to 
Zechariah (see above, No, 11), proves that the author, at least in these 
cases, had consulted neither a Greek nor a Hebrew Bible, but had trusted hig 


598 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


memory. Accordingly, it is probable that in many other, if not in ah 
instances, the author’s memory of Bible passages, frequently heard or read, 
was the source of his citations. The present writer feels that he must here 
forego a complete presentation of the list of eitations, and a comparison of 
them with the Hebrew text, the LXX, and the Targum, as he gave in the 
first and second editions of his Einleitung. A specific difference in respect 
of their relation to the original text and to the LXX cannot be shown be- 
tween those eitations through which the author desires to prove the agree- 
ment of prophecy with fulfilment (Class A), and the eitations given in the 
sayings of Jesus and other persons (Class B). To Class A belong, in their 
contents, i. 23 and ii. 5, although, according to their form, an angel speaks 
in i. 23, and the Sanhedrin in ii. 5. Translations, made independently of 
the LXX from the Hebrew, or an Aramaic original, are found not only in 
Class A (ii. 15, viii. 17, xxvii. 9), but also in Class B (xi. 10, xxvi. 31; οὗ 
also x. 36=Mic. vii. 6); furthermore, clear traces of a consideration of a 
Hebrew or Aramaic text appear in Class A (ii. 5, 18, xii. 18-20, xiii. 35); 
but also in Class B (xi. 29=Jer. vi. 16; and in the order of the Decalogue, 
xix. 18, ef. v. 21, 27 ; ZKom. Matt. 590, A. 65). Likewise, essential depend- 
ence upon the LXX is shown in Class B (e.g. iv. 6, 7, 10), but also in Class A 
(i. 23, iii. 2). As translator of a Hebrew or Aramaic original, Matt. is 
characterised by several transcriptions of Hebrew personal names at vari- 
ance with the Greek tradition ; for example, Payaß, i. 5 (ann=Paaß in LXX, 
everywhere, and without variants, Jas. ii. 25; Heb. xi. 31; Clem. 1 Cor. 
xii. ; in Jos. Ant. v. 1, 2, 5, 7, Paaßn, here, to be sure, with the variant read- 
ing Paxaßn). Further discussion of this subject, and consideration of the 
absolutely incorrect forms of names, which are possible only on the part of 
a translator, are to be found ZKom. Matt. 57-61. All the facts in the case 
are most easily explained by the presupposition, which is offered by the tra- 
dition and confirmed by a series of observations independent of it (above, pp. 
573 f., 593), that our Matt. is a translation of an Aramaic writing, in which 
latter the O.T. eitations and allusions were often given in a very free Aramaic 
form ; and that the Greek translator was guided partly by an eflort to give 
a true rendering of his text, and partly by his memory of the LXX, especially 
of the sayings most frequently used by the Christians about him, or already 
introduced into Greek Gospels which were known to him. He freed himself 
more or less from the influence of the LXX familiar to him : (1) im passages 
where, through dependence on it, the thought of the Aram. Matt., expressed 
in a free form of the citation, would be obliterated, or the purpose of the 
citation made of none effect ; (2) where, on account of a lacking, or unclear, 
or incorrect statement of the source, the passage cited could not easily have 
been found, even if he had looked for it. 

13. (P. 581.) With regard to doublets, we have first to notice that 
Matthew is fond of repeating the same formula like a refrain: five times, 
καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους, Vil. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 58, 
xix. 1, xxvi. 1; five or six times, ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, V. 21, 27, 
(31), 33, 38, 43 ; the opening and conclusion of the Beatitudes with the same 
phrase, “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” v. 3, 10; the repetition of the 
words xix. 30 and xx. 16 at the beginning and end of the parables (Mark x. 
31; Luke xiii. 30—once each, but in an entirely different connection in Luke) ; 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 3599 


also xxiv. 42, xxv. 13; cf., further, above, p. 567, note 6. Moreover, the 
repetition of a maxim, whether it be original or derived from the O.T. or 
from the popular proverbial philosophy, is not of itself a sign that discourses 
are not trustworthily recorded. As Paul repeatedly made use of such sayings 
in letters separated by some interval of time (Gal. v. 9=1 Cor. v. 6; 1 Cor. 
i. 31=2 Cor. x. 17; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 14=1 Tim. v. 18; 1 Cor. vi. 9f.=Gal. v. 
19-21), so, too, Jesus may have used quotations like that in Matt. ix. 13 and 
xii. 7 (without parallels), or sayings like Luke xiv. 11, xviii. 14, and in 
another connection, Matt. xxiii. 12, not only three but twenty times. The 
same applies to Matt. xiii. 12 (= Mark iv. 25) and xxv. 29, to Matt. xvii. 20 
and xxi. 21 (= Mark xi. 23—Luke xvii. 6 is only related), and would apply 
to Matt. xx. 16b and xxii. 14 if xx. 16) were not to be omitted, with NBLZ, 
Orig. and the Egyptian versions; ef. ZKom. Matt. 600. As for the narrative 
sections, it is not in the least improbable that Matt. xii. 38-40 (= Luke xi. 
29-30) and xvi. 1-4 (= Mark vii. 11-12) are different occurrences ; the re- 
quest for a sign came up more than once, according to other reports as well 
(John ii. 18, vi. 30, ef. vii. 3f.; Mark xv. 29f.; Matt. xxvii. 42f.; 1 Cor. 
i. 22). According to Matt., the request is made by different persons in the 
two instances, and in the second it is more precisely defined by ek τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. 
Only the answer is in both instances the same, if the sentences of vv. 2b-3, 
which are connected with the word “heaven,” but are otherwise most original, 
are accepted. They are, to be sure, not to be considered as an interpolation 
from Luke xii. 54-56 because of a merely remote similarity to that passage, 
but rather as an early gloss, taken from a good source. Accordingly, if the 
narrative Mark viil. 11 ff. is to be considered more historically exact than 
Matt. xvi. 1-4, then the complete similarity of Matt. xii. 39 and xvi. 4 is not 
only a new proof of the great freedom with which Matthew shapes the dis- 
courses of Jesus, but especially also an example of his preference for the 
refrain (see beginning of this note). Also in content the answer of Jesus to 
the similar demand (Jolin ii. 19) is related to Matt. xvi. 1-4, and in form also 
in so far as Jesus uses in both the enigmatic saying (Mashal). With Matt. 
ix. 33 f.=xii. 22 f. the case is not quite the same. Since there is no chrono- 
logical connection between chap. ix. and chap. x., and between chap. xi. and 
chap. xii., it would not be inconceivable (so the present writer judged in the 
first and second edition) that Matthew should, in passing, touch upon a single, 
event as a conclusion of the sketches, viii. 18-ix. 34 (see n. 14), which are in 
time very closely connected, and then, moreover, should once again narrate 
the same event with more precision and detail (xii. 22f.) in a connection 
where it was of importance for describing the conflict with the Pharisees, 
The fact that in ix. 32f. the author tells about a dumb man, and in xii. 22 
about a blind man who is also dumb, gives no warrant for distinguishing 
the narratives ; but just as little also for identifying them. If ix. 34 is to be 
omitted with DakSs, every reason for this disappears; for the words of 
the people, ix. 33, have nothing in common with xii. 23, and do not refer to 
the one deed of healing last mentioned, but to the entire chain of varied 
deeds and words in viii. 18-ix. 32; ef. ZKom. Matt. 385, 451 f. If the 
discourses Matt. v.-vii. and x. are in part free compositions of the author 
(above, p. 558f., then v. 29f. can be historically identical with xviii. 8f., 
v. 32 with xix. 9, x. 38f. with xvi. 24f. If, furthermore, one compares the 


600 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


sentences x. 17-22, which do not suit the historical situation described in 
x. 5 (above, p. 558), with Mark xiii. 9-13 and Luke xxi. 12-19, where they 
are found in an historically probable connection, it can hardly be doubted 
that, when Matthew came to the passage (xxiv. 9-13) where these sentences 
historically belonged, he deliberately abbreviated them, in order not to repeat 
too much. There is no trace anywhere of an unconscious procedure based 
upon mechanical use of sources ; such a procedure, also, would be inconsistent 
with the thoughtful care to be observed in all parts of the book and the 
unity of just this Gospel. The remaining instance in which it might at first 
be suspected that a single incident had been doubled through ignorance of 
the facts and dependence on two varying narratives—the feeding of the five 
thousand and the feeding of the four thousand—is safeguarded against such 
suspicion by the occurrence of the same phenomenon in Mark, and by those 
discourses of Jesus, reported by Matthew and Mark, which refer to both 
occasions (see above, p. 582). 

14. (P. 584.) On the place of viii. 18-ix. 34 in the plan of the Gospel, 
see above, p. 545. Cf. Hofmann, “Zwei Tage des Menschensohnes,” ZfPuK, 
xxii. (1851), S. 331 ff. Assuming the credibility of the express and careful 
statements of time and place in this section of Matt., the events make up a 
definitely ordered series, which may be extended from the accounts of Mark 
and Luke, but not corrected. According to Matt. xiii. 1, Jesus spoke the 
succeeding parables on the same day upon which the discourses and con- 
versations of xii. 23-50 fall. The change of place, xiii. 53, with which 
xiii. 54 is but loosely connected, is, according to Mark iv. 35, the same 
crossing of the Sea of Galilee at evening with which Matt. viii. 18 opens a 
new section. In Luke viii. 22, also, it has no immediate connection with 
anything that precedes. Further, the connection of Mark ii. 1-22, Luke v. 
17-39 (= Matt. ix. 1-17), with the preceding and following context, is so 
entirely free that it argues nothing against the concatenation of the incidents 
in Matt. The passage viii. 18-ix. 34, then, is an account of a single day 
from one evening to the next, which followed immediately the day of the 
events and addresses in xii. 23-xill. 53; ef. ZKom. Matt. 344, A. ὃ. 

15. (P. 585.) Mention has already been made (above, p. 590, n. 6) of 
individual instances of alleged lack of knowledge on Matthew’s part. Other 
criticisms have been based on a misunderstanding of his presentation of the 
subject. It is said that Matthew did not know what we learn, indeed only 
from Luke i. 26, ii. 4 (ef. John i. 45), that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth 
before Jesus’ birth. But there is no mention in i. 18-24 of the place of any 
of the events there recorded; and even the place of Christ’s birth (first 
referred to in i. 25) is not given there, but in ii. 1, where it leads up to the 
questions and answers ii. 2, 4-5. It is true no narrator proceeds in this 
fashion, whether the clumsy compiler of a “curriculum vite” which is to be 
presented to the examiners or read at a memorial service, or a master of the 
biographie art. But what this proves is only that Matthew had no inten- 
tion of writing either a good ora poor account of Jesus’ life for those who 
were not acquainted with it. The reader unfamiliar with the facts first 
discovers from ii. 23 that the Holy Family had close relations with Nazareth 
even before Jesus’ birth. This is presupposed by the choice of Nazareth as 
a residence from among the many villages of Galilee; for the angels com- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 601 


manded only the return from Egypt to the “land of Israel.” Joseph’ 
reflection on the political situation prompted the choice of Galilee rather 
than Judeea, and the reason for the choice of Nazareth remains unstated. 
The reference to a fulfilment of prophecy is no substitute for it, for the 
divine counsel which is realised by the settlement in Nazareth is not 
announced to Joseph by man or by angel, but only by Matthew to his 
readers. 


§ 57. THE RELATION OF MARK’S GOSPEL TO THE 
GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


The oldest tradition concerning the origin of the 
Gospels which we have found heretofore to be a trust- 
worthy guide shall be considered first, with reference also 
to the question of their relation to each other. According 
to the tradition, Matthew wrote before Mark, but there 
was no great interval intervening (above, p. 392 ff). In 
this case, if one used the work of the other, it must have 
been Mark who employed Matthew, not, however, the Greek 
translation, which was made considerably later than the 
time when Mark composed his Gospel (above, p. 516 ten 
but the Aramaic original. Of all the conjectures with 
regard to the relation between Mark and Matthew, only 
those of H. Grotius agree with the tradition (above, 
p. 422, n. 4). If it was possible for it to come into his 
possession, the Gospel of Matthew, written in his mother 
tongue, must have had the greatest interest for Mark, 
who was a native of Jerusalem. And it is inconceivable 
that he should have left it unread and made no use of Ib, 
if he had become acquainted with it before he had besun 
the composition of his own book. If the journey to Asia 
Minor, which Mark had in view at the time of Col, Iv. 
10, was made in the interval between his first residence 
in Rome, of which we learn in this passage and in Philem. 
24, and the second sojourn there, witnessed to by 1 Pet. 
v. 13 and the traditions as to the origin of his Gospel 
(above, p. 427 f.), there is nothing in the way of suppos- 
ing that this journey to the Rast was extended to include 


602 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


a visit to his native city, and it is very probable that he 
returned from Jerusalem, or some other point in Palestine, 
to Rome in company with Peter in the autumn of 63 or 
the spring of 64. Since the tradition gives us nothing 
further with reference to the date of Matthew’s Gospel 
than that it was written earlier than Mark— which was 
begun at the earliest in the year 64—and that Matthew 
wrote his Gospel between 61 and 66; and since, moreover, 
nothing has appeared in either of the Gospels which 
proves that Matthew was composed after 61-63, or Mark 
before 64-70, there is no reason why Mark, on the occasion 
of his eastern journey in 62-63, should not have learned 
in Palestine of Matthew’s Gospel, which had been written 
shortly before. He might, therefore, have brought it back 
with him to Rome, and have used it shortly afterwards in 
the composition of his own Gospel. This conjecture would 
be raised to probability bordering on certainty, if it should 
appear that Mark is dependent upon an older document, 
which only resembles our Matthew. But it is at least 
equally probable that the Greek translator of Matthew 
was acquainted with Mark, which had appeared in the 
meantime, and used it, along with other helps, in 
the execution of his difficult task (above, p. 575 f,). 
Following the tradition, it is possible and probable, from 
the order in which the books in question originated 
(Aram. Matthew, Mark, Greek Matthew), that a rela- 
tion of mutual dependence exists between our Matthew 
and our Mark. Mark could have used the Aramaic 
Matthew, and the person who translated Matthew into 
Greek could have used Mark, The first would necessarily 
show itself chiefly in traces of dependence in content, the 
second in traces of dependence in form, 

Before entering upon the discussion of details, with 
regard to which there has been so much dispute, and 
with reference to which endless strife is possible, it may 
be advantageous to make several general statements, some 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND: ACTS 603 


of which have been proved already, others of which are 
self-evident. (1) The employment of an older writing 
by Mark is not exeluded either by the tradition concern- 
ing the relation of Mark to Peter or the special occasion 
and purpose of his Gospel (above, pp. 440 ἢ, 501 f.). (2) 
Entire ignorance on the part of a later vere regarding 
earlier writings dealing with the same theme is rendered 
improbable by the constant intercourse which, in the 
apostolic age, bound all parts of the Church together, 
and by the difficulty of constructing a history of Jesus 
from the oral tradition alone, which would be in any 
degree systematic and free from contradiction. This 
would have been, of course, unlikely in the case of a dis- 
ciple of one of the apostles like Mark, and entirely so, if a 
rumour had reached him that shortly before an apostle had 
written a comprehensive book concerning the deeds and 
sayings of Jesus. (3) The number of those who believe 
that the extensive agreement between Matthew and Mark 
in single narratives and in whole series of narratives 
(n. 1) can be explained by the uniformity of the oral 
tradition, upon which both are dependent, will always be 
small. Comparison of Matthew with Luke proves that 
widely differing traditions existed together in the apostolic 
Church regarding the most important parts of the Gospel 
history. Notwithstanding the fact that the Lord’s Prayer 
was employed in the second century in parts of the 
Church most widely separated—by the Aramaic-speaking 
Jewish Christians as well as by Marcionitic congregations 
and the catholic Church—certainly also frequently used 
as early as the apostolic age, it is reproduced in Matt. vi. 
9 ff. and Luke xi. 2 ff. in two widely variant forms. The 
account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper which was 
recalled to the Church by every celebration, is given very 
differently in Matt. xxvi. 26 ff., 1 Cor. xi. 23 ff., and in the 
corrected text of Luke xxu. 17-20. Further, a compari- 
son of Matt. 1. 1-17 with Luke iii. 23-38, or of Matt. v.- 


604 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


vii. with Luke vi. 20-49, or Matt. xxvi. 57-68 with Luke 
xxi. 54, 63-71, will show the impossibility of the exist- 
ence of a stereotyped tradition circulated throughout the 
entire apostolic Church, even regarding the most im- 
portant facts of the Gospel history. The assumption of 
literary dependence in order to explain the agreement 
between Matthew and Mark is rendered all the more 
necessary by the fact that the two books were written 
under entirely different conditions and for entirely dif- 
ferent readers. In this respect the disparity between 
Matthew and Mark is incaleulably greater than that 
between Mark and Luke, and scarcely less than that 
between Matthew and Luke. (4) So long as the impossi- 
bility of a relation of direct dependence between two 
extant documents remains undemonstrated, it is arbitrary 
or unscientific to explain the agreements between them by 
supposing that both are dependent upon documents no 
longer extant and without witnesses. But if one of these 
Gospels is dependent upon the other, an historical considera- 
tion of the relation existing between them will be enough 
to render impossible the belief that a Gospel written for 
Jews and Jewish Christians in Palestine, the form and 
content of which is determined in detail by this purpose, 
is dependent upon a Gospel written for Christians outside 
of Palestine. (5) It does not follow because important 
parts are wanting in one Gospel that the author did not 
have before him another Gospel containing these portions ; 
since neither of these books supplies a basis for presuppos- 
ing that their authors intended to record all that was in 
itself commemorable, or all that they themselves regarded 
as trustworthy. Mark, as well as Matthew, exhibits proof 
to the contrary. We have already seen, in considering 
the title of the book, that Mark’s plan permitted only a 
sketch of the work of the Baptist, and of the baptism 
and temptation of Jesus, which could not have been the 
original form of the oral or written tradition concerning 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 6053 


these facts (above, p. 460). The same reason accounts 
also for the absence of a narrative regarding the origin, 
birth, and childhood of Jesus. To conclude that Mark 
had not read the narrative in Matt. 1-1. is quite as inad- 
missible as to assume that it was known to him but 
rejected as untrustworthy, or, moreover, to suppose that 
all the traditions or fictions preserved in Matt. 1.1. and 
Luke i.—i. originated later than the time when Mark wrote. 
It is absurd to imagine that more than thirty years elapsed 
after the death of Jesus before the Christians began to 
make inquiries and to construct narratives about His 
origin, birth, and childhood. If Mark could leave un- 
noticed these narratives, which he certainly must have 
known, he could have done so notwithstanding his know- 
ledge of Matt. ii. The Sermon on the Mount, which 
is found in Matt. v.-vu. and Luke vi. 20-49 in two very 
different recensions, must, for this reason, as well as on 
account of its significance in each of the recensions, be 
regarded as an important part of the Gospel tradition. 
Mark, however, could not use it as an example of Jesus’ 
preaching characterised in 1. 14f., since it does not come 
under this head. The Sermon on the Mount is not the 
Gospel (above, p. 542 1). In the form in which it occurs 
in Matthew, he could not have used it at all. Sentences 
like those in Matt. v. 17-20, which have a very important 
place there, could have produced only confusion among 
the Roman Christians as we know them from the Epistle 
to the Romans (vol. 1. 421 ff). To say the least, a com- 
mentary would have been necessary—a commentary of 
an entirely different character from that which we find in 
Jesus’ discourse itself (Matt. v. 21-48)—in order to render 
the words intelligible and profitable to the Roman Chris- 
tians for whom Mark wrote. So Mark himself must have 
thought, provided that Paul’s judgment regarding his work 
as a missionary in Rome was at all just (Col. iv. 11; vol. 
i. 450, n. 4). The omission of the Sermon on the Mount 


606 INTRODUCTION TO ΤῊΝ NEW TESTAMENT 


in Mark is no proof that the author had not read Matthew. 
(6) Nor does the lack of τάξις in Mark, of which notice 
had been taken already by those in the neishbourhood 
of John in Ephesus, argue against Mark’s dependence on 
Matthew. We were under necessity of admitting earlier 
that Matthew made no attempt in most parts of his book 
to reproduce the events in chronological order. This must 
have been especially evident to a person like Mark, who 
knew from the narratives of an eye-witness the historical 
place of many incidents which Matthew took out of their 
historical connection and arranged again after the order 
of content (above, p. 556 ff.). ‘Matthew was not suited to 
serve as a guide for the arrangement of the historical 
material in Mark. If Mark had followed Matthew en- 
tirely, the result could have been what John sums up in 
the words—ov μέντοι τάξει. 

With these prefatory remarks we pass to the compari- 
son of the two Gospels. Here weight is to be given, first of 
all, to the total impression which they produce. Matthew 
appears as a work of large proportion, cast in one mould ; 
Mark is a mosaic, carefully constructed out of numerous 
pieces. In Matthew we notice the freedom with which 
the author handles a mass of material, the arrangement of 
which, from beginning to end, is determined by his theo- 
logical conception and apologetic purpose, and at the same 
time his frequent carelessness with regard to the narrator's 
literary task, and the lack of all effort to fulfil the duties 
which to us seem incumbent upon the accurate historian. 
While Mark made a similar effort to follow a leading 
thought, we notice that this is much less definite and more 
neutral than the controlling idea in Matthew ; and more 
than this, that he is unable to carry the idea through. 
The material stifles the thought. On the other hand, in 
spite of numerous infelicities of expression, Mark shows 
himself a master in clear narrative, in his ability to por- 
tray a situation and to reproduce with exactness trivial 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 607 


details, which, in the memory of an eye-witness, are in- 
separably connected with the kernel of the event. If this 
is true, it follows that Matthew is more original. That 
Matthew should show deficiency as a narrator is in keeping 
-with the peculiarity of the author, which appears uni- 
formly in every part of his book. It would, however, be 
inconceivable that with the narratives of Mark before him, 
which for the most part are very clearly drawn and accurate 
in details, he should have obliterated or otherwise destroyed 
these characteristics without intending either to correct 
errors or to make considerable abridgement. Matthew 
could not have been influenced by the effort to secure 
convenient brevity of narrative, in case the short Gospel of 
Mark was before him when he wrote, since his own Gospel 
is much more elaborate. Matthew’s narratives do not 
exhibit the character of excerpts, as do sentences like 
Mark xvi. 9-13, but give the impression of unfinished 
sketches. Moreover, the universal rule will apply here, 
that the unfinished sketch precedes the completed drawing 
and the highly coloured painting. Nothing was more 
natural than for Mark, in the narratives which he both 
found in Matthew, and also had often heard from Peter, 
to pick out such touches as would render the pictures 
more accurate, richer in colour, and clearer. A writing 
constructed as was Matthew (above, p. 556 f.) must have 
made every later narrator who had it in his hand desire 
to add explanatory additions. That such a document 
was before Mark, and that he followed it, has been 
proved beyond all question, particularly by Klostermann. 
The entire Gospel of Mark furnishes evidence that, with 
all his independent knowledge of details, resting as it 
did upon the eye-witness of Peter, Mark had a written 
exemplar from which he sometimes made excerpts and to 
which he sometimes added glosses (n. 2). In some pas- 
sages this is evident at once from the expressions used, 
which can be explained only under this presupposition. 


608 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Althoush designing to record only a single parable in 
xii. 1, Mark writes, “He began to speak to them in 
parables,” because an account lay before him according to 
which Jesus spoke three parables in succession on the 
same day in the temple (Matt. xxi. 28-31, 33-41, 
xxii. 1-14). In the parallel narrative of Matthew (xxi. 
33), the words, “Hear another parable,” indicate to the 
reader expressly that this parable is only one in a series 
of such discourses (cf. xxi. 45, xxii. 1). Further, this 
occurs in a passage having an extended context (Mark xi. 
27-xil. 87 = Matt. xxi. 23-xxii. 46, n. 1), which, with the 
exception of the two parables that are intentionally cut 
out by Mark, is practically without variation in both 
Matthew and Mark. Therefore the book employed by 
Mark was not some work which simply resembled our 
Matthew, but, as far as content and arrangement go, our 
Matthew itself. The fact that here, as in most other 
cases, the expression is more awkward in Mark than in 
Matthew, is accounted for when we remember that it 
was the Aramaic Matthew which Mark had before him. 
On the other hand, the numerous agreements between 
Matthew and Mark in the choice of words is explained, 
if the person who translated Matthew into Greek was 
familiar with Mark, and if he followed this in cases where 
he found an expression that suited him, without, however, 
abating his effort to find expressions that were more 
pleasing (n. 3). It is entirely contrary to Mark’s habit 
to reproduce the discourses of Jesus and of other persons 
in indirect discourse. Even discourses which are really 
summaries of repeated and much more elaborate utter- 
ances are thrown into direct form (Mark i. 15, vi. 14-16, 
x. 33 f.). When he departs from this rule in vi. 7-8, then 
passes to the direct form in ver. 9 without notice, and, 
finally, in vv. 10-11 introduces a single independent 
saying with a special introduction (καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς), the 
inconsistency is explained if, in the first place, he made 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 609 


a summary of the elaborate discourse in Matt. x. 5 ff. 
which was before him, but afterwards saw fit to excerpt 
parts with greater accuracy. The same is true of Mark i, 
4, 7-8 in relation to Matt. iii. 2, 7-12, and of several other 
passages in which the discourse of Jesus is interrupted 
by a καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, not called for by the context of the 
discourse in Mark (ii. 27, vii. 9: ef. i. Ay 0:92). 

The use of the O.T. in the two cases deserves special 
notice. No great weight can be laid upon the fact that 
at least in one instance (xiv, 49) Mark reproduces the 
ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν ai γραφαί, which occurs so frequently in 
Matthew, and is of so much importance for his purpose ; 
since it is not used to express his own thought, but is 
put into the mouth of Jesus, who is represented in Matt. 
xxvi. 56, ef. 54, as speaking similar words on the same 
occasion. Moreover, the words are in keeping with Jesus’ 
attitude to O.T. prophecy. [Ὁ is, however, significant 
that Mark quotes no O.T. passages not also cited by 
Matthew (n. 4). Only in one instance does Mark cite 
the O.T. on his own responsibility (i. 2f.). ΑἹ] other 
citations from the O.T. are put into the mouth of the 
speakers in the narrative, particularly the Lord, and, 
what is more striking, always in the same connection in 
which the same O.T. words are employed by Matthew, 
whose book is so much richer in quotations, both direct 
and indirect. This not only furnishes new evidence that 
Mark and Matthew are very intimately related, in a way 
that cannot be explained except by the assumption that 
one is dependent upon the other, but it also shows that it 
is Mark which is dependent upon Matthew. The poor 
borrows from the rich, not the reverse. In the case before 
us this would necessarily appear doubtful, if it were the 
Greek Matthew upon which Mark drew; for then the 
numerous variations from Matthew shown by Mark in the 
citations, which for the most part affect the sense very 


little, and which are by no means always improvements, 
VOL. II. 39 


610 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


must be regarded as particular caprices of the author. In 
this connection, also, the tradition, according to which 
Mark could have had only the Aramaic Matthew before 
him, proves to be the thread of Ariadne. In Mark’s exem- 
plar, also, the words taken from the O.T. were in Aramaic; 
that is, his native language. It was just as easy for him 
to translate these citations into Greek as words like Abba, 
Rabboni, Talitha kumi, ete. (n. 5). On the other hand, 
it is conceivable and self-evident that after twenty years 
of intercourse with the Greek Churches, where it was 
customary to study the LXX to determine “whether 
these things were so” (Acts xvii. 11), Mark was very 
familiar with this text, particularly in passages that were 
often quoted in Christian circles, and that in his book 
intended for Greek-speaking Christians he would make 
use of the LXX where it was convenient. Whether for 
this purpose he ever found it necessary to unrol the LXX 
may be considered doubtful. Mark was in the same 
position in relation to the Aramaic Matthew as was the 
person who translated the whole of Matthew into Greek 
some fifteen or twenty-five years later (above, p. 5791. ). 
The fact that in many instances the text is the same, 
or practically the same, in both, is satisfactorily ex- 
plained by the assumption of the dependence of both 
Mark and the Greek Matthew upon the same Aramaic 
original, the LXX, and the language current in the 
Church of their time. The fact, however, that they vary 
in numerous details, which for the most part do not affect 
the sense, is just as simply accounted for by the supposi- 
tion that Mark was not as yet acquainted with the Greek 
Matthew, and that the translator of Matthew into Greek 
was bound, first of all, to follow his original, and in other 
respects was under even less obligation to take into con- 
sideration the form of the eitations in Mark than he 
was to pay attention to the LXX and the language of 
the Chureh (n. 6). The dependence of Mark upon the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 611 


Aramaic Matthew is shown also by the relation of the 
citations in both to the Hebrew text. While we are able 
to recognise, even in the Greek form in which we possess 
his work, that the author of Matthew used the Hebrew 
text of the O.T., though the citations which he took 
from this source are freely handled, and while we observe 
that the Greek translator retained this relation to the 
Hebrew text in many decisive passages in spite of his 
frequent dependence upon the LXX, Mark is much 
more strongly under the influence of the LXX, and 
gives us a translation which is independent of the 
LXX only where Matthew does the same. This he 
was able to do, not by reason of his independent know- 
ledge of the Hebrew text, of which he nowhere shows a 
clear example, but from his acquaintance with Matthew 
in its original Aramaic form. We have decisive proof of 
this in the citations in Mark i. 2f. and xiv. 27 (n. 6). 
In the first passage, Mark quotes a combination of Mal. 
il. 1 and Isa. xl. 3 as a single connected saying of Isaiah. 
All the efforts made by the early Church to defend the 
evangelist against the censures of the Neoplatonist Por- 
phyry, by means of emendations of the text and apologetic 
interpretations of the only trustworthy text, were not 
enough to explain away the fact that at the very begin- 
ning of his book, and in the single passage where he 
quotes an author by name, Mark makes a mistake in 
citing his source. This would have been avoidable, if he 
had drawn upon the O.T. directly. If he had cited the 
passage freely from memory, it could be explained as a 
mere slip; but since both fragments of which the quota- 
tion is made up show clear traces of Mark’s dependence 
upon Matthew (n. 6), the incorrect reference of the com- 
bined passages to Isaiah is to be explained as due to the 
same cause. Mark found both passages used in Matthew 
in connection with the Baptist, the one correctly referred 
to Isaiah (Matt. üi. 3), the other, however, quoted as 


612 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Scripture without the name of a prophet (Matt. xi. 10) 
More than this, the latter was produced in Matthew 
freely, and for this reason, possibly, was not to be found 
at once in the Hebrew or Greek Bible. Accordingly, 
Mark, who wished to connect these words with those of 
Isaiah, took them also as the words of the prophet. 


1. (P. 603.) In the first part of both Gospels the similarity of substance 
and form appears chiefly in single sentences (Mark i. 3, 5= Matt. iii. 3, 5) 
and short narratives (Mark i. 16-20= Matt. iv. 18-22 ; Mark i. 40-44= Matt. 
γ 111. 1-4) ; farther on it is rather in whole series of sections (Mark x. 1-xi. 17 
= Matt. xix. 1-xxi. 13, interrupted only by the parable in xx. 1-16; Mark 
xi. 27-xii. 37= Matt. xxi. 23-xxii. 46, interrupted only by the parables 
xxi. 28-32, xxii. 1-13; Mark xiv. 1-xv..47= Matt. xxvi. 1—xxvii. 61, inter: 
rupted only by xxvi. 52-54, xxvii. 3-10, 510-53). Single rare words or forms 
deserve less stress than is sometimes laid upon them. In the first place, 
every argument for literary dependence, based upon such resemblances, is 
confronted by the fact that no form of textual corruption is more frequent 
in the Gospels than the assimilation of one Gospel with another. Thus, for 
example, in Luke v. 20, 23, ἀφέωνται is undoubtedly the correct reading, 
whereas, taking the parallels in Matt. ix. 2, 5, the weight of evidence is for 
apiovra Or ἀφίενται, and in Mark ii. 5, 9 the external evidence leaves us 
undecided. This Doric form of the perf. ind. (Kühner-Blass, Gram. i. 2. 201) 
is clearly supported in Luke vii. 47. 48; John xx. 23; 1 John ii. 12, which 
shows its general currency. The form adiovra also meets the case in Matt, 
ix. 2, 5 and parallels (against Winer-Schmiedel, § 14. 6), though not in these 
other passages. In the second place, much that has been represented as 
remarkable is not so to a connoisseur, as ἀπεκατεστάθη, Matt. xii. 13; Luke 
vi. 10; Mark iii. 5; ef. arerareorn, Mark viii. 25. Besides the instances in 
Winer-Schmiedel, § 12. 7, note 12, cf. Ign. Smyrn. xi. 2. It is entirely out 
of place to adduce in evidence ἀπεκρίνατο (for ἀπεκρίθη) in Matt. xxvii. 12; 
Mark xiv.61; Luke xxiii.9 ; for these three passages deal with three different 
occurrences; while in the actual parallels, Matt. xxvi. 63; Mark xiv. 61; 
Luke xxii. 66, or Matt. xxvii. 12; Mark xv.5; Luke xxiii. 3, both content 
and form are very different ; cf. Veit, ii. 125. Moreover, in Matt. xxvii. 12 
we are probably to read ἀπεκρίνετο alongside of ἀπεκρίθη, xxvii. 14 (= Mark 
xy. 5). The Attic ἀπεκρίνατο is attested beyond question only in Luke iii, 
16; Acts iii. 12; per contra, Mark xiv. 61; Luke xxiii. 9 (only L, to be sure, 
has -vero, but correctly ; cf. Blass, ΝῊ. Gram.? § 20.1 [Eng. trans. p. 44]; 
John v. 17, 19, it is uncertain, and in John xii. 23, decidedly so. In the 
third place, every proof of the dependence of one author upon the other, 
based upon such phenomena, comes to nothing in the case of Matt. and Mark, 
if Mark was familiar with the Aramaic Matt., and the Greek translator of 
Matt. was familiar with Mark. 

2. (Pp. 607, 609.) Mark i. 2-13 makes the impression not of a freely 
drawn sketch, but of an excerpt. Now excerpts are commonly made from 
books, not from oral traditions. Mark found the materials in Matt. iii. 1-6, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 613 


iii. 13-iv. 11, and also Matt. xi. 10 (see note 6 below). The only traces that 
Mark shows of an individual conception or tradition are that he represents 
Jesus alone as the recipient of the divine witness at the baptism (ver. 10 f.), 
and that he mentions the beasts (ver. 13). But that the narrative from which 
he made his extracts was wholly or substantially identical with Matt. iv. 1-11, 
must be inferred from the fact that Mark concludes his account with the 
ministry of the angels. This is intelligible only in Matt., where this διακονεῖν 
(serving at table, care for all physical needs, cf. viii. 15, xxv. 45, xxvii. 55) 
corresponds with the opening of the narrative iv. 2-4. Mark i. 16-20= 
Matt. iv. 18-22. Matthew omits ὀλίγον, which in Mark i. 19 presents the 
situation more vividly, and μετὰ τῶν μισθωτῶν, which in Mark i. 20 renders 
the brothers’ immediate decision more comprehensible, and saves it to some 
extent from the appearance of being unfilial. These omissions certainly 
could not be explained in Matt. on the ground of an effort to secure brevity, 
for Matthew’s account is on the whole a trifle more extended than Mark’s (89 
words against 82), nor yet in any other way. It is Mark that contributed 
these illuminating details, Mark 1. 40-45 = Matt. viii. 1-4. The principal 
difference lies in Mark’s representation of the charge to the leper as a very 
emphatic one, for the sake of contrasting with it the uninterrupted spread of 
the report of Jesus’ mighty deeds (vv. 43, 45). This idea would have been 
entirely to Matthew’s purpose, and very suitable as an example in connection 
with xii. 15-21. By the place to which he assigned the narrative, he gave it 
quite another significance (see p. 544 f.), and in the phrase eis μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς 
gave characteristic expression to his conception. As Mark, who shows no 
anxiety here, or elsewhere, to defend Jesus from the charge of annulling the 
law, preserves this detail, he is seen to be the dependent author. Mark 
ii. 1-12= Matt. ix. 1-8. Mark’s additions throughout serve to illuminate 
Matthew’s less perspicuous account. The unintelligible ἰδών, Matt. ix. 2, is 
made clear by the account in Mark ii. 4, and with this in view the situation 
is already carefully described in vv. 1, 2. It would have been better to 
mention the presence of the scribes at this point, also, as Luke does in 
introducing the story, v. 17. But as Mark has Matthew’s account. before 
him, he first alludes to their presence at that point in the narrative (ver. 6) 
where Matthew assumes but does not expressly state it. The complaint 
otros βλασφημεῖ, Matt. ix. 3, which would be obscure to readers unfamiliar 
with Jewish modes of thought, is explained in detail in Mark 11. 6-8, as is 
the way that Jesus “saw” the thoughts of the fault-finders. In Mark ii. 27 
the separation by καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς of two sayings of Jesus occasioned by 
similar circumstances, shows that Mark had before him a narrative in which 
the two were either separated by other matter or at least differently arranged. 
That is, Mark excerpts from Matt. xii. 1-8, passing over the sentences, xii. 5-7, 
between those two sayings. Of itself, it would be conceivable that Matthew, 
who, in accordance with his plan, sought in viii. 18-ix. 34 to present as rapid 
a succession as possible of changing scenes (above, pp. 544, 583 f.), was thus led 
to condense extended accounts from Mark, if he had them before him, by the 
omission of unessential details. For example, Mark iv. 36-41 (108 words) = 
Matt. viii. 23-27 (76 words), where Luke viii. 23-25, also (69 words from καὶ 
ἀνήχθησαν, ver. 22), has abridged decidedly. But this is incapable of proof. 
In any case, the striking οἱ ἄνθρωποι, Matt. viii. 27, cannot be derived from 


614 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Mark iv. 41, where the reference is plainly to the diseiples, whom Matthew 
everywhere designates as μαθηταί, never ἄνθρωποι (x. 35, 36 cannot be used 
in evidence, nor can xiv. 33 also be compared with it, where the disciples 
who remain in the ship, in distinction from Peter and Jesus, are called οἱ ev 
τῷ πλοίῳ). Also the people in general cannot be intended, who later heard of 
the act of Jesus, for whom Matthew commonly uses a different form of ex- 
pression (ix. 8, 33, xii. 23, xiv. 13, xv. 37, xxii. 33). Finally, Matthew did 
not refer to other persons who were with Jesus and the disciples in the same 
boat, for.the practised fishermen did not need the help of sailors, and the 
company of strangers was not in place when Jesus desired to withdraw from 
the people, and had dismissed all who were not entirely suited to accompany 
Him (viii. 20) in order to cross the lake alone with the disciples (ver. 23). 
A solution of this difficulty, as well as of the use of ἰδών in Matt. ix. 2, ean- 
not be found in Matt., but, on the other hand, is found in Mark, in the state- 
ment iv. 36, that yet other ships alongside of or following the boat which 
held Jesus and His disciples, crossed the sea with them. This is one of the 
fine strokes of the brush which correctly reproduces the recollection of 
Mark’s authority, Peter, and, without any intention on the part of Mark, it 
serves us as an historical explanation of the enigmatical ἄνθρωποι in Matt. 
It would be entirely incomprehensible, however, that Matthew, when Mark’s 
Gospel was before him, should have omitted this remark, which was essential 
for the understanding of his narrative ; and also why he placed the exclama- 
tion of astonishment in the mouths of the puzzling “men,” instead of the 
disciples, as is the case in Mark. Mark vi. 14-32= Matt. xiv. 1-13. It is 
self-evident that Mark vi. 14-16 is not spontaneous narration, but an ex- 
planation of a received account by means of glosses (by davepov—avrov in ver. 
14, and then by ver. 15; cf. viii. 28), and that in consequence of these glosses 
the author is obliged to return to the beginning of the story as he had re- 
ceived it, in altered form, with ver. 16. Even those who are not sensitive to 
stylistic impressions must recognise this on comparing the passage with Luke 
ix. 7-9. It is equally clear, however, that Luke’s smooth account is not the 
basis of the awkward narrative in Mark, especially as everything added in 
Mark vi. 17 ff. is found in Luke, not in this connection, but in a partial and 
most condensed form at iii. 18-20. On the other hand, Matt. xiv. 1 ff. presents 
the original text which Mark glosses. If Mark did not find Herod’s brother 
designated by name in Matt. xiv. 3, the mistaken Φιλίππου of Mark vi. 17 is 
his addition (above, pp. 503, note 3, and 590). The omission of the name 
cannot be viewed reversely as a correction made by Matthew in material 
drawn from Mark, for a critical reader working upon Mark and, with more 
exact historical knowledge, noticing the error, would not simply have deleted 
the mistaken name, but have put the right one in its place, as the redactor 
of the Gospel of the Hebrews did in Matt. xxiii. 35 (above, p. 589, n. 5). But 
here, also, Mark is not simply a compiler of extracts. The lively and graphic 
treatment, richer in every way as compared with Matthew, cannot be the 
product of the free artistic fancy of this Mark, who yet showed himself so 
painfully bound to the written source before him. It can only have come 
from the accounts of those who stood nearer the events themselves, and in this 
connection—besides Peter—we are to bear in mind Luke viii. 3; John iv. 46; 
Acts xiii, 1. From Peter, too, he would have known, what did not appear 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 615 


from Matt., that the feeding of the five thousand was connected with the return 
of the apostles from their preaching tour. The champions of Mark’s priority 
over Matthew have with singular unanimity found a leading proof of Matthew’s 
dependence in the comparison of Matt. xiv. 12-13 and Mark vi. 30-33. 
Matthew, they say, thoughtlessly failed to observe that xiv. 3-11 was an 
episode growing out of what preceded xiv. 1f., and connects the continuing 
narrative immediately with the close of the episode, and he transformed the 
returning apostles (Mark vi. 30 ; Luke ix. 10) into John’s disciples informing 
Jesus of their master’s death, because in his story the apostles had long since 
returned from their wanderings, being present with Jesus as early as xii. 1. 
In reply, let us note—(1) That Mark could not have betrayed Matthew into 
confusing Jesus’ disciples with the Baptist’s, for in Mark vi. 29 the disciples 
of the Baptist are plainly distinguished, even to the dullest comprehension, 
from the disciples of Jesus, who are spoken of as apostles, vi. 30. So if 
Matthew made the ἀπήγγειλαν of Mark vi. 30 the predicate of μαθηταί in 
vi. 29, it was not a case of confusion, but of wanton change. (2) There could 
be no occasion for Matthew to do this, in the fact that he had already recorded 
the sending out of the apostles in chap. x., for he had said nothing of their 
return, and he might mention that incidentally here as an introduction to 
something further. For by the whole arrangement of v. 1-xiv. 12 (above, 
pp. 542 ff., 558) he had precluded the readers’ finding in the succession of the 
narratives any reflection of the chronological order of the events. Therefore 
xii. 22-24 may be identical with ix. 32-34 (above, p. 599), and xiii. 54-58 
may precede 5-7. Ifa mere repetition of Mark vi. 30-33 had still seemed to 
him inconvenient, he could have omitted these statements and substituted a 
general note of time like iii. 1, xii. 1, xiv. 1. (8) If Matt. v. 1-xiv. 12 is not 
continuous narrative at all, but a series of narrative fragments, connected chro- 
nologically only here and there (viii. 1, viii. 18-ix. 34, xii. 46, xiii. 1—above, 
pp. 557 f., 584 f.), it must be considered a misunderstanding of the peculiarity 
of the Gospel to infer from the connection of xiv. 12 that what is related in 
xiv. 12 ff. followed the remarks of Herod in xiv. 2, which would then be 
incompatible with the immediate connection of these same events with the 
Baptist’s execution. (4) As a matter of fact, there is nothing more likely than 
that Herod should have been visited by these superstitious fancies directly 
after the commission of his miserable deed. All that is related in Matt. 
xiv. 1-36, and also, with some additions, in Mark vi. 14-56, may easily have 
occurred in the space of a few weeks. Mark vii. 1-23= Matt. xv. 1-20. 
Matthew’s smoothly flowing account, which assumes acquaintance with Jewish 
customs, cannot be dependent on Mark’s, which is broken by glosses intended to 
explain these customs to extra-Palestinian and non-Jewish readers, and so made 
very awkward at the very beginning. Here again, too, as in ii. 27, vi. 10, ef. 
i. 7, the interruption of the discourse by καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, vii. 9, shows that 
Mark was drawing upon a book in which the several parts of the discourse in 
question were differently arranged, or given in a more extended form. The 
former is the case in Matt. xv.3-9. Mark found it more satisfactory to put 
first Isaiah’s condemnation of externalism in worship, which had an immediate 
relation to the question in dispute, and then follow with the proof, which 
in Matt. precedes, that the Pharisees in other matters also over-esteemed the 
Rabbinic precepts, in that they even set them above the explicit law of God. 


616 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


3. (P. 608.) The correctness of the above remarks on Matt. xxi. 23- 
xxii. 46=Mark xi. 27-xii. 37 will appear to everyone from any sort of a 
synopsis. Notice how Matthew reduces to bearable proportions the constant 
repetition of καί in Mark xi. 27, 28, 31, 33, xii. 2, 12, 13, 23, 28, 35, 38, ef. 
above, pp. 502, n. 2, 591, n. 7; also the smoother sentence-structure, Matt. 
xxi, 26, as compared with Mark xi. 32, and the apt mayıdevew, Matt. xxii. 15, 
instead of dypevew, Mark xii. 13. The same consideration which led Mark 
to cut down the series of parables directed against the Pharisees moved him 
also to abridge Matt. xxi. 40-44, although Mark xii. 10 is thereby deprived of 
its natural connection. 

4. (P. 609.) Mark xv. 28 is recognised to be an interpolation ; οἵ. Luke 
xxii. 37. Mark ix. 48 (and, according to the later authorities, ix. 44 also) is 
not so much a quotation as a free adaptation of Isa. Ixvi. 24, only with such 
divergences from the LXX as its introduetion into Jesus’ discourse required. 
Mark xii, 29, where Deut. vi. 4 (exactly after the LXX) is prefixed to the 
words from Deut. vi. 5, which Matthew also quotes (chap. xxii. 37), is not 
to be regarded as a citation of Mark’s own; nor yet Mark xi. 17, where the 
quotation from Isa. lvi. 7, abridged in Matt. xxi. 13, is filled out in harmony 
with the LXX. 

5. (P. 610.) On the Aramaic words in Mark see above, p. 502, n. 1. 
On Mark xv. 34=Matt. xxvii. 46=Ps. xxii. 2, cf. vol. i. 15f. This short 
ejaculation of the crucified Christ, as well as the other words of Jesus which 
Mark gives in Aramaic, might have been known to him from oral narratives 
before he read Matt. xxvii. 46. In the translation his ὁ θεύς μου approaches 
the LXX more nearly than Matthew’s θεέ μου, but εἰς ri departs from the 
LXX and from the Greek Matt. (ivarı). 

6. (Pp. 610, 611.) Certain citations call for more particular discussion. 
(1) Mark xiv. 27= Matt. xxvi. 31=Zech. xiii. 7. Mark’s independence of the 
LXX here is beyond doubt, and on the other hand, also, he gives a far from 
exact translation of the Hebrew. He is, therefore, following a document in 
which the Hebrew text was indeed the basis, but was very freely handled, 
that is to say, Matt., which like Mark gives πατάξω instead of πάταξον 
against the original text and LXX. But even here we see that it was not 
the Greek Matt. that Mark had before him ; for what should have prompted 
him to turn about καὶ διασκορπισθήσονται ra πρόβατα (τῆς ποίμνης) into ra 
πρόβατα διασκορπισθήσονται! Elsewhere Mark shows no aversion to a Semitic 
word-order ; in comparison with the Greek Matt., he is throughout the less 
elegant stylist. This is a mere chance, then, explained only by the sup- 
position that the same Aramaic original was before them both ; whereas 
Mark chose the order natural in Greek, the translator of Matt. preserved 
the order of the original. For the rest, there is no such agreement as would 
compel us to assume that Mark had the Greek Matt. before him, or that 
Matthew was influenced by Mark. The word πατάσσω is usual, and offered 
by the LXX ; besides, ποιμήν and πρόβατα were inevitable, and διασκορπισ- 
θήσονται was in use in similar connections ; ef. Jer, xxiii. 1, 2; John xi. 52; 
Acts v.37. It may still be a matter of discussion whether the addition of 
τῆς ποίμνης (ef. Ps. Ixxiv. 1, ὁ. 3; Ex. xxxiv. 31), by means of which the con- 
trast of shepherd and flock is made more noticeable to the ear, was already 
contained in the Aram, Matt., and was omitted by Mark, or whether ib is an 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 617 


addition of the Greek Matt. (2) Mark i. 2=Matt. xi. 10=Luke vii 27= 
Mal. iii. 1. It cannot be doubted that the bold alteration of this verse in- 
dependently of the LXX goes back to someone acquainted with the Hebrew. 
But if in Mark i. 2 ἐγώ is to be omitted, with BD, ete., and ἔμπροσθέν σου 
according to all good authorities, Mark cannot have been the model for 
Matthew, who took this ἐγώ from Ex. xxiii. 20, and through conflation with 
this passage came to his twofold “before thee.” But neither can Mark’s 
reading be based on the Greek Matt., for why should he drop the ἐγώ ὃ 
If, on the other hand, he had in the Aramaic Matt. some such phrase as 
we find in the Targum Mal. iii. 1, nbw sax xn, he might take the pronoun 
to be unemphatie (as it is in the Targum= Hebrew, 7137), and unnecessary 
to be expressed in Greek. If, furthermore, he found without doubt in both 
parts of the clauses, supposing that his original was an Aramaic book, a zn"p 
with or without 5 prefixed (=Hebrew 7359), it was very natural to omit the 
second. On the other hand, the writer of the Greek Matt. appears here, too, 
asa translator intent at once upon exactness and upon a certain elegance. 
He does not leave the six (Hebrew ’»»x in the underlying passage, Ex. 
xxiii. 20) untranslated, but renders the double zn1p> first by πρὸ προσώπου 
σου and then by the synonymous ἔμπροσθέν σου, to avoid monotony. 
(3) Mark i. 3=Isa. xl. 3= Matt. iii. 3; Luke iii. 4. As all three Synoptists, 
unlike John i. 23 (abridged form of the quotation), have no word that does 
not appear in the LXX, anyone might equally well pass as the exemplar of 
the other two. Luke, indeed, might seem to be entitled to this precedence, 
as it is evident from iii. 5-6 that he consulted the LXX, and from it extended 
the quotation. But if for other reasons Luke’s priority is not to be thought 
of, Mark, too, can lay no claim to it ; for, first, by the mistaken combination 
of Mal. iii. 1 and Isa. xl. 3 he shows here his dependence on Matt. (above, 
611); and, secondly, it is unlikely that he was affected by those apologetic 
considerations which prompted Matthew—who aimed to present Jesus 
primarily as the king veiled in the form of the lowly servant of God, and 
the guise of a prophet—not to set Him forth to begin with as the God of 
Israel, and led him accordingly to reduce the concluding τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν to 
αὐτου. 


ADDENDUM. 


Vor. II., PAGE 185, LINE 10. 


Concerning Christianos or Chrestianos, it should be said that, according to 
Andresen, Wochenschrift f. Klass. Philol., 1902, S. 780f. (ef. Codd. greci et lat. 
photogr. depicti, tom. vii., pars. post. fol. 38r ; also Harnack, Mission des Chris- 
tentwms*, i. 348), in the only MS. of this portion of the Annals of Tacitus, 
Chrestianos was written by the first copyist, and subsequently was corrected 
into Christianos, whereas the Christus which follows was written in this form 
by the first hand. 


BED HERD AH Ar ASAE ΡΜ N, ES μην 


=I8 iv odul=Ol „ir τὴν SS la), tte] lad 9 
Mi πῖον au to noite hi log ofl) Jacky oh xl domus) Fe 
WsidoHl A) ae | ἘΝ 0 BOOS 27 Gach: io 
sou SSBooq my 429. of ‚bad ΟἹ si oy Sir 
tot Toboin ae ay ; TOMES ti ; ius hoog tha 

tldtw "others d sort Dats, 0x i Lox aids Loot ote 
ef προ, το ἧς t ἀπε Carl) ay ἣ ΕἸ ὁ sid οὐ omAoss 


r ar ‚blnods aly γι ἮΝ EN ἊΣ ef] 0 bang slo 


aye od “ἢ : 
Er ‘Seat OYE pittos el Bis u αὶ „baut, od bute 19 fon 6 
iodo al ὙΠ dfgien of πὰ acm wen (fit „lol ΝΕ off A 
τ a. Dats: drin ‚uaulaHl = arg ΘΠ αἱ si Ji,ag) oitsclgm 9 


ern 
; ai sduob. Ipod tow ‘bauiol oi) ori Al, Asai) ui bots rg 
Hood Si ΠΝ ts erw If Tiss (0 aid, ἀρ actleoqqura aesılo oily: ie 
off fino of lesuien Ἔτον enw ti (cen werdo =) Hoxitosy ὁ duodiive, 10, 
ol ‚sad: AIO sk, toss) οἱ. 10 goliıwı of) ~basthsdlto, a 
sosagole it 8 ποι ‚bus BBY SDK sogu soo “8 detog eri. ION 
za REEL. sutlraban od) ar cr werdsHl), ni er ra Bor 
vORGUgT don ae teat darap alduob; od ero bast sud, boislensitan ( 
‚11oJogor “biovs οἱ σοῦ 439: υσαπὴῦ BHO YUOITYA sur yd sod 
aeijqonye goss Ue ah, biti Ομ] 18.1 dei & In wel τι 8: 
Rn nd hap %.00 eyed «αρίμουρ. old lo wrt hog birds) es. si auf 
“solqiaox9, ail 28 aus [om yo sdalıı onpyum ALL odd τὲ 2p 
ee ‘aisha. of holdin od of nos dılgin „boobui gain, out 
hobirai?: 0 son) bus been! Al ἐπ) Het lsenoo.od jad ὃ--ἃ ἢ ort we ἊΣ ΤΊ 
idguosti i of ton ei yairoing egal emozgey soslto ποῖ Ai jy. 
Εν ΤΉ „aan sd χα, αι 10) οἱ of miss oo yal ud. 
ὦ ial Er soubgoqoh aid, sıad, enorta rad & [x nal. baw 
att loge. u uh fe itis an rye deu, ὙΠ απ 1 at ᾿χίβιρος IB, 
assaaL Yargekıı igs is. ‚odw—-wedkel » shosqgaronq laity 
-bus ἜΝ ne ingirtoa ylwol os) 10 mol οἷα, i, balisy gual, odd 
* hop) sits 9 dig «αἰτεῖ οὐ ΩΣ doa οὐ. Jost bodqgorgy 
soul ΠΥ ‚Nor, paliplagee, 9 ῬΏΜΗΙ ot Mgainceon mid 


: v 
1: hw ‘he oo Ἧ ᾿ » 
i 


the ()γευϊς Mi, Mal 2. ware : ; oh wi 


vhere Ki ae in Be 


73 


Cr 


re — 


hope es OL ule 


etter 6 Mages ort “ 
wre, A ons rien Wi Greek ft hh u) 7 7 
int ἈΦ ἰὴ οι is wa MUCWSCHTA eaple ined : - 
» int She una γᾶ ιἘιη origi u: sh er ΠΣ i 
ad mate ΟΝ mn Δ] "πὸ nH 6) Lon a οὐδ 
One orig ge cngred u 


ttifytooos, sat Βῇω Pr Hino Ἢ on 
Δ Ὁ TOR A Ὁ 


DW) ὁ it el : 
Bunyan ἣν ai 


fl 
NY wer ΕΜ. ΓΝ uk oe ltr ἀπ. Sue 
Ask WR N" ον Yo hit ὌΠ ὙΠ|0 Gift u ei 
bitieries Ὑ8ι: 5100} dod bite lates dea πὴ ve ha 
rot 110] w rim «wollt “Ht ἢ Rd οἱ Eu 
tu ; 

΄ con ot a " ka canola Wy er 
.. 


INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. 


IX.— Continued. 
THE WRITINGS OF LUKE. 


8 58. ΤῊΝ TRADITION CONCERNING LUKE AND 
HIS WORK. 


Tre Luke to whom the composition of the third Gospel 
and of Acts was unanimously ascribed by the ancient 
Church (n. 1), is first mentioned by Paul in the Epistles of 
the first and second Roman imprisonments. Since he is 
characterised in Col. iv. 14 as “the beloved physician,” 
and mentioned in Philem. 24 last in the list of Paul’s 
helpers, we are justified in assuming that he was in some 
way connected with the missionary work in Rome, without, 
however, having given up his professional calling, which 
might open the way for him to many homes and hearts 
that remained closed to others. [Ὁ is also possible that he 
rendered valuable services as a physician to the apostle 
himself, who was often severely ill. While Demas, who 
is mentioned in both these passages along with Luke, 
deserted the apostle from sordid motives in 66, after the 
apostle’s second arrest, and when his life was in constant 
danger, Luke remained faithfully with him (2 Tim. 


VOL. III. I 


2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


iv. 10) The only other thing indicated by Col. 
iv. 10-14 and its context is the fact that Luke was a 
Gentile by birth (n. 2). Further facts with regard to 
Luke’s life history have always been derived from the 
two parts of the work ascribed to him, under the pre- 
supposition that he is the author of both, and that the 
“we,” which occurs repeatedly in Acts, includes the “I” of 
the author who mentions himself in Luke i. 3; Acts i. 1. 
In the original recension of Acts (8. 59) this “ we” 
oceurs for the first time in Acts xi. 27 (n. 3). Inasmuch 
as the narrative in this passage dates back to a time 
preceding the first year of the joint work of Paul and 
Barnabas in Antioch (43-44), before the Emperor Claudius 
came to the throne (Jan. 41; for both dates cf. Part XI.), 
the narrator must have become a member of the Antiochian 
Church at the latest by the year 40, so that his conversion 
cannot have been due to Paul, who did not come to Antioch 
until 43. Nor is this statement confirmed by Luke. The 
tradition that Luke was a native of Antioch was always 
so definite, that it is extremely unlikely that it is the result 
of scholarly reflection upon Acts xi. 27 (n. 4), and we are 
unable to prove that the oldest witnesses for this tradition, 
Eusebius and Julius Africanus, who wrote probably a 
hundred years before Eusebius, were not in possession, of 
other information besides Acts xi. 27. There must) be 
taken into account here the further tradition, likewise 
old, according to which there was a rich Antiochian. by 
the name of Theophilus who became a Christian in the 
apostolic age, and who later was expressly identified, with 
the Theophilus of Luke i. 3; Acts i. 1; but. not in any 
way contradictory of the original story (n. 5). | Every- 
thing else that is said and narrated about Luke impresses 
us as being of the nature either of uncertain conjecture or 
inference from the “we” passages of Acts and from the 
hints of the prologue to the Gospel, which were in part 
misunderstood, in part exaggerated (n. 6). 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 3 


In the same way, the ancient Church possessed’ ne 
tradition regarding the time and place of the composition 
of the two “books; but depended altogether upon conjec- 
tures (n. 7). Only one point seems to go back to a very 
ancient recollection, namely, that Luke wrote later than 
Matthew and Mark, and before John, 1.6. somewhere 
between the years 67 and 90 (vol. 11. 392-400). 


1. (P. 1.) Concerning Luke as the author of the third Gospel, so 
acknowledged even by Marcion, see vol. ii. 389 f. That he wrote Acts was 
equally taken for granted by the earliest writers who discuss the book or 
cite it formally : Iren. iii. 13. 3, after extracts from Acts i._xv. (ex sermonibus 
et actibus apostolorum, 111. 12. 11; ex actibus apostolorum, 111. 13. 3), speaks of 
the book as Luce de apostolis testificatio, and similarly in iii. 15. 1 as the 
testificatio following his Gospel. Canon Murat. line 34, “acta autem omnium 
apostolorum sub uno libro seripta sunt. Lucas optime Theophile,” ete. Clem. 
Strom. v. 83: Καθὸ καὶ ὁ Λουκᾶς ἐν ταῖς πράξεσι τῶν ἀποστύλων ἀπομνημονεύει 
τὸν ἸΤαῦλον λέγοντα (Acts xvii. 22); Hypot. (Lat. version) on 1 Pet. v. 13: 
“Sicut Lucas quoque et actus apostolorum stylo exsecutus agnoscitur et Pauli 
ad Hebreos interpretatus epistolam.” .Tert. de Jejunio, x., after citations from 
Acts, in eodem commentario Luce. 'The fact that the book is seldom ascribed 
explicitly to Luke, even by those who mention its rejection by Mareion (Tert. 
c. Marc. v. 1.2; Preser. xxii; pseudo-Tert. Her. xvi. ; also, indirectly, Iren. 
iii. 14. 4-15. 1), and that it is constantly cited simply as ai πράξεις with or 
without τῶν ἀποστόλων, Lat. acta (so Tertullian always, and also Cyprian 
GK, ii. 52, A. 1) or actus, likewise with or without apostolorum, shows that no 
other opinion concerning its authorship had been expressed in any quarter, 

“With regard to the claim that Clement of Alexandria (Scholia of Maximus on 
Dionys. Areop. Opera, ed. Corderius, ii. 242) asserts that the Dialogue of Jason 
and Papiseus was written not by Ariston of Pella, but by Luke, the present 
writer believes that in Forsch. iii. 74 enough has been said for anyone who 
knows what ἀναγράφειν means, as distinguished from γράφειν and συγγράφειν 
(ef. 6... Kus. H. E. iii. 4.11). Following Grabe’s necessary emendation, Ἰάσωνος 
ὃν (instead of Av) Κλήμης . - . τὸν ἅγιον Λουκᾶν φησὶν avaypayaı—we find that 
Clement simply said that the Jason of the dialogue was the same one that 
Luke mentioned in Acts xvii. 5. It was doubtless this passage, and not Acts 
xxi. 16 (8 Copt. Ἰάσονι) ies Gon had in mind. In Hom. in Ascens. Chr. 
et in Prineipiam Actorum, ii., which Montfaucon (Opp. Chrysost. iii. 757 ff.) 
includes with the * Spuria” as only partly genuine, it is said (p. 764) that 
some considered Clement of Rome the putes of Acts others Barnabas, and 
still others the evangelist Luke : the preacher himself decides for Luke (cf. 
also iii. 774). This is repeated verbatim by Photius in Quest. cxxiii. ad 
Amphil. (Migne, ci. col. 716), which, like Quest. cxxiv., is simply an excerpt 
from the homily. Plainly the preacher, speaking extemporaneously, was led 
by mistaken recollection or careless reading of Bus. A. E. vi. 14. 2, 25. 14, to 
confuse the tradition concerning the author of Heb. with that concerning the 
author of Acts, which could happen the more easily since, in mentioning the 


4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


former, Clem. Alex. and Orig. allude also to Luke’s authorship of Acts 
(vol. ii. 308 f., notes 5, 7). 

2. (P. 2) From Col. iv. 10-14 it follows that Luke was not ‘only a 
Gentile by birth, but also remained uncircumcised ; cf. vol. i. 450f. This 
was also the opinion of the early writers. When Jerome, Quest. Hebr. in Gen. 
(ed. Lagarde, 64), writes “licet plerique tradant Lucam evangelistam ut 
proselytum hebreas literas ignorasse,” he can hardly mean that he was first 
converted from heathendom to Judaism, and afterward from Judaism to 
Christianity, but only that, unlike the other N.T. writers, who were Hebrews, 
he came to Christianity out of heathendom ; ef. Just. Dial. exxii. When, in 
another place, he credits Luke with only a better knowledge of Greek than of 
Hebrew, and so with some knowledge at least of the latter (on Isa. vi. and 
xxviii., Vall. iv. 97, 378),he doubtless has in mind merely such explanations 
of proper names as are given in Acts i. 19, iv. 36. 

3. (P. 2.) Underlying the usual text of Acts xi. 27, D—with which 
several Latin authorities are in substantial agreement—gives : ἦν δὲ πολλὴ 
ἀγαλλίασις. συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν, ἔφη eis ἐξ αὐτῶν dvdpare” AyaBos σημαίνων 
διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος κτλ. As to text and style, see § 59,n.6. Harnack (Berl. 
Sitzungsberichte, 1899, 8. 316-327) has extended his depreciating judgment 
concerning the 8 text to cover this passage also, and, besides, has explained 
the ἡμῶν as a later interpolation, not even originating withthe author of 
the text, instead of an original αὐτῶν. In view of the agreement of the 
numerous witnesses from Augustine (fromm 394 A.D.) onwards for 8 in this 
passage, this last statement should, however, need stronger proofs. The 
solitary position of the ἡμῶν is not strange, since, except perhaps for xiii. 2, 
this is the only place where a single scene taken from the Church life of 
Antioch is portrayed. In xiii. 2—especially according to β (see ἢ. 6)—only 
the prophets, not all the Church members, are the participants, and Luke has 
there expressed in another way his especial interest in Antioch. The charge 
that the description lacks the vividness which would be expected of an eye- 
witness, is based upon arbitrary assumptions, as, e.g., that σημαίνων points to 
a symbolical act (S. 319, A. 1; ef. per contra, with the exception of διὰ τοῦ 
πνεύματος, Which is rather against it, John xii. 33, xviii. 32, xxi. 19; Rev. 
i. 1), and that ver. 29, where the “disciples” are again mentioned quite 
objectively, refers to the gathering described in vv. 27-28, whereas it has 
to do with decisions and economic deliberations of individuals who are 
without official position. If Luke had said that he also was one of these 
more or less affluent and charitable Church members, no one would have 
commended him for such a statement. The agreement of the 8 text of this 
passage with Luke, and especially also with the peculiarities in style of the 
8 text in general (Harnack, 8. 321f.), is no proof against the originality of 
the entire 8 text, but is a witness only to its integrity. 

4. (P. 2.) The episcopate of Timothy at Ephesus and of Titus in Crete 
(iii. 4, 6), the distribution of countries among the apostles (iii. 1), and the 
composition of The Shepherd by the Hermas named in Rom. xvi. 14 (iii, 8. 6), 
are plainly mentioned by Eusebius as uncertain traditions. Other matters, 
such as the identity of the Roman bishops Linus and Clement with the N.T, 
personages of the same names, are supported by the citation of the N.T. 
passages (iii, 2, 4. 9f., 15 ; ef. iii, 4. 11 on Dionysus the Areopagite). On the 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 5 


other hand, iii. 4. 7: Λουκᾶς δὲ τὸ μὲν γένος ὧν τῶν am’ ᾿Αντιοχείας, τὴν 
ἐπιστήμην δὲ ἰατρός κτλ. It is probably not Eusebius but Africanus (ef, 
Spitta, Brief des Afr. an Aristides, S. 70, 111) who, being himself a physician, 
writes of the physician Luke (Mai, Nova. P. Bibl. iv. 1. 270): ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς τὸ 
μὲν γένος ἀπὸ τῆς βοωμένης ᾿Αντιοχείας ἢν, ἐν ἣ δὴ οἱ πάντες λογιώτατοι τοὺς 
”"Iovas προγόνους αὐχοῦσιν᾽ οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ πρὸς τῷ κατὰ φύσιν ἑλληνικῷ τῶν 
ἀνδρῶν ἐπήγετό τι πλέον ὁ Λουκᾶς ἐν λόγοις, ἅτε ἰατρικῆς ἔμπειρος ὧν ἐπιστήμης. 
The true Euthalius depends on Eusebius (Zacagni, 410; cf. 529); hardly, 
however, the old prologue (N.T. ed. Wordsworth, i. 269 ; cf. the prologue on 
Acts ii. 1-4): “Lucas Syrus natione Antiochensis, arte medicus, discipulus 
apostolorum, postea Paulum secutus,” ete. In this and in other particulars 
Jerome’s Prief. Comm. in Matt. (Vall. vii. 3) accords more exactly with this 
prologue than do Vir. Ill. vii, and other passages. Origen, iv. 686, on Rom. 
xvi. 21, mentions, without approving, the view that Luke was the Lucius there 
referred to; which is impossible, if for no other reason, because Paul speaks 
of the latter, as of Jason and Sosipater, as Jews (vol. i. 417, n. 22). This 
view was known also in another form, namely, that the Luke supposed to be 
mentioned in Rom., 1.6. Lucius, became bishop of Laodicea in Syria (Dorotheus 
on the 70 disciples, Chronicon Paschale, Bonn ed. ii. 126). Modern scholars 
(Wettstein, N.T. ii. 532; Bengel, Gnomon on Luke i. 1, 3, ed. Stuttgart, 1860, 
pp: 204, 205) were the first to undertake the identification of Luke with 
Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 1), explaining thus the tradition that he was an 
Antiochian. But (1) no one of the early writers thought that Luke was 
mentioned in that passage, and the text tradition of Acts xiii. 1 shows no 
trace of this identification. It cannot, therefore, be the source of the very 
old tradition in question. (2) The idea that Luke was a native of Antioch, 
or even Syria, could not arise from a passage in which a Lucius living in 
Antioch is called a Cyrenian. (3) Luke (Lucas) has nothing to do with the 
name Lucius, or Λεύκιος, as it is commonly written in Greek, ‘but is an 
abbreviation of Lucanus (perhaps also Lucilius, Lucillus, Lucinus, Lucinius, 
but certainly not Lucianus). It may be due to authentic tradition that in 
the Old Latin Bible, along with the thoroughly Greek cata Lucan (Evang. 
Palat. ed. Tisch. 232), we find not infrequently secundum Lucanuwm, which is 
probably the.original form. So Cod. Vindobon. ed. Belsheim, 1885, p. 1 ff. ; 
Vere., Ambrosian., Corbei. in Bianchini, Evang. Quadrupl. ii. 2, 208 ; Old 
Latin Bible Texts, ii. 85 ; further—as Turner (JTRS, 1905, June, p. 256 f.) has 
recently proved by use of new material—in Cyprian’s Testimonia, also in 
Priseillian, ed. Schepps, 47. 4, and on a sarcophagus of the fifth century at 
Arles; cf. Schultze, Greifswalder Stud. 8. 157; Mercati, JTRS, 1905, April, 
p: 435. The present writer finds a Lucanus in Cypr. Ep. Ixxvii. 3, Ixxviii. 1, 
Ixxix.; a Lucas in August. Hp. clxxix. 1. He knows of no one bearing the 
name earlier than our evangelist. Cf. Οἱ I. @. Nos. 4700k (in the add. vol. 
iii. 1189) and 4759 from Egypt. In Eus. H. E. iv. 2.3 the reading handed 
down is Aovkova (in gen.), but Rufinus has Luca, Syr. Lukia. 

5. (P. 2.) Clem. Recogn. x. 71 says in describing the great success of 
Peter’s preaching in Antioch : “Ita ut omni aviditatis desiderio Theophilus, 
qui erat cunctis potentibus in civitate sublimior, domus sus ingentem 
basilicam ecclesiwe nomine consecraret, in qua Petro apostolo constituta est 
ab ‘omni populo cathedra,” ete. Later writers, spinning out this thread, 


6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


made the Theophilus of Luke a bishop of Antioch (pseudo-Hippol. at the 
close of the Const. Ap. ed. Lagarde, p. 284; ef. min. 293 in Tischend. N.T. i. 
738), and finally identified him with the well-known bishop and apologete, 
circa 180 ; cf. Cotelier on Recogn. x. 71. For this, however, the author of 
the Recoyn. is not. to be held responsible. Nor can his graphic account be 
compared with the colourless statement in Const. Ap. vii. 46 to the effect that, 
after Zaccheus (Luke xix. 2) and Cornelius (Acts x. 1), a Theophilus was 
appointed third bishop of Caesarea by the apostles. Along with the N.T,, 
Eusebius’ Church History is the main source of Const. Ap. vii. 46, and this 
Theophilus of Czsarea is identical with the one (circa 190) mentioned in Eus. 
H. EK. v.22. Whether the Theophilus mentioned as joint addressee in the 
seventh letter of Seneca to Paul (ed. Hase, iii. 478) is the same as Luke’s, 
cannot be decided. Without absolutely disputing the historicity of the 
person outright, Origen, Hom. i. in Luc, applied the name, Theophilus, to 
everyone who is loved hy God—which is not even linguistically correct (better 
Jerome, amicus vel amator dei, see Morin, Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 3. 20). Salvianus, 
Ep. ix. 18, goes so far as to say that Luke addressed the two books ad amorem 
dei. A preacher under the name of Chrysostom (Montfaucon, iii. 765 f., see 
above, p. 3, n. 1) infers, no doubt, simply from the title κράτιστε in Luke 
i, 3—which in Luke’s time meant just what λαμπρότατε did later—that 
Theophilus was an imperial governor, and, like Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii. 7), 
had become a Christian while in that office. As to this it may be remarked 
that the prefects of Egypt had the title κράτιστος till about 160, and after 
that λαμπρότατος, but that senatorial rank need not be inferred from the 
latter ; cf. Wilcken in Hermes, 1885, S. 469 f., 1893, S. 237 ; Berl. Agypt. 
Urkunden, i. 373, ii. 373. 

6. (P. 2.) With regard to Luke as the brother referred to in 2 Cor. 
viii. 18 and his Gospel as that of Paul’s, see vol. ii. 385.) The contradiction 
between this exegetical “discovery” and the much older tradition that Luke 
was written after Mark, and, consequently, after Paul's! death, was, not 
noticed. Still, if Luke was occupied for some time in Philippi as an evan- 
gelist in the N.T. sense of the word, it may be that he is really intended in 
2 Cor. viii. 18, in an allusion to this work ; for 2 Cor. was written in Mace- 
donia, and in the interval between the we-sections of Acts xvi. 10 ff. and 
Acts xx. 5 ff. (8. 60). Even Iren. iii. 14. 1 began to exaggerate somewhat 
when he inferred from Acts xvi. 8 ff. (for he allowed the “we” to begin in 
xvi. 8) in contrast to xv, 39, as also from 2 Tim. iv. 11, that Luke was 
inseparably associated with Paul. This again was further pressed into an 
assertion that in the entire book of Acts he recorded only what he himself 
had experienced (Eus. H. E. ii. 4. 7 ; Jerome, Vir. Ill. vii; not yet true of 
Canon Mur. lines 34 f., see GK, ii. 54, and ef. ii. 28), That Luke had been a 
disciple of other apostles also (Iren. iii. 10. 1, 14. 2) was the more easily 
inferred from Luke i 2, if one saw in the mapnxodovOnkdre ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν 
of ver. 3 a reference to his accompanying the eye-witnesses asa disciple or 
a travelling-companion; so probably Justin (Dial. ciii., see vol. ii. 389), and 
clearly Kus. H. E. iii. 4. 7; Epiph. Her. 1.7 ; pseudo-Kuthalius (Zacagni, 
421). This is not impossible linguistically (see vol. ii, 455), but is forbidden 
by the context, Luke, like Mark (vol. ii, 445, n. 3), was declared in the 
fourth century to have been one of, the seventy, or seventy-two, disciples, 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 7 


Luke x. 1 (Adamantius, Dial. c. Marc. ed. Bakhuyzen, p.\10. 14 ; Epiph 
Her. li. 11; Anaceph. ed. Pet. 138). The identification with the unnamed 
companion τὰ Cleopas, Luke xxiv. 13-18, is much later (cf, Forsch. vi. 350). 
In the Acts of Paul (ed. Lipsius, Ρ. 104. 2, 117. 5), Luke is joined with Titus, 
and instead of Crescens (2 Tim. iv. 10), is sent to Gaul, which explains the 
confused statements of Epiph. Her. li. 11... His work as evangelist came 
naturally to be regarded as a higher counterpart of his medical work, Eus. 
H. E. iii. 4. 7; Jerome, Epist. liii. 8; Paulinus Nol. Carm. xxvii, 424; 
Prologue to Acts in Wordsworth, N.T. Lat. ii. 2. 9, 3. 1. The passages, 
1 Cor. ix. 9, 1 Tim. v. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 6, were the more readily applied to the 
evangelist among Paul’s disciples (ef. Aug. Doctr. Christ. ii, 10. 15 ; Prol. to 
Gospels, N.T. Lat. ed. Wordsworth, i. 271. 5) because the bos was made, his 
symbol from early times (see vol. ii, 399, τι. 7),—in better taste, at least, than 
when Baronius, Annales ad a. 58, n. 34, put forward the conjecture that the 
symbol was chosen in allusion to his name and the bos Luca or Lucanus, i.e. 
the elephant. A Greek legend appears to be the source of the tradition that 
Luke was unmarried, that he wrote his Gospel in Achaia and later than Matt. 
and Mark, and that he died in Bithynia at the age of seventy-four or eighty- 
four ; cf. Prol. Wordsworth, i. 269. 4 ff., 271. 3 ff, ü. 1.4. Niceph. Call. ii. 
43 says he died at eighty, in Hellas, where he had previously sojourned, first 
meeting Paul at seven-gated Thebes, that is to.say, in Beotia, A glance at 
Acts xvi. 7-10 and ἃ comparison of the Latin prologues shows that Beotia 
has arisen from Bithynia. Jerome combines the two statements of the Latin 
prologues, and says, provided that he is the author of the Praf. Comm. in Mat. 
(Vall. vii. 8; Wordsworth, i. 12, 18) in Achaie Beotieque (al. Bithynieque) 
partibus volumen condidit; ef. Paulin. Carm, xix. 88, Ureta, Titwm sumpsit, 
medicum Beotia Lucam. In 357 A.D. the remains of Andrew and Luke were 
brought from Achaia, and Timothy’s from Ephesus, to Constantinople (Jerome, 
Vir. Il. vii. contra Vigilant. ed. Vall. ii. 391; Chron. Anno 2372; Philost. 
H. E. iii, 2; Theodorus Leetor, ii. 61 ; Niceph, Call. ii. 48). The origin of 
the tradition that Luke was a painter has not yet been made clear, even by 
E. v. Dobschiitz, Christusbilder, ii. 267**-280**, According to Theodorus 
Lector, i. 1—if this i is not an addition made by the compiler of the extracts 
(v. Dobsehiitz, 271**)—a picture of Mary supposed to have been painted by 
Luke was sent from Jerusalem to Coustantinople by the empress Eudocia 
about 440. Cf. J. A. Schmid, De Imagin. Marie a Luka Pictis, Helmstedt, 
1714, n. 2. Since the word ἱστορίαι was used of paintings as early as Nilus, 
Ep. iv. 61, and ἱστορεῖν with the Byzantians was equivalent to ζωγραφεῖν, 
Theodore’s words (τὴν εἰκόνα τῆς θεοτόκου, ἣν ὁ ἀπόστολος Λουκᾶς καθιστύρησεν) 
certainly cannot be understood otherwise. But may not the whole myth go 
back originally to an early misunderstanding of the word καθιστορεῖν ? It is 
not Luke, to be sure, but Leueius, who repeatedly reports (καθιστόρησεν }) 
concerning contemporary portraits of Christ and the apostle John, and it is 
he also who reports legends concerning Mary ; cf. the present writer— Acta 
Jo. pp. 214. 7, 215. 13, 223 f. 

7, (P: 2.) Though Iren. iii. 1. 1 (vol. ii. 398) gives the time and place 
of the other Gospels with more or less exactness, all he knows with regard to 
Luke is that it is the third in the order of composition. Perhaps Clement 
(vol. ii. 394 f.), or his teachers, had already inferred from the conclusion of 


8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Acts that it, and the Gospel with it, were written just after the expiration οἱ 
the two years mentioned, Acts xxviii. 30. Euthalius (Zacagni, 531) makes 
this same affirmation with regard to Acts. Jerome (Vir. Ill. vii.) concludes 
from the ending of Acts that it was written in Rome, and so intimates 
indirectly that it was written at the close of those two years. In Greek 
minuscules, at times Rome, also, however, the “ Attica belonging to Boeotia,” 
are mentioned as the place where Luke’s Gospel was written (Tischendorf, 
8th ed. i. 738; ef. the meaningless combination Achaie Beotieque in n.. 6 
above, as if Boeotia did not belong to Achaia). Macedonia also was some- 
times spoken of as the place of composition of both Luke and Acts (Doctrine 
of the Apostles in Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, Ὁ. 32; an Arabie 
authority in Tischendorf, N.T. i. 738), a view which is easily explained by 
the early interpretation of 2 Cor. viii. 18, see above, n. 6. Ephrem (Ev. 
Concord. Expos. p. 286) probably gave Antioch as the place of the composition 
of the Gospel ; cf. Forsch. i. 54f. The later Syrian tradition, quoted on the 
same pages, gave Alexandria. This view grew on Greek soil, for according 
to Tisch. loc. cit. it is found in seven Greek minuscules. Consequently it is 
probable that it arose from’ Const. Ap. vii. 46, where, after Mark has been 
named as consecrator of Annianus, the first bishop of Alexandria, Luke is 
said to have ordained Abilius, the successor of Annianus, Since it could not 
be an apostle, a second evangelist was named along with the first from sheer 
perplexity. In short, nothing was known about it. In a later liturgical 
fragment (in Grenfell and Hunt, Greek Papyri, Series ii. p. 170), Luke as 
apostle and archbishop of Alexandria is even placed before the apostle and 
archbishop Mark. Also the Syriac Martyrdom of Luke (edited by Nau, 
Revue de L’Orient Chret. [1898] iii. 151 ff.) contains nothing of historical 
tradition. 


§ 59. THE TWOFOLD RECENSION OF THE TEXT 
OF ACTS. 


In the preceding investigations it has been possible 
to proceed without entering, except incidentally, into 
questions of text criticism. Here, however, the case is 
different, and the investigation of both of Luke’s books 
depends at essential points—as, for example, in connection 
with the question of the author's witness to himself in 
Aects—to a considerable extent upon the answer to the 
question in which of the records we possess the original 
form of the text. | 

Recently Fr, Blass, following several earlier attempts 
in the same direction (n. 1), which were for, the most part, 
however, barren of results, has. energetically. attempted 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 9 


to prove that two recensions of Acts are to be dis- 
tinguished, exhibiting characteristic differences in con- 
tents and style, both of which go back to very early 
times, and neither of which could have originated from 
the other by the ordinary processes of text tradition, 
i.e. through unrelated interpolations, emendations, glosses, 
and scribal errors, but must have come—both of them— 
from the author himself. According to his view, Luke, 
who wrote Acts in Rome shortly after the two years 
mentioned in Acts xxviii. 30, revised the first’ draft of 
his book before he let it pass into Theophilus’ hands. 
The first copy (recension 8 or editio Romana) remained 
in the possession of Luke and his Roman friends, and 
naturally circulated chiefly in the West, while the second 
copy or improved edition (recension ἃ or editio Antio- 
chena) predominated in the East. Blass limited his 
hypothesis, at the outset, strictly to Acts (ThStKr, 1894, 
S. 118), later, however, he broadened it to include the 
Gospel, but without making his case any stronger. 
According to Blass, the Gospel, which was written as 
early as Paul’s imprisonment in Cxsarea, was afterwards 
revised and re-edited by Luke in Rome, so that the case 
here is the reverse of what we find in Acts, and recension 
8 is the improved second edition, recension a the first 
draft.‘ For the present we confine our attention to Acts, 
To begin with, we must rid ourselves of the idea that 
we possess 8 only in one. Greek MS.—perhaps the codex 
Bezze Cantabrigiensis (D)—which originally suggested 
these observations, or only in one complete translation. 
On the contrary, there is a large amount of material at 
our disposal (n. 3), on the basis of which it is possible 
to claim that for centuries a form of the text (8) was 
prevalent in different parts of the Church, varying widely 
throughout in contents and language from the text of 
Acts dominant later (a), This was the case in the West 
from: Irenzeus to Jerome. The fragments of the Old 


10 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Latin translation and the citations of a writer like 
Cyprian are sufficient to prove that this version, at 
least in its original form, which goes back to between 
200 and 240 «a.p., is derived from a Greek text which 
is related to the text of our oldest Greek MSS. (NABC, 
etc.) in the way indicated above. It is possible that the 
latter text existed in the West in numerous exemplars 
long before Jerome’s time, but we cannot prove it. On 
the other hand, we know that Western readers, who were 
confined to their Latin versions, as the Roman interpreter 
of the Pauline Epistles, known as Ambrosiaster (370 a.p.), 
rejected the a text on the ground that it was interpolated 
by the Greeks (nn. 3, 5). So far as we know, it was not 
until a later date that the a text influenced appreciably 
the Latin texts of the West. The Greeco-Latin text of 
Codex D, written in the sixth century, is the outcome 
of very complicated developments, mixtures, and cor- 
ruptions, but nevertheless retains in its Greek portion 
important features of the form of Acts known to Irenzeus, 
and to the first, unknown wterpres Latinus. The 
Alexandrian scholars, Clement and Origen, seem to have 
used a text practically identical with a (n. 2); but there 
must have been also a 8 text which circulated in Egypt 
in their time, and which was highly esteemed, otherwise 
we are at a loss to understand why it was that the 
Sahidie, presumably the oldest Egyptian version, written 
possibly during Origen’s lifetime, while not adopting 8 in 
its entirety, did take over important elements of it. These 
were afterwards removed in the later Egyptian version, 
the (ρος proper. It is possible that at this time texts 
existed in Egypt which represented a mixture of « and β. 
Such a text was found by the Syrian, Thomas of Heraclea, 
as late as the year 616, in the Anthony cloister in 
Alexandria, and he borrowed from it a number of read- 
ings belonging to 8, adopting some of them into his 
revision of the Philoxenian version, putting others on the 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE ΕἸ 


margin as noteworthy variant readings. In this way 
Syrian scholars of the Middle Ages afterwards became 
acquainted with the fragments of a text which—in how 
pure a form we do not know— was at the basis of the 
oldest Syriac translation of Acts. Meanwhile, however, 
the a recension triumphed in the Syrian Church also, and 
in the Bible which was used in the Syrian Church, the 
Peshito, only scattered traces remain, showing aflinity 
with the original text of the Syriac Acts, and these would 
not be noticed now save by a few (n. 3). Wherever we 
find traces of 8, whether in the West, in Eeypt, or in 
Syria, it seems to represent the earlier form of the text, 
while a represents the later form. With those to whose 
historical sense these facts do not appeal further dis- 
cussion is useless. 

The 8 text is not in our possession, but evidences that 
it existed at an early date in parts of the Church, widely 
separated from one another, put us under obligation to 
discover it. Gratitude is due to the philologian who has 
devoted so much energy and shown so much acumen in 
restoring it as far as was possible. The main difficulty 
in all the investigation arises from the fact that, with the 
exception of a number of fragments, 8 is preserved to us 
only in texts which are strongly mixed with a, or 
represent a predominantly. Since undoubtedly a also 
dates back to a very early time, we are unable to say how 
early the process of mixing began at various points in the 
Church. Furthermore, it is to be remembered that ß, 
which possibly Irenzeus and the first Syrian and also the 
first Latin translator had before them in. an unmixed form, 
could and presumably did undergo numerous changes 
through internal developments, apart from the influence 
of a, before it came into the hands of these writers. By 
no means all the variants from @ which we find it 
necessary to class with 8, because of difference from a, 
and similarity to 8, are at once to be regarded as 


ı2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


necessarily an original part of 8. As was natural, and as 
is proved by numerous examples, the most radical changes 
in the text of the N.T. were made as early as in the 
second century. | 

Assuming then the existence of a 8 recension, in order 
to answer the question concerning the origin and relation 
of a and ß it is necessary to enter into details. In and 
of ‘itself it is quite conceivable: (1) that β is ἃ modi- 
fication of a, and that either this took place suddenly 
or developed gradually, appearing in the West some time 
between 120 and 150. After gaining a certain currency 
and authority there, it cireulated in Syria and in Egypt. 
It is also possible: (2) that 8 is the original form of the 
text which was deliberately worked over into the form a by 
recensionists, more or less learned, who improved the:style, 
and removed much that was unnecessary. This revised 
Acts, which necessarily commended itself to scholars and to 
the heads of the Church, circulated under their patronage 
and finally replaced 8 almost completely.’ It is further 
possible: (3) that. «a and β are both original, if, ‚as 
Blass assumes, the author issued two editions of his 
work, as was very frequently done in ancient, times 
(n. 4). In favour of the first. possibility is the un- 
deniable fact that texts which are undoubtedly spurious, 
eg. Mark xvi. 9-20, or the apocryphal additions, to 
Matt. xx. 28, were in circulation from Lyons to, Edessa 
as early as, the second and third centuries (vol. ἢ. 486, 
n. 9). In favour of the second possibility is the equally 
undoubted fact that from an early date changes were 
made in the N.T. text, partly for dogmatic, partly for 
stylistic, and partly for liturgical reasons. Im many) 
passages this caused either the complete or the almost 
complete disappearance of the original text from the 
Church (n. 5). Only here, as in every other in- 
stance of the kind) it is necessary to understand this 
revision of the text as independent of the myth οὗ 8 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE Ε3 


canonisation of the N.T. writings in connection with ‘the 
equally mythical rise of the Catholic Church about. the 
year 170. For, while Rome, Lyons, and Carthage | were 
parts of the Catholic Church, they retained @ after as 
before the revision, and knew little of a until sometime 
in the fourth century, and to some extent refused to 
recognise it. It must also be borne in mind that, while 
Origen lamented the confusion of the N.T. text, and was 
the first to think of remedying it, he never became the 
text critic of the N.T. (GK, i. 74, A.) But, according 
to this second hypothesis, the revision in question was 
thoroughgoing and carefully planned, affecting contents 
as well as style, and indeed of such a character that it 
must have been made long before Origen’s time. The 
first hypothesis mentioned, namely, that of a gradual or 
sudden rise of 8 on the basis of a, is likewise out of 
harmony with the facts. If this were its origin, we 
should not have in 8 simply single interesting sayings 
or narratives added, designed to enrich the book, nor 
should we have simply single instances where the 
narrative is rendered awkward by such additions, but 
we should have a systematic recasting of the text with- 
out essential enrichment of the contents, showing. a 
general deterioration in the style. Only the third 
possibility remains. Decisive proof of the essential 
correctness of Blass’ hypothesis is to be found in the 
following considerations: (1) The’ facts to be found in 
8 and not in @are neutral in character. They are) not 
such as would be excised, nor are they important enough 
to call for insertion. (2) Notwithstanding the difference 
in their contents, a and 8 never really contradict each 
other. (3) Both recensions exhibit throughout the style 
characteristic of the larger part of the book, which is the 
same in both recensions. 

A few examples will sutliee to make this clear. It 
has been previously remarked (above, p- 2) that. the 


14 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tradition which makes Luke a native of Antioch is in 
agreement with the 8 text of Acts xi. 27, but could not 
well have originated from this text. Still less can & be 
a gloss suggested by that tradition. An interpreter or 
scribe who wanted to insert a marginal note in connection 
with a passage of Acts to the effect that Luke was a 
member of the Church in Antioch, or who wanted to 
incorporate this remark in the text, would have selected 
some other passage like xiii. 1, and would have written, 
καὶ ἐγὼ Λουκᾶς ὁ ’Avrioxevs ($ 60, n. 11). What follows in 
the 8 text after xi. 27, “ And there was great rejoicing. 
And when we were assembled, one of them by the name 
of Agabus spoke,” etc., certainly does not sound as if it 
were an intentional addition, designed to indicate that 
the narrator was a member of this assembly. It seems 
to us rather to be the involuntary impression of the 
memory of the exalted state of feeling produced in the 
infant Church by the visit and messages of the Jewish 
prophets. The originality of the words is further proved 
by the genuine Lucan character of the language (n. 6). 
On the other hand, a could not have been produced from 
ß by a corrector, since correctors who did not object to 
the sudden and repeated appearance and disappearance 
of “we” from xvi. 10 onwards could not well have 
rejected the “we” in this passage. | Nor is the de- 
scription of the joyful state of feeling that prevailed 
in the Christian assemblies something exceptional in Acts 
(ii. 46, xv. ὃ, xvi. 84); it certainly was not objectionable 
to later readers. The only other hypothesis possible is 
to suppose that the author himself, when ‘he revised the 
first draft (8) of his work, found the deseription of the 
vathering where he had been present not only unnecessary, 
but even out of keeping with the style of his outline 
sketch of conditions in the Church at Antioch during 
the early years of its history (xi. 19-30). In this manner 
a arose from £. In chap. xii. we find in 8 a whole 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 15 


series of additions, part of which it would have been 
entirely impossible for a corrector to invent without the 
aid of knowledge derived from sources other than a, e.g. 
the seven steps ow hil led down from the castle of Antonia 
to the street (xii. 10). Other of these additions are so 
harmless and so unnecessary, that they could not have 
arisen from the necessity of explaining the text (n. 7). 
On the other hand, they do not contain anything of a 
character which might have led a corrector to omit them. 
Since, however, there is nothing, either in contents or 
style, contradictory to a, it follows that this is another 
case where the author, in revising his book, cut out 
unnecessary details. The especial interest of the author 
in the continuance and condition of the Church of 
Antioch, which is apparent even in the common text 
of xiii. 1, has, unless all the facts are deceptive, found 
in β an especially vivid expression in the statement that 
Lucius of Cyrene was still living when Acts was written, 
whereas the other teachers of the Church of the years 
43-50 were already dead (n. 6). The statement of Acts 
XViil. 22 in a has often been taken to mean that Paul, 
after his first short visit in Ephesus and his landing in 
Czesarea, visited Jerusalem. But this interpretation is to 
be rejected as being quite unsupported by the text, to say 
nothing of the surprise which one must feel at the entire 
lack of information concerning ‘this visit: to Jerusalem 
(n. 8). Luke says simply that Paul landed in Ceesarea, 
ereeted the Church in that city, and journeyed to Antioch. 
If the goal of this journey were Syria (ver. 18), that is to 
say Palestine (cf. xx. 3), it remains unexplained why he 
went no farther than Caesarea; or, if his objective point 
were Antioch, where he made a stay of some length 
(ver. 23), it is not clear why he went to Czesarea at all, 
instead of journeying directly to Seleucia, and thence to 
Antioch. We have also elsewhere’ similar cursory 
sketches of journeys, 6.9. xx. 1-4 (ἢ. 9), and, formally 


r6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


considered, the account in question lacks nothing; how- 
ever, it leaves the reader, who seeks a clear conception 
of what took place, unsatisfied. From 8 alone we learn 
that Paul) actually intended, when he left Corinth, to 
journey to Jerusalem, there to take part in the approach- 
ing feast, and that) he urged the importance of this 
journey ‘as an excuse for the brevity of his first. visit 
in Ephesus (ver. 21). Afterwards, however, we learn 
(xix. 1) that Paul was prevented from carrying out 
this plan by an exhortation of the Spirit, by which he 
was directed to turn back to Ephesus (without continuing 
his journey from Ceesarea to Jerusalem). ‘The intention 
to go to Jerusalem suggests xx. 16, but not a single word 
in xviii, 21 suggests that the addition in 8 is borrowed 
from this passage. Similar cases where Paul's own plans 
were set aside by a warning of the Spirit are to be found 
in xvi. 6f., according to 8 also in xvii. 15 (vol. 1. 214, 
n. 7; Harris, Four Lectures, p. 47), and again later in 
xx. 3. Comparable also is the almost reverse case, where 
Paul refuses to be hindered hy prophetic utterances from 
continuing his last journey to Jerusalem (xx. 23, xxi. 4, 
11-14). But here again it will be observed that the 
expression in xix. 1 is entirely original (n, 8 end), If 
there be no question that this revelation took place in 
Ceesarea, then it cannot be regarded purely as a coin- 
cidence that at this time Paul was among those who 
cultivated the gift of prophecy (xxi, 9), and that im one 
other passage, in which an account of such a revelation 
of the Spirit is given (xvii. 15, here again only in 8), he 
was journeying in company with a prophet. The in- 
junction of the Spirit to Paul, “ Return to Asia,” we. 
“Do not proceed, further on the journey to Jerusalem,’ 
is to be regarded as a prophetic utterance of the Church 
spoken by someone near the apostle (vol. i. 207, 227 f, 
237, n. 6; vol. ii 110 f.), as is true in all analogous 
cases, especially where direct address is used (xiii, 2, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 17 


Brus 11 chub che, tx... 3). Possibly it. was the pro. 
phetically gifted daughters of Philip (xxi. 9) who “ spoke 
to Paul through the Spirit” (ef. xxi, 4), or, in other 
words, through whom the Spirit spoke to Paul (cf, xiii. 2, 
xxi. 11); just as it was the prophet. Silas through whom 
the Spirit spoke in xvi. 6, 7, and, according to 8, in 
xvi, 15 also. Is it conceivable that one whose only 
sources were a and his inkstand, should. introduce these 
transactions into the narrative just in those passages 
where it can be proved historically that they are possible 
and really presupposed? And if, like ourselves, he had 
reached this conclusion by a process. of combination, 
could he have failed to mention Silas and the pro- 
phetesses in Ciesarea? The only other thing which it 
is possible to suppose is that out of the fulness of his 
knowledge the author wrote down much in_ his first 
draft (8) which he cut out again in the revision (a), 
because it was unnecessary and in parts might even be 
misunderstood. _An improvement, in style is shown in a, 
as compared with β, by connecting xix. 1 with the 
episode in xviii. 24-28 and by resuming in the same 
verse the account of the journey interrupted in xviii. 23, 
But anyone who has had oceasion to correct, his own work, 
with a view to cutting out whatever seems superfluous 
and otherwise awkward, knows that in this process it is 
easy to lose some of the original freshness, and that not 
everything designed as an improvement, is really such. 
In Acts xx, 12 a picture is spoiled in the a text with no 
corresponding gain, a picture which, to be sure, is only 
imperfectly developed in 8. Paul leaves the house where 
he had talked to the assembled congregation until the 
break of day. The narrator, with the greater part of the 
company of travellers, departs to the harbour and g0es on 
board the ship, while Paul plans to follow by land some- 
what later, The last glimpse which Luke had, as the 
ship departed, was that of the Christians beckoning and 
VOL. III. 2 


ı8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


calling good-bye to him and his companions, and in their 
midst Paul holding by the hand the young man whom he 
had restored to life (n. 10). 

It has been supposed that, according to the common 
text of xxi. 16, the house of Mnason, where Paul and his 
numerous travelling companions (n. 9) were entertained, 
was in Jerusalem. It is peculiar, of course, that no men- 
tion of the arrival in Jerusalem is made until ver. 17. It 
is equally strange that Christians from Czesarea should 
accompany Paul and his companions all the way to Jeru- 
salem in order to secure lodging for him in the house of 
Mnason, notwithstanding the fact that in the large con- 
gregation in Jerusalem, where now, as earlier, Paul re- 
ceived a most cordial welcome (xxi. 17, ef. xv. 4), there 
must certainly have been several houses where entertain- 
ment would have been most gladly furnished him, and 
where assistance would have been rendered in caring for 
the numerous strangers. All these difticulties are cleared 
up by 8. Mnason lived in a village on the way from 
Czesarea to Jerusalem. Paul and his companions were 
accompanied to this point by Christians from Ceesarea, 
who provided him with entertainment for the one night 
with a good and aged Christian—perhaps the only well- 
to-do Christian—in a little congregation in Samaria or 
Sharon (Acts vill. 4-17, ix. 31-43, xv. 4). This is what 
is meant ina; but the abbreviation of the narrative pro- 
duced a certain lack of clearness. 

The text relations of Acts xv.—a chapter naturally 
much considered from the earliest times—are peculiar, 
Even in the early verses of the chapter (vv. 1-5) the 
witnesses from which our knowledge of β is derived 
show variations from a which at once give rise to the sus- 
picion that originally they were not a part of 8 (n, 11). 
Even more in the case of vv. 15, 20, 29—from which 
xxi. 25 cannot be separated—readings oceur which it is 
impossible to reconcile with a, if this variant form be 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 19 


correctly transmitted in our oldest MSS. and in the 
majority of citations and versions—readings, therefore, 
which certainly cannot have the same author as a. Par- 
ticularly but not exclusively in connection with the decree, 
xv. 29, the following peculiarities are to be noticed : (A) 
The omission of καὶ πνικτῶν or καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ ; (B) the 
famous saying ; καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλουσιν (θέλετε) ἑαυτοῖς γενέσθαι, 
ἑτέροις (ἑτέρῳ) μὴ ποιεῖν (ποιεῖτε), which is frequently found 
after the enumeration of the four or three things from 
which the Gentiles were to abstain; (C) the addition 
φερόμενοι ἐν (τῷ) ἁγίῳ πνεύματι after ed πράξετε (n. 12). 
A is clearly a mutilation, since if καὶ πνικτῶν were a spuri- 
ous addition, the most natural place for its insertion would 
be in the decree itself, xv. 29, then in xv. 20, and least 
natural of all in xxi. 25. But as a matter of fact it is in 
xxi. 25 that evidence for this fourth item is strongest. 
Since, moreover, it is inconceivable that the author should 
have recorded the decree more fully in an incidental refer- 
ence (xxi. 25) than in the passage where he gives its 
original form (xv. 29), and in the discourse of the mover 
of the resolution (xv. 20), it follows that καὶ πνικτῶν is 
genuine in all the cases where it occurs. While always 
retained in the East, before the time of Ireneus and 
Tertullian it disappeared from the text commonly used in 
the Western Church. But that it belonged originally in 
the Western text is proved also by the custom of the 
Church in abstaining from the use of the flesh of animals 
which had been strangled, or which had died a natural 
death, as is witnessed by Tertullian ; although he no 
longer found this passage in the text (n. 12). Nor is A 
to be regarded as a defect due merely to accident. It 
connects itself with a tendency variously manifested in 
other parts of the Church also. Only after the word 
“strangled” had been removed was it possible to make 
“blood” refer to human blood, and to find here, as Tertul- 
lian did, a commandment against murder, In accordance 


20 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with this interpretation, the use of flesh offered to idols 
was made to refer to idolatrous worship itself (n. 13), and 
unchastity was narrowed to mean adultery. Thus we get 
the three mortal sins: /dololatria, machia, homicidium. 
The apostolic enactment, which had reference only to 
certain phases of moral life emphasised by the conditions 
of the time, became thus a sort of elementary moral 
catechism. Cis of the same general character, and like 
A was confined to the West, being the only text possessed 
by Irenzeus (who also gives A and B), and by Tertullian 
(who also gives A). It is true that in the East also the 
conclusion of the apostolic communication, which had a 
secular sound (ed πράξετε, ἔρρωσθε, ‘So shall it be well with 
you. Farewell”), was given a moral and religious turn— 
the former phrase being taken as a general injunction to 
good conduct, and the latter being enlarged into a Chris- 
tian formula (n. 14). But this process was carried further 
in the West, and good conduct in general, which was left 
undefined, was referred to the power of the Holy Spirit in 
the sense of Phil. ii. 15 (D, Irenxus, Tertullian), which 
opened the way for an extension of Church morality. The 
secular valete was also stricken out (n. 14). How widely 
C was circulated in the West it is impossible to say; in 
the East it did not make headway. On the other hand, 
the East was the home of B. While this text was not 
known to Tertullian, unless all appearances fail this locus 
communis was accepted as a part of the apostolic decree 
by the apologist Aristides of Athens in 140, and by the 
apologist Theophilus of Antioch in 180. Moreover, in .B 
alone (without A and C) xv. 20 and 29 are witmessed to 
by Origen, the Sahidie version, the Neoplatonist Porphyry, 
and Greek cursives, and in xy. 29 by Thomas of Heraclea 
(n. 12), 

The spuriousness of the saying is proved by the faet 
that its omission is entirely inconceivable in view of the 
general tendency to construe the decree as a moral cate- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 21 


chism for those “turning from the Gentiles fo God” 
(xv. 19), especially where this tendency had already ex- 
erted a strong influence upon the text (Tertullian). On 
the other hand, the addition of this “ simple, true, and 
beautiful law, without question applieable to Christians,” 
as it is called in the Didascalıa (Syriac ed. p. 2.7), is 
fully explained by just this tendency. Direct occasion 
for its addition among the Greeks in the East was given 
by the Didache, which was much prized by them. In 
the first part of this document, which was intended “ for 
the Gentiles” and appointed to be read to candidates for 
baptism (chaps. i.-vi., ef. vii. 1), this commandment stands 
at the very beginning (i. 2) along with the commandment 
to love God and one’s neighbour, while at the conclusion 
of the same part (vi. 3) restrictions regarding the use of 
food are mentioned, only one of which, however, is un- 
conditional, namely that relating to things offered to 
idols. Since this writing was regarded as a teaching of 
the apostles, it was deemed all the more permissible to 
enrich from this source the apostolic decree, parts of which 
had become obsolete (§ 62). That this was the origin of 
the insertion is betrayed also by the fact that the sentence 
structure is not always smooth where these words are 
incorporated in the text (n. 15). The insertion was made 
in the East between 110 and 140, soon after which B 
began to circulate in the West, though its acceptance was 
by no means general. Tertullian does not have B, 
although it is found in Irenzeus, Cyprian, and many later 
Latin writers, also in D. But only in Irenzeus and D is it 
demonstrably fused with the two Western variants, A and C. 
It may be considered certain that the author of Acts was 
not responsible for this miatuwm compositum, nor for any 
one of its three elements, all of which give an interpreta 
tion unhistorieal in character. The only reason why A 
and C’ can be regarded as deteriorations of the original 8 
text is the fact that they originated and circulated in the 


22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


region where the £ recension predominated ; while B 
could just as easily have been inserted first in an ex- 
emplar of the a text, from which it found its way into 
copies of a as also of £. 

Although in this important point and in many others 
less important, readings, which Blass explains as part of 
the original text, prove to be only deteriorations of it 
dating back to an early time, the essential correctness of 
his hypothesis remains unaffected. On the other hand, 
his extension of the theory to the Gospel of Luke is 
untenable. The text which Blass gives us as the second 
or Roman edition of the Gospel, prepared by Luke him- 
self, is substantially nothing but a bold attempt to restore 
what is known as the Western text (n. 16). The question 
which has been answered in so many ways as to the value 
of this form of the text—it can hardly be called a recen- 
sion—is by no means confined to the third Gospel, but 
arises also in connection with the other Gospels and 
the Epistles of Paul. The only difference in this regard 
between the Gospels on the one hand, and the Epistles 
and Acts on the other, is occasioned by the existence of 
Tatian’s Diatessaron. While it is true that this work of 
Tatian’s is as yet far from being fully restored, it is never- 
theless a valuable source, which, taken together with the 
Western witnesses, enables us to determine accurately the 
age of many Western readings, and also to explain. the 
circulation of this form of the text from the Rhone to the 
Tigris. In addition, we have for the Gospel of Luke, and 
for this Gospel alone, the Gospel edited by Marcion in 
Rome about 145, our knowledge of which is far from com- 
plete, but much more accurate than it once was (GA, i. 
585-718, ii. 409-529). It is not strange, therefore, that 
in the case of Luke the variation of the so-called Western 
text-—whieh here also may be designated as 8-—from the 
text (a) preserved in our oldest MSS. and the majority of 
Greek witnesses comes more clearly to view than in the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 23 


case of the other Gospels, and particularly the Epistles. 
But throughout the question is essentially the same. 
There must be made a much more extended study of B— 
in the widest sense in which β is used—before a unani- 
mous conclusion can be reached by the critics. There are 
as yet no definite results, the statement of which would 
properly find place in a text-book. But those who hold 
that our oldest MSS. (NB) are to be dated about 200 
years later than Marcion, Tatian, and Irenzeus, and who 
have some feeling for the difference between originality 
which is naive and uniformity due to liturgical, dogmatic, 
and stylistic considerations, must in a general way agree 
on the following points: (1) Very much that is original 
both as regards contents and form is preserved in 8, 
which was of a character that, for the reasons indicated 
above, early led to changes, and after the close of the 
third century to excision by learned recensionists of the 
text (Lucian, Hesychius, and Pamphilus). (2) A large 
number of arbitrary additions and verbal modifications 
were made in & throughout the whole of the period during 
which the text of the N.T. remained without systematic 
revision, and when it developed without the regular con- 
trol either of the Church or of scholars. More of. these 
additions and modifications were made in the more naive 
period from 150 to 200 than later, and in the Gospels 
much more than in the other N.T. books. This was 
natural, in the first place because the recollection of 
parallel texts led to the enrichment of each of the Gospels 
from the parallels, and, in the second place, because there 
were reports concerning words and deeds of Jesus which 
had not found their way into the four Gospels, but which 
were retained in the oral tradition until the beginning of 
the second century, and then continued to survive in 
writings like the five books of Papias. (3) The difficult 
problem will be solved to be sure only approximately, at 
any rate, however, only as two extremes are avoided : on 


24 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the one hand, superstitious reverence for our so-called best 
MSS., which is often accompanied by a corresponding con- 
tempt for much older traditions, is to be laid aside; on 
the other hand, the critic must beware of an unhealthy 
fondness for all the interesting products and excrescences 
of the wild tradition of the second and third centuries, and 
of the feeling that goes with it that the learned recen- 
sionists from 300 onwards were simple destroyers of the 
text, to be compared, if not as regards orthodoxy, at least 
in matters of taste, to the enlightened revisers of German 
Church hymns in the rationalistic period. Applying these 
principles, we shall find in the case of Luke and of other 
N.T. writings in the 8 text, of which here also D may be 
regarded as our clearest witness : (1) a number of apoery- 
phal additions (n. 17), and (2) many cases where words 
are substituted and transposed, often for very trivial 
reasons (n. 18). (3) We shall find also a number of 
texts, giving material for the most part important, and 
exhibiting ‘an originality such as could not have been 
invented, which were wrongly set aside by the tradition 
of the third and fourth centuries (n. 19). This com- 
plicated relation between 8 and a is to be observed in all 
the Gospels, being more marked in Luke than in the 
others for the reasons indicated above. But we are not 
confronted in Luke as in Acts with parallels which make 
equal claims to acceptance, but the question is always an 
alternative between what Luke did write and what he 
could have written. This conclusion with regard to the 
texts of Luke does not in any way weaken the other con- 
clusion that in Acts we have a twofold form of the text. 
This fact, however, is of importance in connection with 
the question as to the origin of Luke's work. In deter- 
mining his witness concerning himself in Acts, a and ß 
are to be treated as of equal value. Whether the author 
who edited the second part of his work twice was what he 
claims to be, or only a compiler and fabricator of a some- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ‘ACTS 25 


¢ 


what later period, does not enter into the question here 
under discussion. 


1. (P. 8.) According to Semler (Wetstenti libelli ad crisin NTi. 1766, 
p. 8), Jo. CLerIcus (in what writing?) under the pseudonym of Critobulus 
Hierapolitanus was of opinion that Luke published Acts twice; and 
Hemsterhuis (where ?) expressed a similar opinion in regard to still other 
N.T. writings. Deserving of mention here is also Acta apost. ad codicis 
Cantabrig. fidem ita rec. Bornemann, ut nunc demum divini libri primordia 
eluceant, Pars 1, Grossenhain and London, 1848. In the winter of 1885-86, 
in the New Testament seminar in Erlangen the present writer proposed as 
subject for the prize competition : “ Untersuchung der sachlich bedeutsamen 
Eigentümlichkeiten des cod. D in der AG” (Investigation of the essentially 
significant peculiarities of Cod. D in Acts), and required that the spread of 
these variants among Latin, Greek, Egyptian (Sahidic), and Syrian writers 
should be taken into account as far as this was possible for a student, using 
Tischendorf’s apparatus. According to the purpose of the present writer at 
that time, the objective point which he hoped to see the investigation reach, 
and which Fr. Gleiss, now pastor in Westerland on the island of Sylt, in some 
measure approached, was: (That there is presented in this recension) “either 
the first draft of the author before publication, or the copy which the author 
ased with his supplementary marginal notes.” Further than this the present 
writer had not advanced, but was not surprised when Fr. Brass, without 
knowing his view, came forward with his more definitely conceived and 
more thoroughly elaborated hypothesis in the following publications : “Die 
Textüberlieferung in der AG” (ThStKr, 1894, S. 86-119) ; Acta apostolorum 
sive Luce ad Theophilum liber alter, Ed. philol., Göttingen, 1895 ; “ Uber die 
verschiedenen Textesformen in den Schriften des Le” (NKZ, 1895, S. 712- 
725; cf. NAZ, 1896, S. 964-971); “De duplici forma actorum Luce” 
(Hermathena, 1895, ix. 121-143, as against Chase in the Critical Review, 
1894, p. 300 ff.) ; ThStKr, 1896, S. 436-471; Acta ap. secundum formam que 
videtur Romanam, Lips. 1896 ; Ev, sec. Le. secundum f. R., Lips. 1897, with an 
extensive introduction ; and, again, recently in ThStKr, 1900, 1 Heft. Those 
who expressed themselves as substantially in favour of this view were E. 
NESTLE, ChW, 1895, Nos. 13-15; cf., by the same author, Philologica sacra, 
1896 ; ThStKr, 1896, 5. 102-118 ; ZÖCKLER (Greifswalder Studien, 1895, 8. 129- 
142) ; BELSER, Die Selbstverteidigung des Pl im ΟἹ (Bibl. Stud. ed. Bardenhewer, 
Bd. 1, 3.189); Beiträge zur Erkl. der AG auf Grund der Lesearten des cod, D 
und seiner Genossen, 1897. Against Blass there have written, among others, 
P. Corssen in GGA, 1896, 5, 425 ff., and B. Weiss, Der cod. D in der AG, 
1897. Of recent literature are mentioned: Port, Der abendl. Text der AG und 
die Wirquelle, 1900; COPPIETERS, De historia textus actor. ap., Louvain, 1902 ; 
Ernst, “Die Blass’sche Hypothese und die Textgeschichte,” Z/N7' W, 1903, 
S. 310-320. 

2. (P. 10.) Cf. Griesbach, Symbol. erit. ii. 457-468, On the addition to 
Acts xv, 20, which, as has been recently attested, Origen also used, seen. 11. 

3. (Pp. 10, 11.) A survey of the sources of recension 8 seems necessary : I. 
The Greek witnesses with which we are concerned are (1) the Greek and Latin 


26 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Cod. D sxe. vi., of which, until recently, Beze Cod. Cantabrigiensis, ed 
Scrivener, Cambridge, 1864 (now in the phototype edition, 2 vols. Cantabrig. 
1899), has been the best edition to use. Cf. also the collation in NTi. 
Supplementum, ed. Nestle, 1896. For criticism, cf. D. Schulz, Disputatio de 
cod. D, 1827 ; Credner, Beitr. zur Einl. (1832) i. 452-518; Rendel Harris, 
cod. Bese Cantabr. 1891 (Texts and Stud. ii. 1); by the same: author, Four 
Lectures on the Western Text, 1894; Chase, The Syriac element in the text of 
Cod. Beze, 1893 ; furthermore the literature inn, 1. The Greek text of Acts 
vill. 29-x. 14, xxi. 2-10, xxi. 15-18, xxii. 10-20, xxii. 29-xxviii. 31 is wanting 
in D, and the defects of the Latin text do not coincide fully with these, 
inasmuch as the latter is written on the front of the leaf to the right of the 
Greek text which is upon the back of the preceding leaf. In addition, but 
only here and there of significance, are (2) Cod. E Laudianus, Oxon. (see. vi.), 
Greek and Latin, ed. Tischendorf, 1870, in Monumenta Sacra, ix.; (3) cod. 
min, 137, sec. xi. (al. xiii.) in Milan; for the last-four chapters newly com- 
pared by Blass, cf. Acta, ed. minor, p. xxi ; fully compared by Mercati for 
Hilgenfeld ; Actus apost. gr. et lat. 1899, p. ix. The collation of Min. 58 
(Bodlei. Clarke, 9) in Pott (Der abendl. Text. der AG und die Wirquelle, 1900, 
S. 78-88) offers only a little that is of value. Presumably there lies still in 
the minuscules, as well asin the Greek writers, a great deal of nndiscovered 
material. Τὸ the latter belongs especially Irenzeus, although he speaks to us 
almost entirely through a Latin translation ; to a certain extent Tertullian 
also, inasmuch as he read the N.T. not in the Latin translation, but in the 
original. Traces of recension 8 in Chrysostom, perhaps due to dependence 
upon an older commentary, have been proved by Harris, Your Lect. pp. 91-96, 
and Conybeare, “On the Western text of the Acts as evidenced by Chrysostom ” 
in AJPh, xvii. 2. A trace of the ß text is contained in Pionius, Vita Polye. 
chap. ii. (of the fourth century, see GGA, 1882, S. 289 ff.) ; for if the journey 
of Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1 through Galatia to Asia is there intended (cf. Lightfoot, 
Apostolic Fathers, Part I. vol. i. Ign. Polye. 447), then the words μέχλων 
λοιπὸν ἀπιέναι εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα would be based upon an inexact recollection 
of 8 xix.1. IT. The Latin witnesses all go back to the old Latin translation. 
This seems to be preserved in an almost uncorrupted form (1) in the frag- 
ments of a Paris palimpsest (Acts iii, 2-iv. 18, v. 23-viii. 2, ix. 4-23, xiv. 
5-23, xvii. 34-xvili. 19, xxiii. 8-24, xxvi. 20-xxvii. 13), edited by Berger, Le 
palimpseste de Flewry, Paris, 1889; cf. JThS, 1906, p. 454 f. (designated in 
Tischendorf as reg. in Wordsworth, ii. p. ix as h); (2) in the citations in the 
writings of Cyprian (cf. Corssen, Der cypr. Text der Acta ap. 1892). Portions 
also in the works of Augustine, Ambrosiaster (see below, n. 5, and vol. i. 
553 f.), Lucifer, and others ; e.g. in a writing, de prophetis et prophetiis (from 
(od. 133 of St. Gall, published in Miscell. Casinese, parte ii. No. iv. p. 21ff.), 
and in the Martyrologium of Ado; cf. Quentin in Revue Bénédict. 1906, p. 4 ff. 
Mixed texts are exhibited in many Bibles which give the Vulgate in other 
books of the N.T., namely, (3) the so-called Gigas in Stockholm (ed. Belsheim, 
AG und Ap. aus dem Gigas, Christiana, 1879 ; (4) Cod. Paris, Lat. 321, 
especially important for chaps. i.—xiii., edited in part by Berger in Notices 
et. extraits des mas. χχχν. 1, 169-208, fully collated by Blass (ed. min. p. Xxv) 5 
cf. Haussleiter, ThLb, 1896, No. 9; Blass, ThSt Kr, 1896, 8. 436 ff. ; ef. both of 
the above for (5) Cod. Wernigerodensis Z* 81, collated by Blass; (6) Paris 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 27 


Lat. 6 (Bible of Rosas, see Wordsworth, ii. p. vii; Berger, Hist. de la Wulg. 
p- 24f.), partly in text, partly on margin; (7) a Provencal N.T. ed. Clédat, 
Paris, 1887. IIL. The Sahidie translation, almost entire (i. 1-xxiv. 19, xxvii. 
27-38) in Woide-Ford, Append. cod, Alex. 1799, pp. 106-167 ; the lacune filled 
out in part by Amélineau, Zf/AgSp, 1886, pp. 112-114, and by other as yet 
unedited fragments ; see Scrivener-Miller, Jntrod. to the crit. of the N.T.4 ii. 
135f. IV. It has been shown from the commentary of Ephrem on Acts, for 
the most part preserved in an Armenian catena, and from several passages in 
his commentary on the Pauline Epistles, that the oldest Syriac version of 
Acts coincides in many decisive points with Cod. D (Harris, Four lectures, 
pp. 22-51). The later Peshito has retained, as in the Pauline Epistles, many 
remnants of this oldest Syriac version (GK, ii. 556-564). Very little light 
has been cast upon them. At all events, Thomas of Heraclea, who in the 
year 616, in the monastery of St. Anthony in Alexandria, revised the so-called 
Philoxenian version of the N.T. which arose in the year 508, and who 
employed for Acts and the catholic Epistles one (for the Gospels two or three) 
Greek MS. of that monastery, gathered from this MS. and translated into 
Syriac a considerable number of readings which agree in substance with β. 
Some of them he introduced into the text, calling attention to them, however, 
by means of asterisks ; some he placed in the margin beside the reading given 
in the text. This indicates evidently that both sorts of readings were foreign 
to the older Philoxeniana, Still the question requires renewed investigation ; 
ef, e.g. Gwynn, Hermathena (1890), vii. 294f. 801. In what follows, these 
Syriac readings, as elsewhere the whole text of Thomas of Heraclea, have 
been designated for the sake of brevity as S°. 

4, (P. 12.) Blass, ed. maj. p. 32; ed. min. p. vi, gives as examples of 
works which were twice edited by their authors :—-Demosthenes, Philipp. iii. ; 
Appolodorus, Chron.; Longinus, Nom. Attica; Cicero, Academ.; and, in 
addition, a remark of Galen (ed. Kühn, xvii, 1. 79) concerning the marginal 
notes of his own writings. Zockler, Greifswalder Stud. 132f., adds the three 
editions of Tertullian, c. Mare. i, (also adv. Judeos); a double edition of 
Lactantius, Jnst.; Eusebius, de Mart. Pal.; and other instances from the 
Middle Ages. Cf. also what Sedulius (ed. Huemer, p. 172) says concerning 
triple editions of the writings of Origen and the jurist Hermogenianus 
originating with the authors themselves. 

5. (Pp. 10, 12.) Ambrosiaster on Gal. ii. 1 ff. (Ambrosii Opera, ed. Bened, 
il, app. p. 214; Souter, Study of Ambros. p. 199 1.) cites the decree to all 
appearances substantially complete, “Non molestari eos, qui ex gentibus 
credebant, sed ut ab his tantum observarent, id est a sanguine et fornicatione, 
et idololatria.” Thereupon he attacks the sophiste Grecorum, who imagine 
that they are able to observe these articles by their own reason and strength. 
Then he rejects the interpretation of a sanguine as homicidium, and wishes to 
have this understood correctly according to Gen. ix. 4, ὦ sanguine edendo cum 
curne. Then, p. 215: “ Denique tria hee mandata ab apostolis et senioribus 
data reperiuntur, que ignorant leges Romane, id est ut observent se ab 
idololatria, et sanguine, sicut Noé, et a fornicatione, Que sophisti 
Greecorum non intelligentes, scientes tamen a sanguine abstinendum, 
adulterarunt seripturam, quartum imandatum addentes “et a suffocate 
observandum,’ quod puto nune Dei nutu intellecturi sunt, quia jam supra 


28 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


dictum erat, quod addiderunt.” On the use of recension 8 by Ambrosiaster 
see vol. i. 553f. On his attitude to the Greek text, see GK, i. 34. Even 
impartial Greeks like Origen (in Osee; tom. xxxii. 32 in Jo. Delarue, iii. 
438, iv. 455), and even an Epiphanius (Ancor. 31), recognised that not only 
stylistic, but dogmatic scruples of the orthodox had altered to a great extent 
the biblical text of the Church. 

6. (Pp. 14,15.) Acts xi. 27 8 shows the linguistic character of Luke. Aside 
from Jude 24 and a citation in Heb. i. 9 we find ἀγαλλίασις only in Luke 
i. 14, 44; Acts ii. 46. He employs the verb also in Luke i. 47, x. 21; Acts 
xvi. 34. He alone, following the classical usage, has, Acts xxvili. 3, ovo- 
τρέφειν =“ gather together” (“ zusammenraffen”); xix. 40, xxiii, 12, συστροφῆ, 
“mob” (* Zusammenrottung”). With the same meaning, the verb, according 
to B, Acts xvi. 39, xvii. 5; textually uncertain, and with another meaning is 
συστρέφεσθαι (=cvvavacrpéper bar), Matt. xvii. 22; Acts x. 41, Cod. Ὁ. The 
word gives a graphic picture of the way in which the crowds collect about 
and press upon the prophets. The text of D is confirmed in essentials by d, 
Paris, 321, the Bibles of Rosas and Wernigerode ; by Augustine, de Sermone 
Dom. in Monte, lib. ii. 17, §57; Ado on Ides of Febr. (Quentin, Revue Bénédict, 
1906, p. 4), and the writing de Prophetis, p. 21. In the last writing xi. 27-28 
is quoted with the introduction: “et in actibus apostolorum sic legimus.” 
Immediately connected, however, with this citation is the following: “Et 
alium in locum: ‘Erant etiam in ecclesia prophets et doctores Barnabas et 
Sailus (read Saulus), quibus manus imposuerunt prophet, Symeon qui 
appellatus est Niger, et Lucius Cirinensis, qui manet usque adhue, et Ticius 
conlactaneus, qui acciperunt responsum ab spiritu sancto, unde dixit: 
‘segregate mihi Barnabam et Saulum,’ etc.” Also in this citation there must 
be some trace of 8. That a and 8 vary widely from each other in this passage 
appears from the remarkable variants of D (ev οἷς after διδάσκαλοι [this also 
in Vulgate] Ἡρώδου καὶ rerpdpxov) and Paris, 321 (secundum unamquamque 
ecclesiam). In the text given above, before or after conlactaneus, which would 
otherwise be unintelligible, a genitive belonging to it, either ejus or Herodis 
tetrarche, has at all events dropped out, in addition, however, probably also 
Manen before conlactaneus. This last omission could perhaps have arisen 
mechanically from the similarity of MANZEN to MANET, which stands a 
few words before it. But the entire citation, in all its original variations, could 
never be explained from a false reading of the name Manan.  Ticius is for 
Titus ; ef. the variants Τίτου, Teriov, Acts xviii. 7, a difference which the Latins 
did not express in the genitive Titi ; see Wordsworth, ad loc. Since Paul, a 
few years later, took Titus (Gal. ii. 1) with him from Antioch to Jerusalem, 
Luke could have mentioned him very naturally in this passage. How the name 
Ticius or Titus in this passage could be otherwise explained, is unknown to 
the present writer. The most remarkable variant, however, is the addition 
to the name of Lucius of Cyrene: qui manet usque ad hue, i.e. ὃς μένει ξως 
ἄρτι; ef. 1 Cor. xv. 6. All must acknowledge that this cannot be an arbitrary 
addition of a writer citing Acts, or the gloss of a later copyist. It can have 
been written only at the time when Lucius of Cyrene was still alive, and 
indeed by the same man, who, in this passage, according to all recensions of 
the text, by the enumeration of the teachers and prophets of Antioch,—persons 
who, with the exception of Paul and Barnabas, are wholly unimportant for 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 29 


the further narrative,—has shown his especial interest in this Church, and 
according to 8 (Acts xi. 27) has made himself known as a member of thie 
Church about 40 a.p. It is Luke, then, who allowed these and other remarks 
of interest for his friend Theophilus to appear in his first edition. In the 
revision of his work preparatory to a second edition, he might have thought 
of a larger circle of readers, and a longer continuing circulation of his book, 
and therefore struck out the statement concerning Lueius, which after a short 
time might not agree with the fact. Luke wrote at a time when there was 
living at least one of the men who about 43-50 had been busy as teachers and 
prophets in Antioch, while others, at all events, the Simon Niger mentioned 
above, probably also Paul and Barnabas, were already dead. The especial 
interest of Luke in Antioch is also confirmed by the fact that in vi. 5 the 
home of only one of the seven men, £.e. of Nicoläus of Antioch, is given. 

7. (P. 15.) The clause ev τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ, xii. 1 (8), is not, as though τῆς stood 
in its place, a nearer definition of τῆς ἐκκλησίας which might have appeared 
necessary to a later reader, but indicates the scene of the story, xii. 1-20, in 
contrast to Antioch, the scene of xi, 19-30. Οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας is good 
Greek (Kühner-Gerth, i. 457)=Church members (cf. xv. 5 a)=of πιστοί, ver. 3 
(8), entirely without regard to any particular place or the congregation of any 
locality. That it is a question concerning such persons in Jerusalem and 
Judea and not in Antioch follows clearly enough from the personal and other 
particulars of the account. A reader who felt the loss of an expressed subject of 
ἀρεστόν ἐστιν in ver. 3 would have introduced τοῦτο, as several translators (e.g. 
Lucifer) have done. The text 8, ἡ ἐπιχείρησις αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς πιστούς, is too 
original in its manner of expression to be ranked as a gloss. In the N.T. 
ἐπιχείρησις does not occur elsewhere, and ἐπιχειρεῖν only in Luke i, 1; Acts 
ix. 29, xix. 13. Moreover, the feminine subject following the neuter predi- 
cate (Matt. vi. 34; 2 Cor. ii. 6) does not look like the work of a glossarist. 
Such a one would have supplied the need in ver. 5 of completing ἐτηρεῖτο ἐν 
τῇ φυλακῇ by mention of the guards, with words taken from ver, 4. The ὑπὸ 
τῆς omeipns τοῦ βασιλέως extends beyond ver. 4, and does not indicate the 
4x4 soldiers entrusted with the guarding of Peter’s person, but the whole 
cohort (cf. x. 1, xxi. 31, xxvii. 1) which served as a garrison for the building, 
—probably the Antonia,—and whose duty it was to station the various sentries 
(ver. 10) in continuous relays. The words κατέβησαν τοὺς ἑπτὰ βαθμοὺς καί 
which 8 (ver. 10) offers between ἐξελθόντες and προῆλθον can only have been 
written by one who knew the locality. In xxi. 35, 40, where the stairs are 
mentioned which connected the Antonia not with the street, but directly with 
the Temple Area, no one could hit upon these seven steps by guess and then 
introduce them with the article as if well known to the reader. The seven 
and eight steps at the Temple gate in Ezek. xl. 22, 26, 31, in which Jerome 
found great mysteries (Morin, Anecd. Maredsol. iii, 2. 18, 111; cf. Origen, 
Fragm. in Jo. xi. 18, ed. Preuschen, 547. 21), explain nothing. On the 
contrary, it is quite plausible that Luke, who at first introduced at this 
point, unchanged, the story which evidently arose in Jerusalem, and was 
probably found by him in an older writing, upon looking over what he had 
written removed these words as being ill adapted to foreign readers. 

8. (P. 15.) Belser has recently (Bibl. Stud. i. 3. 141 ff. ; Ausführlicher 
Beiträge, S. 8, 89 il.) not only maintained the formerly prevalent interpre- 


30 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tation of xviii. 22 of the a text, but introduced it into ß also. Paul is 
supposed to have journeyed from Cesarea to Jerusalem, and, after he had 
wandered from Antioch through Galatia and Phrygia, according to xix. 1 β, 
once more to have entertained the thought of returning to Jerusalem, 
instead of going finally to Ephesus, as he had promised. The Spirit, 
however, prevents him from carrying out this strange plan, and compels him 
to keep his promise. In the first place, as far as a is concerned, (1) the bare 
ἀναβάς (ver. 22) cannot indicate a journey from Ceesarea to Jerusalem. The 
18 passages in the N.T. (3, Luke; 7, Acts) where ἀναβαίνειν εἰς ‘Iep. occurs, 
prove that this qualification is indispensable, as well as eis ᾿Αντιόχειαν, 
xiv. 26, xv. 30, xviii. 22. An absolute ἀναβαίνειν, John vii. 10, near the 
thrice recurring avaß. eis τὴν ἑορτήν, or John xii. 20, where Jerusalem is the 
scene of the previous events, and where, in addition, attendance upon the 
feast is given as the purpose in view, can scarcely be used for comparison ; 
for, according to a, Jerusalem, in Acts xviii., has not yet been named at all 
as the destination (ver. 18=Syria; ver. 21=only that Paul must make one 
more journey before his permanent settlement). The meaning of avaBaivew 
here is either “to go ashore” (cf. Matt. iii. 16), or, according to the Greek 
notion, to go wp from the harbour into the city, 1.6. from the shore inland. 
Cf. καταβαίνειν (Cod. D, kareAdeıw Textus ree.), Acts xiii. 4 of the wandering 
from Antioch to the seaport ; xx. 13 D and elsewhere κατελθόντες from the 
land to the harbour and ship. (2) The Church in Jerusalem is nowhere 
called simply ἡ ἐκκλησία, ef. rather viii. 1, xi. 22. On xii. 1, seen. 7. 
Chap. viii. 3, following viii. 1, proves nothing aside from the fact that at 
the time of the events of viii. 1-3 the local Church of Jerusalem (v. 11) was 
still essentially identical with the Christendom which Paul had persecuted 
(cf. Acts ix. 1, 31; 1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i, 22f.). Only the Church, there- 
fore, of the place which is mentioned (xi. 26, xv. 3 Antioch; xv. 4 
Jerusalem) can be meant: in this instance the Church of Cxsarea. It is 
not easy to see why the Church of Cesarea, which at that time had been so 
long in existence, might not have been called ἐκκλησία as well as those 
which were much younger (Acts xiv. 23, xv. 41, xvi. 5; 1 Thess. i. 1; 
Rom. xvi. 1, 4). But as for xix. 18, it is unthinkable that Paul, just after 
he had, as alleged, visited Jerusalem, and had made the long journey from 
that place vid Antioch and through Asia Minor as far as the neighbourhood 
of Ephesus, suddenly decided to journey again to Jerusalem, and in doing 
so, after having almost reached the end of a month’s journey, to return 
avain to its starting-point. This would be exactly an ὑποστρέφειν, and, on the 
other hand, the continuation of his journey to Ephesus would be merely the 
completion of a journey already nearly finished. The 8 text reads rather the 
opposite. And what then would be the τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη Which Paul would 
have had to wander through, after he had already traversed the land of the 
Galatians and Phrygia (ver. 23), in order to reach Ephesus? He is indeed, 
according to xviii. 23, already on the border of Asia in the narrowest sense 
of the term (as used by Luke, vol. i. 186f.), and only a few days distant from 
Ephesus, and the short journey thither leads through ἡ κάτω ᾿Ασία (vol. i. 
187, line 16; Aristides, Epist. de Smyrna, ed. Dindorf, i. 766; Pausan. 
i. 4.6). It cannot be doubted, then, that Luke in xix. 1 8 refers to what pre- 
cedes xviii. 23, or rather that in xviii. 23 he anticipates the journey of Paul, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 31 


and has so far deseribed it that in xix. 1 ἔρχεται εἰς Ἔφεσον could immediately 
follow. Even in xviii. 24, Luke goes back in time before the point reached 
in ver. 23 ; for what is related in xviii. 24-28 did not take place after Paul 
had come to Phrygia vid Cesarea and Antioch, and so had arrived in the 
vicinity of Ephesus, but occupies a great part of the time intervening 
between the first visit of Paul in Ephesus (xviii. 19-21) and his return 
thither (xix. 1). After this episode, and before resuming the narrative of 
the journey, interrupted in xviii. 23 (xix. 1, διελθών = xviii. 23, διερχόμενος), 
and before giving an account of Paul’s settlement in Ephesus, Luke turns 
back to an earlier point in the narrative (xix. la), and explains how it 
happened that Paul had not carried out his purpose to visit Jerusalem on 
this journey. According to the marginal reading of Thomas of Heraclea, 
from which D differs only in the matter of the weaker ὑποστρέφειν, instead 
of ὑπόστρεφε, xix. 1 reads: θέλοντος δὲ τοῦ Πάυλου κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν βουλὴν 
πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα, εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ πνεῦμα" “ ὑπόστρεφε εἰς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν." 
Cf. above, p. 26, line 30 f. ; further, Ephrem, in Harris, Four Lectures, p. 48 ; 
marginal reading of the Bible of Rosas, and Ado (Quentin, p. 7), which 
describes the Journey of Acts xviii. 18-xix. 1 as follows: « Et inde (from 
Corinth) navigavit in Syriam et venit Ephesum et inde Czsaream et 
(therefore not to Jerusalem) Antiochiam et Galatiam regionem et Frigiam. 
Hine, cum vellet ire Hierosolimam, dixit ei spiritus sanctus, ut reverteretur 
in Asiam ; et cum peragrasset superiores partes, Ephesum venit.” The hine 
at the beginning of the second sentence, which is due to the misunderstand - 
ing explained above, is evidently an addition of Ado’s, just as the et inde, 
which often occurs. Ado naturally had also the stopping-place Trogyllium, 
xx. 15, 

9. (Pp. 15,18.) On Acts χχ. 8 see above in text and Harris, Four Lectures, 
49. On xx. 4f. see in part vol. i. 209, n. 2. The uncorrupted text of a has 
been transmitted by NB, the Coptic version, the Vulgate (and substantially 
by the Sahidie version): συνείπετο δὲ αὐτῷ Σώπατρος... καὶ Τιμόθεος, 
᾿Ασιανοὶ δὲ Τυχικὸς καὶ Τρόφιμος. οὗτοι δὲ προελθόντες ἔμενον ἡμᾶς ἐν 
Τρωάδι, Inasmuch as ver. 3 pictures the moment in which Paul formed 
the resolution in Corinth to make the Journey to Syria by way of Macedonia, 
instead of by the sea route, and since συνείπετο, not συνείποντο, is the 
reading established for a, it is stated at first only regarding Sopater that 
he accompanied Paul from Corinth on this journey. This agrees with the 
fact that, as far as we know, Sopater was the only one of those mentioned, 
aside from Timothy, who was present with Paul at the time of his sojourn 
in Corinth (Rom. xvi. 21; vol. i. 209, 213, 417, n. 22). Timothy may have 
gone on ahead of Paul and Sopater from Corinth to Macedonia and even as 
far as Troas, and the rest, among whom were two persons of Thessalonica, 
Aristarchus and Secundus, would have Joined him en route, possibly in 
Thessalonica, so that Θεσσαλονικέων δέ is really in respeet of them equivalent 
to saying “from Thessalonica onwards.” ‘ The narrator himself does not join 
the company until they reach Philippi. ΑἹ] the persons named were fellow- 
travellers of Paul’s, so that συνείπετο could be placed at the beginning of the 
sentence, and be connected zeugmatically with all of them, Only in this 
way can the present writer understand the prominent position which is 
assigned to Sopater, and the explanatory phrase, οὗτοι δὲ κτλ, designed to 


΄ 


32 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


prevent any misunderstanding. If this does not refer to all the persone 
named, besides Sopater, we cannot know which of these are to be dis- 
tinguished from others, The 8 text ind and D is at all events mutilated 
in different ways, and in S® it is preserved in a not altogether unmixed 
condition. Instead of inserting, as Blass does, an unwarranted προήρχοντο, 
συνείποντο αὐτῷ might be inserted according to d (comitari [a mistake for 
comitatiJeum) and S*. The eye of the copyist of D wandered from αὐτοῦ 
to duro. It reads therefore: μέλλοντος οὖν ἐξιέναι αὐτοῦ συνείποντο αὐτῷ 
μέχρι τῆς ᾿Ασίας Σώπατρος . . . καὶ Τιμόθεος, ᾿Εφέσιοι δὲ Τυχικὸς καὶ Τρόφιμος, 
οὗτοι προελθόντες ἔμενον αὐτὸν ἐν Τρωάδι. This text also was not intended 
to be different from a. The Textus receptus is made really insufferable by the 
contlation with the a text (AEHLP) of the reading : ἄχρι (or μέχρι) τῆς ᾿Ασίας, 
which is genuine only in 8. As Luke wished to give the particulars of what 
had taken place in Asia, namely, in Troas and Miletus, he brought the 
journey of Paul and his companions (according to ß) for the time being only 
“as far as Asia,” without wishing to say that it came to an end there 
(cf. Rom. v. 14). Again, since he wished to cover rapidly the journey as 
far as Troas, he did not take pains to avoid the expression which makes it 
appear as if the whole company remained together from Corinth to Troas, 
although he has to add the remark that they arrived in Troas, at least in 
part, before Paul. One can understand that Luke found it advantageous 
in revising to smooth down these inequalities ; but not how one, who had 
a before him, might produce 8 from it. 

10, (P. 18.) Acts xx. 12 reads, according to 1), ἀσπαζομένων δὲ αὐτῶν 
ἤγαγεν (not ἤγαγον; as d has it) τὸν νεανίσκον ζῶντα. This ἤγαγεν occurs in 
three minuscules and apparently also in the Armenian version, which has 
retained to a large extent traces of the oldest Syriac version ; ef. Robinson, 
Euthaliana, 76-92, according to which Paul leads the youth whom he has 
saved, and the latter does not let go his hand. In this case the greetings 
will apply not to Paul, or at least not to him alone, but especially to the 
“we” who departed before him. That these persons take leave before Paul 
does (προελθόντες according to a) is, however, also stated by Bin ὡς μέλλων 
αὐτὸς πεζεύειν, in spite of the κατελθόντες, which he uses in its place. Of 
the 8 text here only fragments are extant. Perhaps such are embedded in 
the Peshito, where, instead of οὕτως ἐξῆλθεν in ver. 11, we read; “and then 
he went out, to travel by land,” and ver. 13: “ But we went aboard the ship 
and sailed as far as the neighbourhood (?) of Thesos (for Assos), because we 
were to take Paul on board there, for so he had appointed when he set out 
by land.” 

11. (P. 18.) In respect of Acts xv. 1-5 the present writer cannot 
admit as text 8: (1) the addition after Ἰουδαίας, ver. 1, of τῶν merurrev- 
κότων ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν Φαρισαίων, and the omission of the corresponding 
words in ver. 5; for aside from the fact that no witness (DS* min. 8, 137) 
presents this text unmixed and complete, and that there exists no Latin 
witness for it (see also Iren. iii, 12. 14), it seems ineredible that Luke should 
have taken this characteristic of the disturbers of the peace from its natural 
place in ver. 1 and placed it as an afterthought in ver. 5. (2) The un- 
wonted expression in a, ver, 1, wepırundnre τῷ ἔθει τῷ Μωῦύσέως, as well as 
the comparison in yer. 5 or xxi. 21, caused in DS* and the Sahidic version 


“ 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 38 


the change καὶ τῷ ἐ. M. περιπατῆτε. But this is not characteristic of B. It 
is found verbatim, only with further additions, in Didase. (syr. version), 
p- 102. 26, where in the main (on vv. 2, 5, 20, 29 see ἢ, 12) not β, but a is 
presupposed. Moreover, the still further altered form in Const. Ap. vi. 12, 
which is based upon Didase., could not be introduced into the text by Blass 
in the face of his own chief witnesses. But the better accredited text of 
8 also betrays itself as being an interpolation, in the singular τῷ ἔθει which 
is retained from a, and which does not construe with περιπατεῖν. Cf. on the 
eontrary vi. 14, xxi. 21. (3) The addition in ver. 2, ἔλεγεν, γὰρ ὁ Παῦλος 
μένειν (al. αὐτούς, al. ἕκαστον) οὕτως καθὼς ἐπίστευσαν διισχυριζόμενος, has a 
much wider currency in 8 and only in such witnesses as represent 8 largely 
in other respects also. Against its originality stand the facts: (a) that not a 
single earlier witness has the corresponding construction which Blass is 
obliged to create in order to use; (b) that the language is Paul’s as hardly 
anywhere else in the Acts (1 Cor. vii. 17, 20, 24, 40). On the other hand, 
it must be admitted that διισχυρίζεσθαι oceurs in the N.T. only in Luke 
xxii. 59; Acts xii. 15. (4) The’ following, ver. 2, of δὲ ἐληλυθότες ἀπὸ 
Ἱερουσαλὴμ παρήγγειλαν αὐτοῖς (αὐ. 1), τότε 53) τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ Bapvaßa καί τισιν 
ἄλλοις ἀναβαίνειν πρός... ὅπως κριθῶσιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν, in β in itself might be 
genuine. In a also, only the newly arrived strangers could be the subject, 
of ἔταξαν, since if it were otherwise another subject (perhaps the Church) 
would have had to be named. 8 would conform to the correct text in 
Gal. 11. 5 without ois οὐδέ and to the correct interpretation put forward by 
Jerome, according to which Paul’s journey to Jerusalem signifies a temporary 
yielding to the Judaizers. It is quite comprehensible also that Luke in ashould 
have softened the harsh expression. But all is again made more than doubtful 
by the fact that the corresponding words in ver. 5, οἱ δὲ παραγγείλαντες αὐτοῖς 
ἀναβαίνειν πρὸς τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους, are incompatible with the characterisation 
of the people as Pharisees (see above, under 1), which is genuine there, and 
which is retained by D. 

12. (Pp. 19, 20.) Of the variants indicated above on p- 19 by A, Band Ο, 
(1.) A and B are to be found in D for xv. 20 (where C could have no place) ; 
and in Iren. iii. 12. 14, now preserved also in Greek in a scholion (on xv. 20) of 
the Athos MS. (von der Goltz, TU, n.f. ii. da, S. 41, see vol. i. 396,n. 3). Ac- 
cording to the Bible text of this MS. (here without, but in xy. 29 and xxi. 25 
with καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ) which, according to the statement of the copyist (8. 7 f.), 
is said to agree with the text used by Origen as the basis of his commentary, it 
could appear as if Origen also had had both the defect A and the addition B. 
Since, however, Origen neither here nor in the scholion on xy. 29 (S. 43), 
as so often elsewhere, is expressly mentioned, he may not be adduced either 
for A or for B and C in any passage whatsoever. Since, furthermore, the 
eritical marks, which point to the scholion on xv. 20, refer only to B, not 
to A, Porphyry also, whom the scholiast adduces with’ an appeal to Eusebius 
as advocate of the text of Trenzeus, may be made responsible only for B. 
The scholiast on xv. 20, where he omits καὶ rod mv., and on xv. 29, where he 
has it, takes no notice whatever of A in the scholia on the two passages, 
Like Porphyry, also the Sahidie version and many Greek min. witness 
in xv. 20 only to B without A; on the contrary, Gigas witnesses to A 
without B in xv. 20. (II.) For xv. 29 we find A, B, and C united in 

VOL. II. 3 


34 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Irenzus (in Greek scholion in v. ἃ. Goltz, TU, S. 43; ef. S. 41) and D; only 
A and B in Cyprian, Test. iii. 119 (perhaps cited incompletely) ; only A and C 
in Tertullian, Pud. xii. (differing in the arrangement : a fornicationibus [d has 
this plural also, in stupris] et sanguine) ; only A in Ambrosiaster (see n. 5), 
Pacianus, and others, known to Jerome as the ordinary Latin text (Vall. 
vii. 478, “*ab idolothytis et sanguine et fornicatione’ sive, ut in nonnullis 
exemplaribus scriptum est, ‘et a suffocatis’”). The text of the Vulgate, 
which has no trace of A, B, C in xv. 20, xxi. 15, is uncertain. One can 
agree with the judgment of Wordsworth and White, who place suffocato 
without et in brackets as a gloss, only in the sense that the MSS., which 
offer sanguine suffocato, go back to older MSS., in which the text of the 
Vulgate in this decisive passage (not, however, in xv. 20, xxi. 25) had been 
conformed to the Occidental tradition by striking out et suflocatis (or—to) 
found in the text, and that later copyists had again introduced into the text 
the fourth portion, which meanwhile had also in the Occident obtained the 
ascendency, in the form suffocate as attribute to sanguine. Jerome himself, 
who had taken notice of the variants, is to be credited neither with the 
inconsequence, of which he would have made himself guilty in his treatment 
of xv. 21 and xv. 29, nor with the adoption of a reading like sanguine 
suffocato, which, to say the least, is very erroneous. For this last reading 
one may not appeal to Cyril of Jerusalem, for, according to the MSS. (ed. 
Reischl and Rupp, i. 120, ii. 286), he cites (Catech. iv. 28, xvii. 29) καὶ mvixrod 
in the second passage with the variant καὶ πνικτῶν. Only the B of xv. 29 is 
found in S®, the Sahidie version, nine of the minuscules in Tischendorf, and 
the Latin Bibles pw, which Blass was the first to compare. In addition to these 
we are to take as evidence for B the letter of a Pelagian, circa 415 in Caspari, 
Briefe, Abhandlungen, ete., 1890, S. 18, cap. 4; cf. p. 9 (see other material in 
(1K, i. 367, A. 1, ii. 589, A. 6), probably also Theop. ad Autol. ii. 34, and 
the Latin Theophilus, i. 31, ii. 4; ef. Forsch. ii. 140f., and quite certainly 
Aristides, Apol. xv. 5; ef. Seeberg, Forsch. v. 213, 397. From many others 
which cite the passage thus or similarly, eg. Aphraates, ed. Wright, 498, 
Ephrem, Com. in epist. Pauli, pp. 9, 26, its likelihood is not to be established. 
It is very doubtful whether Marcion was acquainted at all with the passage 
(GK, ii. 462). Tertullian knew it (contra Mare. iv. 16, ed. Kroymann, 
p. 472), but,-as Pud. xii. shows, not as an element of the Apostolic Decree. 
The oldest Christian writing in which it is found is the Didache ; but in 
this the passage (i. 2) is widely separated from the place where it touches 
upon the Decree (vi, 3). So also in the Didascalia (Syr. p. 2. 8= Lat. ed. 
Hauler, 2. 12), while the Decree, according to the ordinary text, does not 
follow until much later (Syr. 104. 23; Lat. 45. 1). (IIL) For xxi, 25 the 
defective reading A is to be found only in D and the Gigas. It cannot be 
concluded (so also again Wordsworth-White, ii. 139), from Tert. Apol. ix,, 
that he had in this earlier writing, in distinction from the later, de Pud. xii., 
a text with καὶ πνικτῶν. In Apol. ix. he cites no text at all, but mentions 
the Christian custom of abstaining from every use of the blood of animals, 
in consequence of which they abstain also from the flesh of animals which have 
been strangled, or which have died (qui propterea suffocatis quoque et morticinis 
abstinemus). If this custom was so general in Africa also, as Tertullian here 
represents it to have been, this presupposes that the unmutilated Decree 


. 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 35 


was known and operative there. As far as Tertullian himself is concerned. 
there exists between Apol. ix. and Pud. xii. only this difference : that in the 
former instance he assumes the interpretation of the “blood” in the Decree 
as the blood of animals, to be the natural and only one; and merely draws 
the conclusion that it would be wholly impossible for the Christians to 
drink human blood; and that, on the contrary, in Pud. xii., without ex- 
cluding the other interpretation, he prefers to make the word refer to human 
blood and more particularly to the shedding of blood in murder (homieidium). 
Moreover, a more detailed treatment of the history and the original meaning 
of the Decree cannot be given in this place; ef., however, § 62, n. 10. New 
literature on the subject: Böckenhoff, Das Apostol. Speisegesetz, 1903, and the 
very venturesome writing of Gotthold Resch (son of A. Resch), Das 
Aposteldekret nach seiner wusserkanonischen ΤΙ extgestalt, 1905. 

13. (P. 20.) Tertullian, Pud. xii, translates εἰδωλοθύτων accurately by 
sacrificvis, but interprets it as ddololatria. The Latin Bible in Cyprian has 
already the translation ab idololatrüis. What is to be understood by φαγεῖν 
εἰδωλόθυτα can be seen from 1 Cor. viii.-x. It refers merely to an indirect 
participation in idol worship, a dangerous approach to idolatry, The com- 
mand is φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας, 1 Cor. x. 14, not τὴν εἰδωλολατρείαν 
as in 1 Cor. vi. 18, where the reference is to πορνεία. Only for the purpose 
of sharpening the conscience is it said (Didache, vi. 3; cf. Col. iii. 5) that 
even the partaking of sacrificial meat, or participation in festivities and 
banquets whose background is one of idol worship, is in itself idolatry, 

14. (P. 20.) In the Didascalia, Syriac ed., p. 104. 23, the conclusion 
reads ; “And ye shall abstain from necessary (things), from sacrifices, and 
from blood, and from things strangled, and from unchastity. And from 
these (things) guard your souls, and ye will (shall) do good (=e πράξετε), 
and ye will be sound in health” (ἔρρωσθε). The reading πράξατε (CDHL, 
Didasc., Latin ed. bene agite) or πράξητε (E) expresses the same conception ; 
but the future πράξετε might also, as in the Decalogue, be taken as an 
imperative, and bene (Irenzeus, Pacian) or recte (Tertullian) agetts was not 
intended to mean anything else. The ἔρρωσθε is wanting in Ireneus and 
Tertullian, which is hardly accidental, inasmuch as Irenzeus at least gives 
in other instances the writing in complete form. D, which contains it, must 
have here also a mixed text. Cf. also Clem. Al. Peed. ii. 56, without ἔρρωσθε, 
81: “be strong in the Lord.” 

15. (P. 21.) Didache, i. 2 : πάντα δὲ ὅσα ἐὰν θελήσῃς μὴ γίνεσθαί σοι, καὶ σὺ 
ἄλλῳ μὴ ποίει. Cod. D xv. 20, where the Gentile Christians are spoken of 
in the third person ; but καὶ ὅσα μὴ θέλουσιν ἑαυτοῖς γίνεσθαι (written 
γεινεσθαι), ἑτέροις μὴ ποιεῖτε (ἃ faciatis, Ireneus faciant), and per contra xv. 
29, where the address would be possible because of what follows, D has 
θέλετε ἑαυτοῖς... ποιεῖν ; d, Irenwus (Lat. text), Oypriany"wultis fieri vobis ... 
Fuciatis or feceritis ; Iren. (Greek text) (v. ἃ. Goltz, TU, S. 41), here as in xv. 
20, καὶ ὅσα ἂν μὴ θέλωσιν αὐτοῖς γενέσθαι, ἄλλοις μὴ ποιεῖν. The singular 
ἑτέρῳ, xv. 39 (Ὁ, d, Cyprian ; pseudo-Aug. Sermo 265, ed. Bass. xvi. 1367; 
the Pelagian letter [see n. 12] alii and nullo wit), which other Greek and 
Latin writers felt to be unsuitable alongside of ἑαυτοῖς, vobis, and ποιεῖτε, is 
also an echo of the form ἄλλῳ in the Didache. 

16. (P. 22.) Blass in Luke i. 26 gives, instead of the definite statement 


36 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of time, ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ χαιρῷ, only according to Latin witnesses. Why does 
he not, therefore, give the same formula in Acts v. 1 according to E, and in 
Acts iii. 1 according to D—ev δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις ? The first formula is, 
however, a solemn introduetion of the pericopes in the Greek as in the Latin 
lectionaries ; see, e.g., Scholz, N.T. ii. 455 ff.; Liber Comicus, ed. Morin, pp. 7, 
13, 15, ete. It is found also countless times in the Ev. Hiersol. in the half- 
Greek form μον (Ξε καιρῷ) 7, in most cases standing outside the con- 
struction, and even where the statements of time contained and retained in 
the text itself make it superfluous (Matt. iv. 1, 17, xxiii. 1; John vii. 1, 
33, ed. Lagarde, p. 282. 1, 19, 302. 18, 370. 15, 371. 21), but also amalga- 
mated with the text, where it contains no determination of time (John viii. 
1, p. 372. 7; in pure Syriac, Matt. xv. 21, p. 292. 25, “at this time came 
Jesus”). In other passages, as Matt. iii. 1, p. 281. 10, 19, the formula arising 
out of the system of pericopes displaces that contained in the text. Acts ~ 
iii. 1, v. 1 were the beginnings of Church pericopes (Scrivener, Introd. i. 80 
and the marginal readings of Cod. 104 in Tischendorf on Acts iii. 1). 
Although the later Greek system had Luke i. 24-38 for Annunciation-day 
(Scrivener, p. 88; Ev. Hiersol, ed. Lagarde, pp. 273, 329), i. 26 is, however, 
the natural beginning. The fact that already Iren. iii. 10. 2, or, at least, his 
Latin translator, had in i. 26 the liturgical formula, may be of weight for the 
history of lectionaries, but cannot make the source of the reading doubtful. 
Cod. D, however, which does not here follow the Latins, stands in other 
passages under the influence of a pericope-system ; cf. Scrivener, Introd. 
p. li. Blass (with D Ss) has not only placed the words διὰ τὸ εἶναι κτλ. 
taken from Luke ii. 4, after ver. 5, but also by adopting αὐτούς for αὐτόν has 
burdened Luke himself, in spite of Luke i. 36, with the fable of the Davidie 
descent of Mary, which arose in the second century. The only direct 
witness for this is the Lat. Palat. (ed. Tischendorf, p. 245, qued essent de domo, 
etc.). Since, however, this is the ordinary position of the sentences, accord- 
ing to which up to this point Mary has not been mentioned at all, essent is 
accordingly an evident mistake for esset. The Syrians, however, who read here 
“since both of them were of the house of David,” depend upon Tatian, who 
had allowed himself this insertion (Forsch. i. 88, 118, 265 ; ef. the apocryphal 
Ste Korintherbrief, ed. Vetter, S. 54, ver.4; GK, ii. 561 ; in addition, Ephrem, 
Comm. in ep. Paul, p. 260; ThLb, 1893, 8. 471 ; 1895, S. 19); also a Dutch 
Harmony of the Middle Ages, which offers the same statement in Luke 
i. 27 (Academy, 1894, March 24). This interpolation brought about the trans- 
position of the sentences ; since it, however, can be considered an improve- 
ment of the style, and since it is to be found in D without the interpolation, 
Tatian may have found the transposition already present in his Luke. 

17. (P. 24.) It it beyond dispute, that in the genealogical scheme of 
Luke iii. 23 ff., D Nas introduced the names from Matt. i. 10-16; ef. com- 
pilations such as are given in Cod. Fuld., ed. Ranke, p. 33. D has a large 
harmonising interpolation in Luke v. 14, taken from Mark i. 45, a liturgical 
gloss at the beginning of a pericope, Luke xvi. 19, see Tischendorf, ad loc., 
and also on xvi. 1. D alone has after Luke vi. 4 the following: τῇ αὐτῇ 
ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενός τινα ἐργαζόμενον τῷ σαββάτῳ εἶπεν αὐτῷ" “ἄνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν 
οἶδας, τί ποιεῖς, μακάριος εἶ, εἰ δὲ μὴ οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβάτης εἶ τοῦ 
νόμου." This is followed, vi. 6, by the following recasting of the text: καὶ 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 37 


εἰσελθόντος αὐτοῦ πάλιν eis τὴν συναγωγὴν σαββάτῳ, ἐν 7 ἢν ἄνθρωπος κτλ. 
On the other hand, ver. 5 does not follow until after ver. 10. That all οἱ 
these changes are arbitrary, appears (1) from the fact that the disappearance 
from the whole tradition except D of the clever anecdote, at which no Gentile 
Christian could have taken offence, would otherwise be incomprehensible. 
(2) It should not be disputed that the teaching in ver. 5 is deduced neither 
from this anecdote nor from the following Sabbath story, vv. 6-10, but only 
from the incident related in vv. 1-4. This same closing sentence of the 
incident is found Matt. xii. 8; Mark ii. 28, and, according to all witnesses 
except D, also in Luke vi. 5. (3) The anecdote betrays by τῷ σαββάτῳ, 
which is intolerable after τῇ αὐτῇ nuepa,—since, according to vi. 1, this day is 
a Sabbath, —that the second statement of time originally belonged to the 
anecdote ; the first statement, however, was added to help in fitting it into 
the present connection. (4) The awkward position, also, which σαββάτῳ has 
been given by D in ver. 6, betrays the interpolator. Since two other long 
interpolations in D, namely, John vii. 53-viii. 11 and Mark xvi. 9-20 (these 
at least in substance, see vol. ii. 471 f., and below, § 69, n. 3) were taken from 
Papias, it is probable that this apocryphal Sabbath story was taken from the 
same source. It can, of course, be historically true: Jesus can have said, 
that he acts well who, like the priests in the temple (Matt. xii. 5, cf. John 
vii. 19-23), breaks the letter of the commandment concerning the Sabbath in 
the consciousness that he is fulfilling a higher duty. The obligatoriness of 
the law, when rightly understood, he did not by this saying dispute, 

18. (P. 24.) Whereas the additions discussed in n. 17 are peculiar to D, 
it shares with many Latin and partly also Syrian texts a large number of 
changes of words and inversions which are no more to be understood as 
actual improvements—perhaps from the author correcting his first edition— 
than as belonging to the original form from which the a text could have 
arisen. Examples: according to a, i. 63, all are astonished that the dumb 
Zacharias in spite of the general protest gives the child the same name, John, 
which Elisabeth had given it. It appeared much more astonishing that sud- 
denly he could speak again. Therefore 8 transfers καὶ ἐθαύμασαν πάντες to a 
position after ἐλύθη ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ. In ß this is followed by “his mouth, 
however, was opened” ; then first comes the statement, “he spoke, praising 
God.” By what means, however, before he opened his mouth and spoke, 
could the people have known that his tongue was loosed? It was a necessary 
improvement of this laughable “ improvement,” when Ss, and, in view of 
this one witness, Blass also, transposed the astonishment to a position after 
the speaking. But how, then, is the much stronger witnessed reading of 
D abg! to be explained? Concerning the commonplace change of xii. 38 
(which Marcion found in existence, but which D and most MSS. offer 
mixed with the genuine text), see GK, i. 682 f,, ii. 476. In view of the fact 
that, as a rule, the mother herself is not able at once to attend to her new- 
born child, the Lat. Palat. (0) has written in ii. 7 the plurals obvolwerunt . . . 
collocaverunt. The noticeable brevity of the introductory formula in a, 
xxill, 42 f., and the form of address with the bare Ἰησοῦ, not found elsewhere 
in the N.T. (cf., however, Mark i. 24, x. 47; Luke viii. 28 [also here omitted 
from D], xvii. 13, xviii. 38 [omitted in AE, etc.]), must have stimulated 
copyists to corrections, But the great multiplicity of the variants, several of 


38 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which may be very early, is evidence against all of them. Especially the τῷ 
ἐπιπλήσσοντι along with αὐτῷ in D characterises itself by its very super 
fluousness as a gloss to αὐτῷ. A preacher, who contrasted the two male- 
factors with each other, might have so designated the remorseful one in view 
of ἐπιτιμῶν, ver. 40; and to a man of this kind all variants of D in this 
passage are to be credited, e.g. ἔλευσις (also xxi. 7 D), θάρσει (also viii. 48 
inserted by others). The expression of Luke, in part peculiar but also varied 
in manifold ways according to the object and the sources used, incited to 
changes in order to make his Gospel agree partly with the other Gospels and 
partly with the common usage. In this respect D, and its satellites especially, 
have gone to great lengths. The inconsistency of 8 proves that the variants 
which have arisen in this way have not been brought about by a systematic 
working over either of 8 into a, or of a into 8, but by sporadic changes 
in B. The word πλησθῆναι (the verb 13 times in Luke, 9 times in Acts, 
only 3 times elsewhere), used to designate the passing of a period of time, 
i. 28, 57, ii. 6, 21, 22 (found only here in N.T.), is retained 3 times in D, 
however, ii. 6 τελεσθῆναι (cf. Rev. xx. 3-5), ii. 21 συντελεσθῆναι (cf. Luke 
iv.2; Acts xxi. 27). D has replaced καλεῖν ὄνομα, i. 13, 31, ii. 21 (Matt, i. 
21-25) only in ii. 21 by the preferable ὀνομάζειν ὄνομα (cf. Acts xix. 13; 
Eph. i. 21), and, on the other hand, has replaced the latter in vi. 13 by 
καλεῖν, used more commonly in the choice of the apostles, and in vi. 14 by 
ἐπονομάζειν, which is more suited in giving a person a surname. For 
ἐπιστάτης, which is used only by Luke, D has in v. 5 διδάσκαλε, villi. 24 
κύριε, per contra in viii. 45 (one min. omits), ix. 33 (the min. 157, which 
otherwise agrees with D and Marcion, has διδάσκαλε), ix. 49 (many διδάσκαλε), 
and xvii. 13 has retained it. For ἦχος (only Luke iv. 37; Acts ii. 2, also 
κατηχεῖν, in the Gospels only Luke i. 4; Acts xviii. 25, xxi, 21, 24) D has 
iv. 37 axon, as Matt. and Mark everywhere, Luke never in this meaning. 
For αἶνος, xviii. 43 (cf. αἰνεῖν 4 times in Luke, 3 times in Acts, only twice 
elsewhere in N.T.), D has the common δόξα ; for ἄτοπον, xxiii. 41 (elsewhere 
only Acts xxv. 5, xxviii. 6; entirely different 2 Thess. iii. 2), the trivial 
πονηρόν. 

19. (P. 24.) The present writer mentions as genuine texts which D and 
its satellites have preserved : (1) iii. 22: υἱός μου ef σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον yeyev- 
νηκά σε. So D and a large number of Latin witnesses. Augustine, who 
throughout his work, de Cons, Evv., uses the Vulgate as the basis of his dis- 
cussion (Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala, 1896), mentions (ii. 19. 31) 
only the older Greek MSS., which have the common text. In the Latin 
Bible, 8 was at all events predominating and original. The fact that the 
Syriac versions do not have this form is explained by their dependence upon 
Tatian, who naturally could use only one form of the words spoken by the 
heavenly voice, for which, however, he did not choose Luke iii. 22, but 
Matt. iii. 17 (Forsch. i. 124). If it is established that the Gospel of the 
Ebionites (circa 170) is a compilation from the canonical Gospels, and has 
made especial use of Luke,—also in the account of the baptism (ἐν eidei),—it 
cannot be well doubted, that of the three heavenly voices which this Gospel 
contains, the first is taken from Mark i. 11, the second from Luke iii. 22 (in 
the form 8), and the third from Matt. iii. 17 (@K, ii. 726, 732f.). It may 
further be considered as settled that Justin, Dial. Ixxxviii. ciii. to whom 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 39 


t.is text was evidently embarrassing, had read it in Luke (GK, i. 541) 
According to the creed of the Church, Jesus, on account of His wonderful 
entrance into human life, was already looked upon as the Son of God ; 
further, as early as in Heb. i. 5, Ps. ii. 7 was interpreted as referring to this 
event, and this seems better to suit Luke i. 32, 35. The variation from 
Matt. and Mark must have also appeared objectionable, and finally an 
extreme emphasis was laid upon the baptism of Jesus by many heretics. In 
view of all these facts, therefore, the 8 text must have become more and 
more intolerable to the consciousness of the Church, and at the same time to 
those who, like Justin, in addition to the wonderful generation of the man 
Jesus, taught also a pretemporal generation of the Logos. The rise and wide 
circulation of 8, on the basis of a, in the Church of the second century 
appears incomprehensible ; on the other hand, the gradual supplanting of β 
by a seems almost unavoidable. It is inconceivable that one and the same 
Luke in the two editions of his work should have changed from one to the 
other of the mutually exclusive traditions. There is, however, no evidence 
against the fact that 8 originated with Luke himself. If Ps. ii. 7 could have 
been connected with the resurrection in Acts xiii. 32-34, and in Heb. i. 5f. 
with the incarnation, so also could it have been connected with the baptism. 
Luke iii. 22 8 is just as consistent with Luke i. 35 as Acts ii. 36 with Luke 
ii. 11, iv. 18, Acts x. 36, 38, or as Rom. i. 4 with Rom. i. 3, vill. 3. God 
begat Jesus as His Son, since He was born ; and again in the figurative mean- 
ing of the Psalm passage made Him His Chosen Christ, since He furnished 
Him in the baptism with the spirit of His office (Luke xxiii. 35 ; John i. 34 
according to N Ss Scet al). (2) From fear that they might be utilised by the 
Marcionites, the words, ix. 54, “even as Elijah did,” and ver. 55, “ ye know 
not what manner of spirit ye are of,” were struck out, the former by some 
(Se, of the Latin MSS. e vg), the latter by others (AC), both by still others 
(NBL Ss). These facts prove that an antinomistic text produced by Marcion 
has not here found the most extensive circulation in the Catholie Church 
(D, most Latin MSS. 51 S3, Chrysost. ete.), but that Marcion found this, and 
that Luke had written it (@K, ii. 468). (3) The history of the text of xxii. 
17-20 is very involved. I. The a text is found with some variants in 
NABCL, ete,, and accordingly in Tischendorf as in the Text. receptus, 
II. The present writer considers as belonging to β the text of the two most 
important old Latin MSS. Ὁ e (k lacks this passage). In this text ver. 16 is 
immediately followed by ver. 19a, καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον --τὸ σῶμά μου, then comes 
vv. 17, 18 as in Tischendorf. There is lacking, therefore, vv. 195-20 (τὸ 
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον---τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον). How Marcion’s text is 
related to this text has not yet been determined with entire certainty. At 
all events he has nothing of vv. 16, 18, 195 (on this point @K, ii. 490, is not 
fully exact) ; further, he has the cup after the bread, 1.6. immediately after 
19a, and only one cup. He agrees, therefore, in deeisive points with B 
against a. The sentence about the cup contains, however, the word διαθήκη. 
It was accordingly formed, not as in ß=ver. 17 of a, but probably after 
1 Cor. xi. 25, as to a certain extent also in a, ver. 20. In another way Ss 
and Sc in this passage (concerning S'=Peshito at the present writing there 
is nothing certain to be said) show that 8 is their basis which they have 
interpolated in various ways from the parallels. At the same time one must 


40 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


eonsider that they are influenced by Tatian, who, as may easily be conceived, 
had in his harmony a mixed text from the different accounts of the Gospels, 
probably also from 1 Cor. xi. (Forsch. i. 204; GK, ii. 551 ff.). That the 
Syriac versions have attempted many times to improve this passage is shown 
by the fact that γέννημα is rendered by three different words in Se Ss Sh. 
Se Ss agree with 8 in that they have the order vv. 16, 19, 17, 18, 21, and 
so only one cup. However, ver. 19 f. reads in these texts: “And he took 
bread, and gave thanks over it, and brake it, and gave it to them, and said : 
This is My body, which (Ss+is given) for you ; this do in remembrance of 
Me. And (Ss+after they had eaten) He took a cup, and gave thanks over it, 
and said: Take this, divide it among yourselves (Ss+this is My blood of the 
new covenant). I say to you that from henceforth I will not drink of the 
fruit of the vine (Ss of this fruit) until the Kingdom of God comes” (ver. 21 
follows). It is evident to everyone that all that Ss has additional to Se is 
interpolation ; no Syrian who had» 1 Cor. xi. and the other Gospels, or the 
Diatessaron (cf. Aphraates, p. 221), in his Bible, could take offence at it. 
Therefore, if Se offers the relatively or absolutely original Syriac text of the 
“separate” Gospels, then this differs from 8 only by the acceptance of ver. 
19). This addition does not come, however, from a Greek text of Luke, but, 
since διδόμενον is lacking, from 1 Cor. xi. 24. III. D and four old Latin 
MSS. have vv. 16-19a (as far as τὸ σῶμά pov) in the order of a, but without 
vs. 19-20. This text, which is here called y, can neither in itself nor in 
relation to II. be original. For (1) the ancient character of the Latin wit- 
nesses for 8 (Ὁ 6) in comparison with the Latin witnesses for y (a ff? i 1), as 
also the essential agreement of the former with the oldest Syriac text (see 
above), proves that β is the more original form in the Latin Bible, from which 
at a later time y developed. This change is explained if we presuppose on 
the part of the author of the y text a regard for the a text, which also in the 
Occident gradually gained the ascendency. This arrangement (of the account 
of the Supper) was adopted more easily, since thereby a seemingly suitable 
parallelismus membrorum between vv. 15-16 and 17-18 would be secured. 
On the other hand, the wording of the old Occidental, and at the same time 
Syriac text ß itself was retained even in details, such as the omission of the 
second καί, ver. 17. (2) Consequently y cannot be original, since in this text 
the one cup, which 8 and y have, is placed before the bread. This, however, 
contradicts all tradition, both of the N.T. (1 Cor. xi. 24f., οἵ, χ. 3 f.; Matt. xxvi. 
26 f.; Mark xiv. 22f.; also Marcion and Tatian, GK, ii. 490, 509 ; Forsch. i. 
204) and of the liturgical usage. Against this one cannot adduce as evidence 
to the contrary the mention of the cup before the bread, 1 Cor. x. 16f., or 
even before the table, %.e. before the entire meal, ver. 21; for it is ineon- 
ceivable that Paul should contradict himself in so brief a passage. The 
Didache also recognises the order, food and drink (Didache, x. 3, ef. 1 Cor. 
x. 3f.), while the prayers (Didache, ix. 2f.) at first over the cup, then over 
the bread, do not belong to the Eucharist in the narrower meaning, but to 
the introductory Agape (Forsch. iii. 293 ff.). There remains accordingly only 
the question whether a or 8 was written by Luke. For 8 there are decisive : 
(1) the age of its attestation, (2) that the origin of 8 from ais just as easily 
understood as the origin of a from ß is inconceivable. No Christian of 
earlier or later times could take offence at the words in vv. 19), 20, known 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 41 


in part from Matt. and Mark and in part from 1 Cor. xi, On the other 
hand, everyone must take offence at the fact that the cup of Luke is not 
likened to the blood, and was not in any way characterised in its sacramental 
significance. Inasmuch as the Gospel of Luke in earlier times was held to 
be the Gospel of Paul (vol. ii. 385, n. 7), nothing was more natural than to 
add to his meagre text from 1 Cor. xi. Since, however, according to a very 
effective Canon of the text criticism of the early Church, anything that had 
been handed down in the tradition, and was suited to the taste of the Church, 
might not be relinquished (cf. Eusebius in Mai, Nova p. bibl. iv. 1. 255), the 
original account of the cup, in no way characterised as a sacrament, was 
transferred to a position before the account of the institution of the sacra- 
ment, i.e. immediately following ver. 16, after it had been displaced by an 
interpolation from its original position. Along with the eating of the pass- 
over, ver. 15 f., stood now as seemingly suitable a drinking of the cup, which 
belonged just as little as the former to the sacrament, but as well as that 
constituted an act preparatory to the institution of the sacrament. (3), That 
a grew out of β in such an artificial way, is betrayed also by the fact that ro 
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον, ver. 20, does not in its content suit τὸ ποτήριον nor 
in its wording τῷ αἵματι as apposition. Neither a solecism so bad, and in no 
way necessary, is to be credited to a Luke, nor the impossible thought that 
the cup which Jesus hands to the disciples was poured out or shed in their 
behalf. The genuineness of 8 appears from all these facts to the present 
writer to be without doubt. The peculiarity of the account of Luke, which, 
to be sure, is noticeable, is due to the purpose of this Gospel, ef. § 60, The 
present writer must content himself with these examples out of the textual 
history of Luke’s Gospel, and add only the assertion, that also in other 
important passages it must first be determined what is the original of the 
group of Western and Eastern witnesses, designated by ß, before one can 
decide anything as to what is the original. The present writer is of the 
opinion that D has preserved also at xxii. 43 f., xxiv. 51, what was written by 
Luke ; on the other hand, the false additions, xxiii. 38, 53 ; omissions, xxiii. 
34; false changes, xi. 53f. 


§ 60. PREFACE, PLAN, AND PURPOSE OF LUKE'S 
HISTORICAL WORK. 


Unlike Matthew and Mark, the third Gospel has no 
title given to it by the author, in which respect it 
resembles the Fourth Gospel and Acts. Nor is there 
evidence to show that Luke, whom we may assume to 
be the author, ever provided either of his two books with 
a common title, or each of them with individual titles, 
which were subsequently lost (n. 1). In fact, such a title 
was quite unnecessary, if Luke did not design his work for 
circulation among the reading public through the ordinary 


42 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


channels, and if he did not intend it to be read in the 
services of the Church, as John did Revelation, but wrote 
it primarily for the use of an individual. That this was 
the case is proved by the dedication prefixed to the work. 
In this Luke is the only one of the historical authors of 
the N.T. to follow a eustom much in vogue among the 
Greek and Roman writers of that time. Although in 
classic usage the dedication frequently was only a polite 
expression of personal regard or of servile appeal, having 
no intimate connection with the contents and purpose of 
the writing, there are numerous cases where the address 
shows that the writer dedicated his work to a friend and 
patron because he had suggested its composition, or because, 
from his interest in the subject of the work or in the person 
of the author, the latter hoped to secure a wider circula- 
tion of his work, or because such a person seemed to him 
appropriately to represent the class of readers whom he 
desired his book to reach (n. 2). 

In general, this characterises the dedication of Luke’s 
work to Theophilus, as is clear from the specific statement 
of the author’s purpose with which the dedication con- 
cludes. The address, κράτιστε Θεόφιλε, not only shows that 
Theophilus was a man of high position (n. 3), but also 
proves that, at the time, he was not a member of the 
Christian Church; since there is no instance in the 
Christian literature of the first two centuries where a 
Christian uses a secular title in addressing another 
Christian, to say nothing of a title of this character, 
which may be said to correspond in a general way to 
“Your Excellency” (n. 3). Theophilus is a Gentile 
interested in Christianity. The word κατηχήθης cannot 
be interpreted to mean that he was a “ catechumen” in 
the technical sense, 2.e. a person under instruction by the 
Church preparatory to baptism. “For, in the first place, 
we do not find this technical meaning of κατηχεῖν, 
karnxeiodaı in use until a later time, and, in particular, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 43 


it is not to be found in this sense elsewhere in Luke’s 
writings. In the second place, the use of the aorist 
would indicate that Theophilus had previously received 
this instruction, and had been already baptized. This, 
however, is not only out of harmony with the title by 
which Luke addresses him, as already indicated, but even 
more so with the statement of the result which Luke 
hoped to accomplish in the case of Theophilus by his 
historical account. _ The work is designed to give 
Theophilus his first real knowledge, fundamental insight, 
and conviction regarding the “trustworthiness of the 
words concerning which he had heard” (ver. 4, n. 4). 
Assuming as self-evident that the λόγοι, about the trust- 
worthiness of which the author is here speaking, were 
words, discourses, or teachings relating to the πράγματα 
which Luke was about to set forth in their historical 
order, it is perfectly clear that one who had been instructed 
by the Church and baptized into its membership would not 
need to be convinced of the trustworthiness of these λόγοι. 
Moreover, from Luke’s language it is certain that the 
information which Theophilus had received about the facts. 
of Christianity and the Christian doctrines based upon 
these facts, had not afforded a certainty which satisfied his 
critical understanding (n. 4). On the other hand, the fact 
that Luke’s book is dedicated to him, and the tone of the 
dedication, prove that it was not mere curiosity that led 
Theophilus to enter into relation with the Christians and 
with Luke, but that he was favourably inclined toward 
the Christian faith, only all his doubts had not yet been 
overcome. The fact that Luke dedicated a second book to 
him may be taken as proof that the first had met a kindly 
reception, while from the absence of the polite form of 
address in Acts i. 1 we are possibly to conclude that in the 
meantime he had ceased to be the man of distinction, and 
had become a brother. One of the Greek preachers (above, 
p. 6, n. 5) fittingly compares Theophilus with the pro- 


44 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


consul Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii. 6-12). In view of his 
social position, it is very natural to suppose that Luke may 
have written for him primarily, as he says (σοὶ γράψαι). 
But Theophilus’ position was also a guarantee that when 
the work had accomplished its immediate end it would find 
a wider circulation. >= 

If such was Luke’s purpose, it follows at once that 
vv. 1-2 are not designed to give the reasons which led 
him to the decision to write this work. In the first place, 
the contents of vv. 1-2 are not at all suited to express 
such a purpose (n. 5). Moreover, it is self-evident that 
the only adequate and generally intelligent reason for 
literary work of any sort is always and only the purpose 
which the author believes can be accomplished in this way, 
and only in this way. Therefore, vv. 1-2 must have been 
written solely in order to justify Luke’s undertaking by 
citing the case of others who had undertaken similar work 
before him, whose historical position gave them no more 
right to do so than he possessed, and whose information 
wäs no greater than hisown. The structure of the sentence 
(ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν... ἔδοξε κἀμοί) shows at once 
that Luke places himself on quite the same level with these 
earlier writers, in order to show that his undertaking is not 
unheard of or presumptuous. If, as Origen thought (n. 6), 
criticism of his predecessors were implied in ἐπεχείρησαν, 
then he chose the means least adapted to accomplish this 
end. Writing of this kind is here simply deseribed as a 
difhieult task, both in the case of the “many” and in his 
own case. It is possible that he means at the same time 
that one or another of the many, or all of them, had failed 
to accomplish their purpose. Nevertheless, the “1 also” 
(ver. 3) shows that all which he says of his predecessors is 
equally applicable to himself. On the other hand, all that 
he says of his own work, in vv. 3-4, except ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ 
γράψαι, namely, the dedication to Theophilus, what he 
hoped to accomplish with him, the preparatory investiga- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS As 


tions which he made, and the method of his exposition, 
refers exclusively to Luke. Since all these are things not 
touched upon in the characterisation of the older writers 
and their work, we may assume that Luke means to imply 
that these features of his own work are not to be found in 
these earlier writers. While it is not expressly stated what 
it was that was lacking in the earlier writings, the fact 
that Luke does not recommend to Theophilus any one of 
them, proves that no one of them was adapted to Luke’s 
particular purpose. 

“Many,” says Luke, “have taken in hand to draw up 
a narrative concerning those matters which have been 
fulfilled among us.” In contrast to Theophilus, who is 
still outside the Church, Luke here, as in ver. 2, associates 
himself not only with the earlier writers, but also with the 
entire group of those occupying the same position and 
seeking the same ends, to which both he and these writers 
belonged. This is the Christian Church, and, in particular, 
the Christian Church of Luke’s own time as distinguished 
from the eye-witnesses of the gospel history (ver. 2; ef. 
John i. 14), many of whom were perhaps no longer living. 
Taking πληροφορεῖν in the only sense in which it occurs 
with an impersonal object (n. 6), it may mean either that 
the things in question have been accomplished, 1.6. reached 
their consummation, in the Christian Church of Luke’s 
time, or τὰ ἐν ἡμῖν mpayyara,—instead of which ra καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, 
Or τὰ map ἡμῖν, Or τὰ ἡμέτερα πράγματα could have been 
used equally well —may be used to distinguish the facts in 
question from all other historical facts, and the facts thus 
carefully limited would then be said to have been to a 
certain extent accomplished in the writer’s lifetime. The 
latter interpretation is favoured not only by the position 
of ἐν ἡμῖν after πεπληροφορημένων, but also by the fact that, 
according to the other construction, the indication of the 
subject of the proposed historical work would be very 
obscurely designated. Accordingly, the sentence may be 


46 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


taken to mean that many have undertaken to set forth 
the distinctively Christian facts, in other words the history 
of Christianity, and that Luke intends to make a similar 
attempt, since πράγματα is certainly to be supplied as the 
object of παρέδοσαν in ver. 2, and of παρηκολουθηκότι πᾶσιν 
and γράψαι, ver. 3. 

The norm by which the earlier writers and Luke alsc 
were guided, and, consequently, the prineipal source upon 
which they depended, was the reports of those who from 
the beginning had been eye-witnesses (of these πράγματα), 
and ministers of the word (n. 7). ‘It follows at once that 
the writers with whom Luke here compares himself were 
not αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται τοῦ λόγου from the beginning, but 
became such later. Such a contrast as this, whidhid is left 
unexpressed elsewhere also (1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14; John 
i. 14; 1 Pet. v. 1; 2 Pet. 1. 16), is necessary in order to 
explain the ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, since the trustworthiness of a witness 
and the value of his testimony is by no means conditioned 
upon his having had a personal connection with the details 
of the history from the beginning. The centurion at the 
cross, a member of the Sanhedrin like Nicodemus, Lazarus 
in Bethany, a travelling companion of Paul’s, were the 
really classic witnesses for the portions of the history in 
which they took part. But those from whom the tradition 
was received, the persons to whom the Christian Church 
owed its knowledge of the facts of Christian history and 
the faith which was based upon these facts, were of a 
different class. Although no one of them could have 
experienced every detail which Luke designs to set forth, 
taken together they may be considered witnesses of the 
whole series of events in question, and recipients of a eall 
which made it their duty to communicate their knowledge 
of these facts to others. 

As to the second phrase, the ministry of the word, 
am ἀρχῆς clearly means “from the beginning of the 
Christian preac hing after the resurrection of Jesus,” and 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 47 


possibly Acts i. 22, x. 37, John xv. 27, cf. vi. 64, xvi. 4, 
indicate that this is the meaning of the same phrase in 
relation to the eye-witnesses. It is to be observed, in the 
first place, that Luke has chosen an expression to describe 
the call of the original witnesses which cannot be limited 
to the apostles, but which, leaving the ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς out of 
account, includes all who had taken part in the διακονία 
τοῦ λόγου (Acts vi. 4, xili. 5, xx. 24, xxvi. 16; 1 Cor. iii. 5, 
iv.) 29 Col. 1097525 sc Timea, 12) ov. 37 ΘΟ wmanotic 15) 
iv. 2,5). Even if this circle is limited by the am’ ἀρχῆς 
to those who had been engaged in this work ever since the 
first years of the gospel preaching, if not from the Day of 
Pentecost, it is not confined to the apostles, but includes 
persons like Philip (Acts vin. 4 ff.), the brothers of Jesus 
(Acts 1. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5, xv. 7), and other ἀρχαῖοι μαθηταί 
(Acts xxi. 16). In the second place, this is true also of 
the am’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται. Even where the latter expression 
is limited to the apostles, it is not possible to make it refer 
with equal literalness to the same point of time for all; 
since Matthew, for example, became a companion of Jesus 
much later than did Peter and John. Moreover, since 
the apostles were chosen still later, on this assumption 
important parts of the gospel history would be_excluded 
from the realm covered by the testimony of eye-witnesses. 
Of all the gospel writers, Luke in particular could not 
have regarded either the choosing of the apostles or the 
baptism of John as the beginning of Christian history, 
from which point of time the Church had received an 
account based upon the testimony of eye-witnesses ; for 
both in i. 3 and in the carrying out of his plan he places 
the beginning of the history which he is about to set forth 
at a point very far back. Account must be taken also of 
the contents of Luke i. 5-11. 52. What was the length of 
Mary’s life, who is not mentioned in the N.T. after the 
events recorded in Acts i. 14, and who is not referred to 
at all outside the historical books, except in Gal. iv. 4, and 


48 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


here not by name, we do not know. The brothers of 
Jesus also were ‘‘ministers of the word,’ and the fact 
that they retained a critical attitude towards Jesus until 
the last makes them none the less eye-witnesses of the 
history of His early life (vol. 1. 104 f.). 

Reverting now to the question as to the way in which 
this entire circle of the original witnesses of the history of 
Christianity transmitted the facts to the growing Church 
(παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν), we infer, more from the context of the 
prologue than from the language used in it (n. 8), that 
it must have been by oral narratives. For, in the first 
place, it was the chief business of the “ ministers of the 
word” not to write books, but to proclaim the unwritten 
gospel (§ 48). In the second place, παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν can 
refer to the composition of one or more Gospels only 
in case all the eye-witnesses and the ministers of the 
word edited a single Gospel together, or each one of 
them prepared a separate Gospel. But both suppositions 
are equally absurd. The only thing in which all of these 
witnesses could have had part was the oral transmission of 
the facts, and that in a great variety of ways. In the 
third place, the work of the writers with whom Luke 
classifies himself could not be called an ἀνατάξασθαι 
διήγησιν if they had possessed the facts, which they 
desioned to set forth before them, in several writings 
prepared by the original witnesses, 1.6. in the form of 
written narrative (διηγήσεις); for such narratives must 
have had some plan, and the work of these writers would 
necessarily have consisted in some sort of a rearrangement 
of the plan and exposition of the material found in these 
books. The expression in ver. 1 means that Luke's 
numerous predecessors collected and themselves arranged 
for the first time into a connected and continuous narra- 
tive, facts which up to that time had been testified to and 
narrated in detail only as occasion demanded. In the 
fourth place, if, in ver. 2, Luke was thinking of written 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 49 


records of the original witnesses, it would not have been 
suflicient justification of his undertaking to call attention 
to the example of many before him who, without being 
eye-witnesses, had undertaken work similar to his own. 
On the contrary, it would have been necessary for him to 
show that the writings of the original witnesses did not 
render superfluous those of others writing in the second 
generation and dependent upon the original witnesses, 
and to indicate how this was so. The presupposition 
which lies behind this entire justification of his under- 
taking seems to be that the original witnesses of the 
history of Christianity were the ones originally called 
to be its historians, but that they did not undertake this 
task ; so that now it was necessary for others, who were 
apparently much less suited to its accomplishment, to 
venture upon this work. It is clear, therefore, that Luke 
knew nothing of a Gospel written by one of the apostles 
and personal disciples of Jesus. 

With regard to the numerous gospel writings, how- 
ever, of which he did have some knowledge, there is’ at 
least one with which we have already become acquainted 
that exactly suits his deseription, namely, the Gospel of 
Mark. This was written by a man who was not among 
the original eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, but 
who became both in the later course of the history of 
Christianity. He was dependent, consequently, upon the 
testimony of these original witnesses, especially wpon that 
of Peter, for the most important part of the gospel history. 
Their narratives were the norm to which Mark conformed, 
and, at the same time, the principal source from which he 
drew. We say principal source, because Luke does not 
say more of his predecessors—if we have correctly inter- 
preted him to mean that the “many” actually became 
eye-witnesses during the course of, the history which it was 
their task to set forth, so that they were not dependent 
upon the tradition of those who were eye-witnesses from 

VOL. IIL, 4 


50 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the beginning for everything they wrote. The reference 
of Luke’s deseription to the Gospel of Mark is not ex- 
cluded by the fact that Mark is dependent in many places 
upon the Aramaic Matthew, since Luke did not necessarily 
know that this relation existed. Moreover, an Aramaic 
book, so long as it remained untranslated into Greek, was 
outside of the range of the knowledge of a Greek like 
Luke, even if he had heard of its existence; while it was 
entirely outside Theophilus’ range of vision. Nor can 
the applicability of the description to Mark be denied, 
because the subjects with which these histories dea! are 
described as πεπληροφορημένα. For, in the first place, 
Luke could speak of them from the point of view of his 
own time without implying that they were known to his 
predecessors in the same completed form in which they 
were known to him. In the second place, Luke does not 
say that his predecessors set forth the entire history of 
Christianity, but that they undertook to construct a 
narrative dealing with it. When we recall, on the one 
band, that Mark’s work was never completed, atid, on the 
other hand, that it was probably designed to reach down 
to and include the history of the apostolic preaching (vol. 
ii. 479), it would seem that Mark was just the kind of a 
work that Luke had in mind when he wrote the deseription 
in 1. 1-2. 

Inasmuch as a Mark and many others, whose names 
we do not know, had undertaken to write concerning the 
history of Christianity, Luke also, overcoming the doubts 
betrayed in his preface, decided on the basis of careful 
investigation, which went back to the beginning, to set 
forth for Theophilus’ benefit in order and in writing all 
the facts in question, having in view the purpose which 
has already been discussed (n. 9). The language Luke 
uses does not give the impression that he made the 
investigations upon which his narrative is based after 
his decision to write, nor that these investigations were 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 51 


carried on as the plan was developed. It would seem 
rather that, for other reasons, and because of his own 
interest in the facts, he had already investigated all the 
facts in question carefully from the beginning, and that 
now he had decided to set them forth because of the 
opportunity to do Theophilus a service which the latter 
had probably requested. Inasmuch as Luke implies at 
the outset in ver. 2 that he, like the other gospel writers, 
did not belong to the company of those who had been 
eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the be- 
ginning, but was able to give an ‘account of the earlier 
events only from the oral traditions of those who were 
such, it follows that his investigations must have been 
inquiries into these oral traditions, and that these inquiries 
were made of persons who handed these traditions down. 
This does not necessarily imply that it was possible for 
Luke to inquire of the original witnesses themselves 
concerning all the details, for it will be observed that the 
“we,” which is used twice at the beginning (vv. 1, 2), 
identifies Luke not only with the writers with whom he 
compares himself, but likewise with the Christian Church, 
which owed to these original witnesses the knowledge of 
its origin and early history. It is possible, therefore, that 
Luke received the tradition from the original witnesses 
indirectly. If, however, the investigations to which Luke 
refers were as comprehensive and as careful as he assures 
us they were, he must have made every effort to secure 
the testimony of the most trustworthy and oldest pos- 
sessors of the tradition in proportion as he was able to 
consult such persons. If the author was a member of the 
Church in Antioch as early as the year 40 (above, p. 2), 
and if he is identical with the narrator in the “we” 
sections of Acts, and with the Luke of the Pauline 
letters, he had abundant opportunity to secure informa- 
tion directly from prominent first-hand witnesses of the 
Christian tradition. Although he does not say in so many 


52 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


words that he; made use of the writings of his predecessors, 
he does not deny it. So far as the Gospel is concerned, 
the καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν means that he made the testimony 
of these original witnesses, alone his authority in matters 
pertaining to the history of the Christian tradition. But 
this does not preclude the possibility of his having ap- 
preciated and used. the work of earlier writers, who. used 
practically the same sources as himself, but who in special 
points drew from sources no longer at Luke’s command; or 
which ‚had never been accessible to him. A man of the 
literary training which the style of the dedication shows 
the author to have possessed, could) not have been, in- 
different to writings, known to him, which dealt with 
the same topics as his own (ef. § 61), even if his own 
investigations among the sources. of the oral tradition, 
the particular purpose for which he wrote, and the: corre- 
sponding arrangement of his book made him independent 
of his predecessors. 

Since his preparatory studies took him back to the 
beginning of the history which he was to set forth (ἄνωθεν), 
this was also the natural point at which to begin his 
account. Comparison of Luke 1. 5-iv. 15 with Mark 
i, 1-15 will show what is meant. This was one of the 
means by which a man like Theophilus might be im- 
pressed with the trustworthiness. of the history οἱ 
Christianity. A further means is suggested by καθεξῆς. 
For inasmuch as the facts in question were historical, 
it is self-evident that the order in which they were to be 
set forth must in a general way correspond to the order 
in which they took place... But we do not know definitely 
how far Luke, notwithstanding the, carefulness of. his 
investigations, was in a position to give the exact 
chronology. Moreover, by the, use of this expression 
he does not mean to say that chronological accuracy is 
the main point in his narrative, but that he intends ‚te 
give a logically connected historical account in which 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 53 


what precedes prepares for and explains what follows, 
in contrast to the disconnected narratives to which 
Theophilus had been heretofore accustomed. 

There remains to be discussed the question as to how 
much ground Luke intended his account to cover—in 
other words, to what work and to what sort of a work 
the dedication refers: The fact that the Gospel of Luke 
was early united with the other Gospels, which ‘were 
generally considered a unit even after the codex form of 
manuscript came into use (GA, i. 61 ff), with the con- 
sequent separation of Luke from Acts, is not sufficient 
reason for denying, as is frequently done, that thesé two 
books belonged together, being parts of one work, and 
that both are covered by the prologue (n. 10). "The 
prologue itself shows that the work which it introduces 
is not to be limited to the Gospel. If Luke meant the 
prologue to cover only the history of Jesus up to the time 
of His ascension, the statement of the theme, namely, τὰ 
πεπληροφορημένα ἐν ἡμῖν πράγματα, is inexplicable. | Why 
did not Luke use some such expression as that in Acts i. 1, 
or such an expression as John used in his testimony re- 
garding Mark (vol. ii. 453, n. 14), or τὰ περὶ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ 
so frequently employed by himself (vol. 11. 377, n. 2), 
which would serve as a general description of writings 
covering the gospel history and likewise of his own? If 
he had a general conception of the history of Christianity, 
and if he thought of this history as reaching a definite 
consummation in his own time, he must’ have intended ‘in 
the nature of the case to set it forth in its completeness. 
Just as he planned to begin at the very beginning (ἄνωθεν), 
so he must have purposed to carry the narrative down to 
its conclusion. ‘This historical period was, however, by 
no means concluded with the promise of the Spirit and 
the command to convert all peoples (Luke xxiv. 44-49) ; 
and even if a Christian had regarded these events as the 
practical conclusion of the ra ἐν ἡμῖν πράγματα, there is ne 


54 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


conceivable reason why it should be expressly stated that 
they were completed, when no more was meant than that 
they had happened. Furthermore, we found it suggested 
in. ver. 2 that Luke, like some of his predecessors, e.g. 
Mark, became an eye-witness and a minister of the word 
during the course of events which he was attempting te 
set, forth., Since, however, both according to his, own 
testimony and that, of the tradition, he was not one of the 
personal disciples of Jesus, he must have included among 
the, events to be set forth those that took place in the 
apostolic age, in which other eye-witnesses and ministers 
of the word were added to those who had been ‚such from 
the beginning. We should expect also that in the course 
of the work the writer would at least indicate the point 
where he passes to the a¢count of events in which he 
himself took part. 

If the third Gospel were all we had from Luke’s hand, 
we should certainly infer from the prologue that only the 
first part of his work is preserved to wus... But we, have 
also Acts, which is ascribed to Luke quite as unanimously 
as is the Gospel. Acts is likewise dedicated to Theophilus, 
and. is, moreover, represented to be the second part of a 
larger work, the first part of which set forth the deeds 
and teachings of Jesus. And as if this were not sufficient 
to establish the connection between the two, the deeds 
and teachings of Jesus set forth in the first book. are 
declared to be the beginning of a work continued after 
His departure (Acts i..1; n, 10). This is the authenticated 
interpretation of the πεπληροφορημένων in Luke i. 1. | If 
all that, Jesus did and taught before His ascension, was a 
beginning which required to be continued and completed, 
the Gospel was not planned without reference to Acts, 
and the two together constitute a single work, the intro- 
duction to which is Luke i. 1-4. So in Acts we. find 
confirmation of the preliminary reference in am’ ἀρχῆς, 
The “we” of Acts xi, 27 ἢ (above, p. ı4,.n. 3), xvi 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 55 


10--17,; xx. 5. (or, xx.1,6)-xxi., 18, xxvii. :l-xxviii: 16 
corresponds to the “I” of the prologue and of Acts i. 1. 
Ihe author permits us to recognise him as an eye-witness 
of events which he describes in his history. At the 
beginning of each book, where, as the author, he contrasts 
himself to Theophilus, he unconsciously uses “I.” | Where 
he appears as an actor in the narrative he does not use 
this designation, nor does he employ his name, which 
possibly could have been taken to refer to some person 
other than the author, but uses “we,” thus choosing. the 
middle course between the two tendencies of ancient 
historians in setting forth events in which the narrator 
had part. These manifested themselves, on the one hand, 
in the effort to secure objectivity in the narrative, which 
seemed to be sacrificed when the personality of the author 
was introduced ; and, on the other hand, in the desire to 
make it clear that the things recorded were not mere 
hearsay, but based on the author’s own experience (n. 11). 
According to xi. 27f., the author was mot one of the 
prophets who came from Jerusalem to Antioch in the 
year 40 (see Part XI.), but was a member of the Church 
in Antioch; and, since he clearly was not a Jew, he must 
have been one of the Greeks converted before Paul’s or 
eyen Barnabas’ arrival in Antioch, through. the influence 
of persons from Cyprus, and Cyrene who had fled 
originally from Jerusalem (Acts xi. 20£.). Since th 
narrative preceding Acts xvi. 10, where the “we” is 
introduced for the second time, is of a very summary 
character, it is impossible to. determine exactly the 
moment when Luke joined Paul. He is the fourth 
member of Paul’s party when, with Silas and Timothy, 
the latter reached Troas on the second missionary journey, 
and he was with them during the journey to Macedonia, 
and during their, stay in, Philippi (n. 12). Inasmuch as 
the “we” does not appear again until. the passage in 
which Paul, is represented as setting out on ἃ Journey 


56 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


from Philippi, about the time of the Passover in the year 
58 (xx. 5; n. 13), it appears that Luke was in Philippi 
during the five or six years intervening, after which he 
accompanied Paul to Jerusalem (xx. 7, 13-15, xxi. 1-18). 
According to the prologue, his interest in the tradition 
was not entirely new when this was written; and if he 
began to feel this interest as early as this journey to 
Jerusalem, he could not have failed to make use of the 
opportunity to satisfy it which was afforded him by inter- 
course with early disciples (Acts xxi. 16), with a certain 
James (xxi. 18), and with others who had been eye- 
witnesses from the beginning. Since he accompanied Paul 
on his journey to Rome in the autumn of the year 60 (xxvii. 
1—xxviii. 16), it is probable that he remained in Palestine, 
in the vicinity of Ceesarea, during the whole of the two 
years and a quarter during which Paul was compelled to 
remain in that city. If Luke is the author, we have 
information concerning him for a considerable time longer. 
He was with Paul during both the first and second 
Roman imprisonments (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 
iv. 11). He seems to’ have remained in Rome from his 
arrival in the spring of the year 61 until after the year 
66. 

The statement of the prologue about the ministry of 
the word likewise receives confirmation in the N.T. Not 
only does Paul call Luke one of his fellow-workers 
(Philem. 24), but the author of Acts describes’ himself 
in xvi. 10, 13, 17 as being engaged with Paul, Silas, 
and Timothy in preaching the gospel in Philippi. If he 
remained here for a number of years (see above), it is not 
unlikely that he performed the work of an evangelist in 
addition to his reeular medical’ calling, and it is possible 
that the ancient tradition which makes Luke the brother 
referred to in 2 Cor. viii. 18 may have a basis in fact 
(above, p. 6, n. 6). 

If from what has been said it follows that Acts is an 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 57 


integral part of the historical work introduced by Luke 
i. 1-4, this does not in any sense imply that the work 
which Luke planned to write reached its intended con- 
clusion with Acts xxviii. 31. [Ὁ is certainly a significant 
point‘in the history of Christianity which is reached at 
the close of the second book. After having overcome 
difficulties which seemed to multiply themselves, Paul] 
has αὖ last reached Rome, which for so many years has 
been the longed-for goal of his plans (Acts xix. 21, 
SR DL) xx PA DALE Qo ox eva! Ql Kk vi P46: 
οἵ, Rom. i. 10-15, xv. 22-29), and although under arrest 
the apostle is able to preach the gospel without hindrance 
in the capital of the empire. But nota single detail of 
his preaching during these two years is recorded ; much 
less is said about it even than about his three weeks’ 
preaching in Thessalonica, xvii. 1-9. The reader, whose 
attention has been kept fixed upon this goal since xix. 21, 
is bitterly disappointed, not only because of the meagre- 
ness of the sketch in Acts xxviii. 30f., but particularly 
because nothing is said about the outcome of Paul’s trial, 
which has been in’ view ever since xxv. 10f., xxvii. 24. 
A more awkward conclusion of the work could scarcely 
be imagined. This is not explained by the assumption, 
which was made in early times, but is incapable of being 
proved, that Luke wrote or concluded his book im- 
mediately after the close of the two years (above, p. 7 f, 
n. 7). The fact that he writes διετίαν ὅλην proves that 
he knew what event brought to an end the condition 
deseribed, which had lasted for two years. Furthermore, 
the faet that he uses the imperfect tense in describing 
Paul’s situation and activity, instead of saying that both 
continued for two years and lasted up to the time when 
he wrote, shows clearly that the change in Paul’s con- 
dition, with which the author was familiar, put an end 
also to his abiding in his own hired house, and to the 
preaching which he had carried on unhindered ‘during 


58 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


this residence (vol. 11. 58f.). Consequently, at the very 
earliest, Luke could not have written these lines before 
Philippians was written, 1,6. before the summer of 63 
(vol. 1. 539 ff.).. But why does not Luke tell us what it 
was which brought the two years’ residence to an end, 
and what the situation was at the time when, he wrote? 
In order to explain this difficulty, it has been supposed 
that Theophilus had been for some time in Rome with 
Luke and Paul, and hence was thoroughly informed about 
the facts of which Luke here says nothing, although he 
indicates that he was acquainted with them. In that case 
xxviil. 30f. is superfluous, and the form of the sentence 
is as unnatural as it could well be. In fact, a very 
common custom (n. 10) made the end of the work a most 
fitting place in which to explain to Theophilus in a second 
address why the author thought it appropriate to break 
off at this point and to conclude his work in so peculiar 
a manner (cf. 2 Tim. i. 18). All that is strange entirely 
disappears, however, if Luke, having reached an important 
turning-point in the history of, Christianity, appropriately 
brought to a close the second book of his work, at the 
same time intending to continue or, to complete it, in 
a third book. It will be remembered that at the close 
of the Gospel, after the account of the resurrection, there 
is added a short sketch of what happened up to the time 
of Jesus’ ascension, and of what took place immediately 
thereafter (Luke xxiv. 44-58; n. 14), and then the author 
begins the second book by going back again to the: time 
between the resurrection and the end of the period during 
which the disciples waited for “the promise of the 
Father,” in order, to set forth these events in greater 
detail (Acts i. 1-26), telling us here for the first, time 
how the period of waiting was brought to a close (Acts 
ii, 1-47). In the same way, in Acts xxviii. 30, 31, he 
adds to the narrative, which, up to this point has heen 
very detailed, a, short \sketch of the situation which 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 59 


followed the events last narrated, intending to take-up the 
account at this point in his third book. The only inap- 
propriateness in the comparison is the fact that, Paul does 
not take the place in Acts which both in reality and accord- 
ing to the testimony of Acts 1. 1, Jesus has in the Gospel. | 

Although the title πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων cannot be 
traced to Luke, it is, notwithstanding, of very ancient date, 
as is evidenced by the fact that it is the only title which 
we have in the tradition (n. 15). Moreover, it reproduces 
correctly the impression which every reader gets from Acts 
of the author's purpose. . Beginning with Acts i. 1, it is his 
purpose to set forth the continuation, through the apostles 
and the apostolic Church, of the work and teaching begun 
by Jesus. From chap. xiii. onwards, however, Acts is 
simply a history of missionary work among the Gentiles 
under the leadership of Paul. The. little which is said 
of the other apostles and of the ‘mother Church is 
incidental, and is found only in connections where Paul 
and the missionary work among the Gentiles come into 
contact with Jerusalem (Acts xv. 31). Nothing 15 said of 
the missionary preaching of the earlier apostles and. the 
brothers of Jesus (Acts xii. 17; Gal. ii. 9; 1 Cor: ixi!5); 
2 Pet. i..16). It is unnecessary to prove that this silence 
on Luke’s part. is not due to lack of appreciation of those 
who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from 
the, beginning, Rather. does Luke exhibit, the character 
of a genuine historian when he gives a continuous treat- 
ment of the history of missionary work among the 
Gentiles in chaps. xiiii—xxviii., proving that he did: not 
feel it necessary, in view of the καθεξῆς of Luke i. 3, to 
write a chronicle or a journal of the nature of an historical 
calendar.» But this one-sided development. ofa single 
thread of the narrative is incomprehensible unless it was 
Luke's intention ina third book to go back and take up 
again’ the history of the original apostles. 

"A: third book is demanded also by the proloste. (If 


60 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Luke intended to set forth the history of Christianity te 
the point of development which it had reached up to his 
time (above, pp. 45, 53), this plan is by no means carried 
out, if the work is complete in the two books before us, 
Ingenious speculations have been made about the interest- 
ing contrast between the message of the angels in the 
Temple in Jerusalem and in Mary’s chamber in Nazareth 
(Luke i. 11, 28) and the unhindered preaching of the 
gospel in the capital of the world (xxviii. 31). But the 
gospel had been preached in Rome and a large Church 
organised there long before Paul’s arrival. Furthermore, 
the meagre sketch in Acts xxviii. 30 ἢ is no fitting parallel 
to the exalted poetical narratives of Luke i. 5-56, and, 
what is even more to the point, the close of Acts does 
not conclude even the history of Paul or of the missionary 
work among the Gentiles, to say nothing of the history 
of Christianity. The author who wrote Luke xxiv. 47 
and Acts i. 8,and the Luke who was with the imprisoned 
apostle when he wrote 2 Tim. iv. 7, 17, could not have 
regarded the Christian preaching as practically at an end 
before Paul so regarded it. Moreover, anyone giving 
such a repeated and full account as Luke gives of Jesus’ 
prophecy concerning the judgment of Jerusalem (Luke 
xxii 82; cf. xix. 41-44, xxi. 120-24, xxiii. 28-31) could 
not well, before the year 70, have thought of the history 
of Christianity as having reached its conclusion even 
temporarily. 

But if the events recorded in 2 Tim., the death of 
Peter and Paul, and the fall of Jerusalem, had already 
taken place (§ 62), the writer had abundant material for 
a third book. And that he actually intended to add ıa 
τρίτος λόγος when he began the second book, or at least 
when he revised it after it was completed, he himself 
indicates in Acts i. 1; since it is not conceivable that one 
who could write the finished sentences which we have in 
Luke i. 1-4 should have made the mistake of writing 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 61 


τὸν μὲν πρῶτον for the more correct τὸν μὲν πρότερον λόγοι 
in Acts i. 1, if he intended to say that the Gospel was the 
first of two books only and not one of a number of books 
(n. 16). For, in this passage, he is not following an older 
source in which there were Hebraisms, and the style of 
which was otherwise inferior, but is freely expressing his 
own thoughts at the beginning of a book. It is painful 
to refleet what we have lost, either because of Luke’s 
failure to write this third book, or, what is less probable, 
because of its disappearance immediately after it was 
written. This opened the way for the petty fabricators 
of the second century, who were fond of treating the 
material which Luke had reserved for his third book. In 
all the apocryphal literature dealing with the history of 
the apostles which is preserved to us, we notice dependence 
upon Luke’s second book and imitation of his style, but 
there is not a single page of it even remotely comparable 
to one of the chapters of our Acts (n. 17). 

Even before the particular material which Luke 
worked over, the sources which he employed, and the 
trustworthiness of his accounts, are investigated, it, is 
possible to affirm that he kept in view throughout his 
work the purposes expressed and suggested in his dedi- 
cation. He does not, like Matthew, write an, apology 
on behalf of Christ and His Church in order to meet 
objections of a national character. Nor does he, like 
Mark, present, from a single point of view,. narratives 
which have been impressed upon his memory by frequent 
hearing and repetition. His design is rather, as a Greek 
historian, to set forth the history of Christianity from its 
beginnings to, the completion which it had reached in his 
own time, and he aims to do this in such a way that his 
exposition, based upon thorough investigation and_pre- 
senting the whole development of Christianity connectedly, 
shall impress, with a sense of the trustworthiness of the 
Christian traditions, a cultured Gentile who has heard 


62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


much about the facts which are eurrent in the Christian 
Church and held to be the basis of its faith, who has 
become interested in this history, and whose relations to 
individual Christians; like the author, are friendly. 

One of the first things which impresses us when we 
compare Luke with the other Gospels is the effort to 
show how one thing develops out of another. If the περὶ 
ὧν κατηχήθης (Luke 1. 4) means anything, Theophilus must 
already have heard something about John, the forerunner 
of Jesus, possibly no more than what is said about him 
in Mark i. 2-8 or Matt. iii. 1-12. Luke gives an account 
of the messages which indicated the future significance of 
the Baptist even before his birth, of the hopes awakened 
by his birth, of his hermit life (1. 80), and of his call to 
be'a prophet (iii. 2; ef. Jer. i.°4). ‘The unusual character 
of the circumstances of John’s birth helped to render 
faith’ in the greater miracle of Jesus’ birth easier, not 
only for Jesus’ own mother (i. 36f.), but also for the 
reader of Luke’s Gospel. The kinship and friendly 
relation between the two families, and the mingling of 
their hopes in connection with the children, make more 
comprehensible the subsequent relations between John 
and Jesus. If, as was undoubtedly the case, Theophilus 
had heard that the Christ whom the Christians followed 
was called Jesus of Nazareth, and if, as was probable, he 
had heard also that He was born in Bethlehem, it was 
natural for Luke to explain to him the combination of 
circumstances by which ‘it came about that the parents 
of Jesus, who lived in Nazareth, journeyed to Bethlehem 
shortly before His birth (ii. 1-5, i 26f.). In keeping 
with the brief account of the development of the child 
John into the type of man that he afterwards became 
(i. 80), is the story concerning the twelve-year-old Jesus, 
which, in its setting (ii. 40, 51-52), is meant to serve as 
a clear proof of the extremely happy but entirely natural 
and thoroughly human development of the child Jesus.’ ~ 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 63 


While the effort to treat the material “ pragmatically ” 
generally involves the retention of the proper chrono- 
logical order, it is nevertheless evident from the outset 
that this order is not observed at the expense of this 
desired “pragmatism.” In i. 80 the history of John’s 
life is told up to the point where it is taken up again in 
il. 2, while ἢ. 1 goes back to a much earlier date, ἃ few 
months later than the events recorded in i. 57-79. The 
history of the Baptist’s public’ work is developed in 
11. 19, 20 to its conclusion, which must have’ been ‘at 
least several months after its’ beginning (iii. 2). But in 
ii. 21, when he takes up again the history of the man 
Jesus, he begins with an event which took place long 
before the arrest of the Baptist, and gives Jesus’ 
genealogical descent at this point instead of in connection 
with 1. 27. The contrast between the divine sonship of 
Jesus revealed from heaven and His supposed and’ out- 
wardly valid descent from Joseph (iii, 22, 23), is of much 
more importance in the mind of the author than the mere 
mechanical arrangement of the material in its chrono- 
logical order. No specific mention is made of the fact 
that John was in prison when Jesus began His work in 
Galilee, described from iv. 14 onwards, and when John 
sent two of his disciples to ask the now famous quéstion 
(vil. 19; cf. per contra Matt. iv. 12, xi. 2; Mark:i. 14). 
Nor can the reader infer this from the order of events in 
i. 18-23. Even if he could, it is a question whether 
this would enable him to understand the author’s mean- 
ing in all the narratives that follow iii. 23. © What is true 
of Luke iii, 21, which goes back to a point of time prior 
to ἯΙ. 20, and of the account of the temptation (iv) 1213), 
which precedes the arrest of the Baptist, as is shown by 
its immediate connection with the account of the baptism 
and is confirmed by all the other traditions; can very 
well be true also of more than one of the narratives 
following iv? 13,0 The’ history’ of" John is evidently 


64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


concluded with iii. 20, Not even his execution is 
narrated later, though knowledge. of it is assumed in 
1X.) 779. 

It is apparent, not only in the account of John but 
everywhere, how little Luke intended to reproduce all the 
events in their exact chronological order. In the account 
of Jesus’ work in Galilee he begins after a general de- 
scription (iy. 14, 15), by relating His visit to His native 
village, although he does not conceal from the reader 
that Jesus, had already done many remarkable works in 
Capernaum (iv. 28). After this account of the visit to 
Nazareth there follow several chronologically connected 
incidents describing Jesus’ work in Capernaum, the city 
of Galilee most honoured by Jesus with His works 
(iv. 31-42; ef. ἵν. 23, vil. 1, x. 15). Finally, he shows 
how the other cities of Palestine were at the same time 
not, neglected (iv. 43 f.). The logical arrangement of ‘the 
material which here takes the place jof the chronological 
order is not due to,dogmatic considerations, as in the case 
of Matthew, but arises from. Luke’s historical method. 
If we accept the reading τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας in iv. 44, which is 
the better attested reading, and which is to be considered 
genuine also, because its character is such that it could 
not well have been invented (n. 18), there is no doubt 
that Luke intends his) first description of Jesus’ work in 
Galilee to be concluded at iv. 48 with Jesus’ explanation 
that the nature of His calling made it necessary for Him 
to preach also to the other cities, 1.6. to all the cities of 
the people and land to which He was sent. Although 
this statement makes it quite impossible to limit Jesus 
work to Galilee, in. the general statement that follows 
(iv. 44), which may; apply to many of the separate 
narratives which follow, Luke goes on to say that, Jesus, 
true to His word, did not limit Himself to Capernaum, or 
Nazareth, or even Galilee, but, preached in the synagogues 
of Judea, ie. throughout the whole of the Holy Land 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 65 


(n. 18). The general description of iv. 14f. is not, 
therefore, repeated in ver. 43f., but there is substituted 
for it a description of a very different and mueh more 
comprehensive character, which may even be contrasted 
to iv. 14f. Consequently the reader, having only Luke’s 
account, is at a loss to know in what part of Palestine to 
look for the places which the author sometimes groups 
together in a summary fashion (vill. 1, 4, ix. 6, x. 1), 
sometimes mentions separately, but without names or 
any other indication of their geographical location (v. 12, 
vii. 11, 37, x. 38, xiii. 10), especially since he sometimes 
mentions all the villages of Judea together (v. 17). If 
it were not known from other sources where Nain was 
situated (vii. 11), one might be led by Luke’s account 
to seek it in Judea. On the other hand, the village 
mentioned in x. 38, the name of which is given in 
John xi. 1, 18, together with the fact that it was situated 
near Jerusalem, so far as Luke’s account is concerned, 
could have been in Galilee. There are occasional state- 
ments which throw light upon the situation of separate 
localities (viii. 27, cf ver. 26, ix. 51, 52, 56, xiii, 22). 
But these are of no great importance, since by far the 
greater part of the narratives follow each other without 
any indication as to time order (v. 1, 12, 17, viii. 4, 19, 
22, ix. 1, 7, x1.1,14, etc.). It is seldom even remarked 
that an event recorded after another occurred in this 
order (v. 27, vill. 1, ix. 28, x. 1). The use of such 
expressions as “on one of the days” (v. 17, viii. 22, 
xx. 1), which does not occur in the other Gospels, and 
the rarity of definite indications as to time relations 
(vi. 1, vi. 1, 11, ix. 28, 37, x. 21, xiii. 1, 31), show that’ 
Luke’s investigations had not enabled him to obtain an 
exact idea of the order in which the gospel events took 
place, and also that he was conscious of this fact. 
Although Luke shows an interest, not to be observed 
in the other Gospels, in supplying the history of Jesus’ 
VOL. III. 5 


66 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


life with chronological notices (i. 36, ii. 21, 22, 42, iii, 23), 
and in connecting it chronologically with facts of uni- 
versal and national history (1. 5, 11. 1f., iii. 1f.; Aets 
xi. 28, xviil. 2, 12), he does not assume a knowledge of the 
details of the chronology of Jesus’ public ministry which 
it was beyond his power to obtain. This is evidenced even 
in connection with the last days in Jerusalem, both by the 
absence of connection between single events in the section, 
the setting of which is marked by the general descriptions 
of xix. 47 f. and xxi. 37 ἢ, and by the use in xx. 1 of the 
same ἐν μιᾷ τῶν ἡμερῶν which occurs earlier. What seems 
to be the account of a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem 
in ix. 5l-xix. 46 is, therefore, to be regarded as only 
apparently such. It may be that the scattered notices of 
this journey in Luke, while not giving the order of events 
with entire correctness, are for the most part accurate 
(n. 19). But it was not the intention of the author to be 
understood as giving such a chronology. For, in the first 
place, there is no decernible relation among these scattered 
notices. There is nothing here which resembles a list of 
stations, as in the accounts of the journeys in Acts (xiii.— 
xxvill.). No mention is made even of the journey through 
Perea (Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1). In the second place, 
in this section of the book there is the same lack of con- 
nection between the single narratives which occurs earlier 
(e.g. τι. 1, 14, 29, xii. 13, 22, 54, xiii. 6, 10, xiv. 1, xv. 1, 
xvi. 1, xvii. 1, 20, xviii. 1, 9, 15, 18), so that the reader 
cannot tell when and where the separate events took place. 
If we know that what is narrated in Luke x. 38-42 took 
place in a village near Jerusalem, our information is not 
derived from Luke, and it would be a misunderstanding 
of his account to infer from it that this unnamed village 
(Bethany) was on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem, and 
farther removed from the city than the places indicated in 
xiii, 22, xvil. 11, xviii. 31, 35. In the third place, it is 
apparent that the first notice regarding the journey to 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 67 


Jerusalem (ix. 51), which is given with a special solemnity, 
was not intended to mark an important transition in the 
narrative. ‘There is ἃ close connection with what precedes. 
This is, however, so throughout. While these scattered 
notices of movements from place to place have no con- 
nection and are too few to enable us to form any clear 
conception of the journey to Jerusalem, there is every- 
where evident a connection between the contents of the 
single narratives quite independent of the chronological 
relations. In the fourth place, even where places are 
clearly indicated, as in ix. 51, xi. 22, xvii. 11, it is evident 
that this is done in order to make clear events immediately 
connected with them, and is not designed to furnish the 
outlines of a journey. ‘The fact that in the history of the 
Passion and in most parts of Acts the chronological order 
is more apparent and more strictly adhered to, is due, in 
the first place, to the more exact knowledge which the 
writer had regarding these parts of the history from the 
tradition and his own recollection. In the second place, 
while it was quite possible to record single deeds, dis- 
courses, and conversations which took place during Jesus’ 
Galilean tours, without knowing the order in which they 
took place, this could not be done in the history of the 
Passion and Resurrection, or in an account of the extension 
of missionary work from Antioch to Rome. The narrative 
in Acts does not, however, resemble a chronicle. Acts ix. 1 
refers back to vill. 3, and what is recorded in ix. 1-17 can 
have taken place before the events recorded in viii. 5-40. 
In xi. 19 the narrative is taken up where it had been left 
off in viii. 1-4, and what is recorded in xi, 22 may have 
oceurred before chap. x. The episode of chap. xii. belongs 
before the point in the narrative where it is recorded, and 
apparently the same is true of xi. 27 (Part XI.). Attention 
has already been called to the order of xviii. 23 and xix. 1 
(above, p. 30, n. 8). If Luke designed his proposed 
third book to continue to its completion the history of the 


68 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


apostles (above, p. 53f.), it would have been necessary 
for him to take up the narrative again at Acts xu. 17. 
Just such a fact as this, and Luke’s carefulness about his 
chronological statements in the Gospel, show how conscious 
he was that his task was that of a historian. 

Another means which Luke uses to impress Theophilus 
with the trustworthiness of Christian historical tradition 
is the frequent connection of this history with the events 
of political history. No N.T. writer except Luke mentions 
a Roman emperor by name. He mentions Augustus, 
_ Tiberius, and Claudius (Luke u. 1, ii. 1; Acts xi. 28, 
xviii. 2), and when he says that the famine prophesied in 
the Church in Antioch took place under Claudius (Acts 
xi. 28), he implies that the prophecy was made in the time 
of Caligula, Claudius’ predecessor (Part XI). The decrees 
of Augustus (Luke ii. 1) and of Claudius (Acts xviii. 2) 
affect the history of Christianity. This is not something 
existing only in the realm of pious fancy. It connects 
itself chronologically with a definite year in the reign of 
Tiberius (Luke iii. 1). This impression of the thoroughly 
real character of Christianity is strengthened by the men- 
tion of all the rulers throughout the region which was the 
scene of the gospel history (Luke iii. 1-2), and which after 
the fall of Jerusalem was ruled by Agrippa π. (Schürer, 
i. 594 [Eng. trans. 1 ii. 201]). The reader must have 
known that Quirinius was the governor of Syria (Luke 
ii. 2) and Gallio the governor of Achaia (Acts xvii. 12), 
since their governorships are mentioned in order to fix 
dates, which is not true in the case of Sergius Paulus 
(xiii. 7). In general it will be noticed that the number 
of proper names in Luke is much larger than in the other 
Gospels, and that these names include not only those of 
persons in political life and of actors in the narrative, but 
also of numerous persons whose position is entirely sub- 
ordinate (n. 20). This reveals the investigator who has 
taken great pains to inform himself regarding the details 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 69 


of the history he records, and also the story-teller who 
strove to bring his characters out of the shadows of 
uncertain tradition into the clear light of reality. 

The author’s purpose fully to win over to Christianity 
a Gentile who was still outside the Church but favourably 
inclined: to Christianity, shows itself in various ways. Such 
a purpose imposed upon the Christian historian a certain 
reserve. He could not use throughout the sonorous 
language of the Church, but was under the necessity of 
handling the material objectively, as it were, and retaining 
in his narrative a certain secular tone. Luke does, how- 
ever, employ the language of the Church when frequently 
in his narrative he calls Jesus ὁ κύριος, a usage not to be 
found in Matthew and Mark (n. 21). But this simply 
shows that Luke was not one of the eye-witnesses of the 
gospel history who was in daily intercourse with Jesus, 
but that through their preaching he became one of the 
members of the Church which accepted Jesus as its Lord. 
On the other hand, he represents persons in personal inter- 
course with Jesus as addressing Him by His name, ᾿Ιησοῦ 
(above, p. 37 f.), and in six instances he uses ἐπιστώτα, which 
does not occur in the other Gospels, and which is not an 
ecclesiastical word (v. 5, viii. 24, 45, ix. 33, 49, xvii. 13). 
This replaces the Hebrew Rabbi, which Luke statedly 
avoids, and is used in addition to διδάσκαλε, which 
occurs very frequently, and κύριε, which is only sparingly 
used. 

Luke’s very meagre account of the institution of the 
Lord’s Supper, which early led to the introduction of whole- 
sale interpolations in Luke xxii. 16-20 (above, p. 39 f.), 
is to be explained only by the assumption that the narra- 
tive was intended for a non-Christian. The word spoken 
in connection with the distribution of the bread, “This is 
My body,” could impress such a person only as a profound 
figure. The single word which, according to the genuine 
text of Luke, Jesus spoke as He distributed the cup, 


70 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


contained no reference to His blood, and consequently 
suggested no mystery. Heathen slanders associated with 
the Christian teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper are 
very ancient. Pliny, in his report to Trajan, speaks as 
if such slanders were common, but not confirmed by his 
judicial inguiries. Although we cannot prove that these 
slanders were current as early as the time when Luke was 
written, it may be assumed that this was the case, or 
rather it may be inferred from Luke’s account. But even 
if this were not so, it is entirely conceivable that Luke 
should hesitate to unveil this deepest mystery of Christian 
worship before the eyes of one who was uninitiated, and 
that he should hesitate to make a remark about eating the 
body and drinking the blood of Jesus which might arouse 
the suspicion of one who was still outside the Church. 
In thus guarding the mystery Luke betrays his Greek 
character, and the fact that he is writing for Greeks. 
This shows itself also in very many other directions. 
Without in any way eliminating the Israelitish char- 
acter of the beginnings of the history of Christianity 
(n. 22), Luke emphasises strongly from the very first the 
universal significance of Jesus. That Jesus was born in 
the city of David was brought about by a decree of the 
emperor, who, however, had no thought of this result, so 
that it was really due to the overruling providence of God 
(ii. 1). Angels proclaim the glory of God, who through 
His Anointed One is to establish peace over the whole earth 
among men of good-will (11. 14). Simeon, wholly under 
the dominance of thoroughly Jewish ideas and forms, 
prophesies for the child a saving and enlightening in- 
fluence upon all peoples (ii. 31 f.). Only in Luke iii. 4-6 
is the quotation of the prophecy of Isaiah, which is always 
associated with the Baptist, continued so as to include 
the verse in which the salvation announced by John is 
described as a salvation for all flesh (iii. 6, ef. John xvii. 2). 
The descent of the Son of David and Son of God is carried 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 71 


back beyond Abraham to Adam and even to God Himself. 
The coming of Jesus marks not only the consummation of 
the history of Israel, but the consummation of the history 
of the race, and the divine sonship of men established in 
creation finds its consummation in the divine sonship of 
Jesus (iii. 23-38, cf. Acts xvii. 28, 31). The account in 
iv. 1-13, which is thus introduced, shows how Jesus as 
the second Adam overcame the temptation by which the 
first Adam fell. With manifest fondness he writes of 
the Gentile whose faith was great (vi. 2-10), and of the 
merciful and grateful Samaritans (x. 33, xvi. 16). Pilate 
is presented in a light which is in no way more favourable 
than that in which he is portrayed in the other Gospels 
(ef. xiii. 1, xxii. 25; Acts 11. 23, iv. 27), but the thrice 
repeated witness of this Gentile to Jesus’ innocence is 
much more strongly emphasised than in Matthew and 
Mark (xxii. 4, 14, 15, 22; Acts ii. 13). Besides this we 
have the testimony of the Gentile centurion in xxiii. 47, 
which seems to be told here in a form more historically 
probable than in Matt. xxvii. 54; Mark xv. 39. In Acts 
vill. 5—xi. 18, Luke describes at length how the natural 
hesitation of the older apostles to turn to the Samaritans 
and then to the Gentiles was overcome by the providence 
of God, and in Acts xv. he shows how the freedom of the 
Gentile Christians from the law was championed by the 
Gentile missionaries and acknowledged by the original 
apostles and the mother Church. Jesus’ command to 
preach the gospel to all peoples upon earth (Luke xxiv. 
47; Acts i. 8, ix. 15, ef. i. 39, iii. 25) is not here obscured 
by words which are open to misinterpretation and harsh 
in tone, as we find in Matt. x. 5, xv. 21-28; Mark vi. 
24-30. Frequently practical piety, honesty, and chari- 
tableness are declared to be preparations for greater bless- 
ing among the Gentiles (Luke vii. 2-5; Acts x. 2-4, 35, 
xi. 7) as well as among the Jews (Luke i. 6, ii. 25, 36 ἢ, 
xix. 8, xxii. 50, ef. Acts xvii. 11), and the humane dis- 


72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


position even of those who have no close relation to the 
gospel is recognised (Acts xix. 31, xxvii. 3, 43, xxviii. 2,7), 
Sometimes also the official integrity of individuals is 
simply related without special attention being called to 
it (Acts xviii. 12-17, xix. 35-41, xxv. 1-26, 32, as dis- 
tinguished from xxiv. 24—27). 

On the other hand, Luke, in much stronger colours 
than any other evangelist, depicts Jesus as the friend and 
Saviour of those most deeply sunk in sin and farthest 
astray, and represents penitent humility as the way of 
salvation (Luke v. 8, 29-32, vii. 29, 34, 37-50, xv. 1-38, 
Xvill. 9-14, xix. 7-10, xxiii. 39-43). A Greek who read 
the parables in chap. xv. would necessarily apply them to 
men like himself rather than to the Jews. While such 
a reader might be astonished, he would nevertheless be 
impressed by the fact that the great ascetic and mighty 
prophet John preached an almost trivial morality (ii. 
10-14), and that Jesus, who was free from any gloomy 
asceticism (v. 33-39, vil. 34, ΧΙ]. 26), manifested deep 
sympathy with all human sufferings even when the sufferer 
was guilty (vü. 13, xiii, 15f, xix. 41-44, xxii. 28, ef. 
ver. 34), avoided all narrow and violent fanaticism (ix. 
49f., 54f., xxii. 50f.), and always in word and deed 
preached a brotherly love which transcended the cere- 
monial seruples of Judaism and went beyond the national 
bounds (vi. 6-11, 27-36, x. 25-37, xi. 41-46, xii. 10-17, 
xiv. 1-6, xvii. 11-19, xix. 7-10). There are also instances 
where Jesus enjoins good manners and refinement in social 
intercourse (vii. 44—46, x. 5-11, xiv. 7-10, 12-14, xx. 46f., 
ef. xii. 37, but also xvii. 7-10). The choice and arrange- 
ment of material suggests a writer of kindred spirit with 
the man who wrote Phil. iv. 8 (n. 23). 

No single moral obligation is so richly and variously 
illustrated as that indicated by the words poverty and 
wealth. In addition to the account of the rich young 
man, the story of the widow with the mites, and several 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 73 


sayings about benevolence which are to be found also in 
Matthew and Mark (Luke vi. 30-36, xii. 33, xviii, 18-30, 
xxi. 1-4), the instances recorded in vi. 24, xi. 41, xii. 
13-21, xiv. 12-14, 16-24 (as regards this point not to be 
compared with Matt. xxii, 2-10), xvi. 1-31, xix. 2-10, 
are found only in Luke. Only in Luke xvi. 9, 11 is the 
Aramaic word mamona, which was current in Antioch 
(vol. 1. 18), modified by the adjective unrighteous, and in 
xix. 8 an example is given to show by how great un- 
righteousness many riches are accumulated. Jesus refuses 
to have anything to do with the legal side of questions 
about property (xii. 13-15), in order that He may lay 
greater weight upon the moral use of earthly possessions, 
especially when these are great. Luke has portrayed for 
all time in a striking and incomparable manner that con- 
fidence in riches devoted solely to one’s own service which 
is so foolish because of the uncertainty of human life (xii, 
16-21); the complete absorption of the rich in luxurious 
living with their accompanying heartlessness towards the 
poor and sorely afilicted brother at their door (xvi. 19-31); 
the power of riches even over men of noble spirit and men 
who strive after eternal things (xviii. 18-30); a magic 
influence which can be broken only by the power of God. 
‘“Woe to the rich,” he says, who find their satisfaction in 
this life, who give themselves up to the quiet enjoyment 
of life’s comfort, and who are always sure of being treated 
with deference on every side (vi. 24-26). But through 
God’s power it is possible even for these (xviii. 27, ef. iii, 8) 
not only to realise the fact that man’s life does not consist 
in riches (xii, 15), and that possessions are only an un- 
important good, bestowed for a short time and not really 
belonging to the possessor (xvi. 9-12), but also to be freed 
from the bondage of mammon (xvi. 13). The use of 
money for the benefit of one’s neighbour is proof that a 
man possesses the state of mind which leads into the 
kingdom of God (xviii. 22, xvi. 9); it sanctifies also his 


74 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


earthly life (xi. 41). This generosity is not one of the 
works of which the Pharisees boast (xviii. 12, ef. xi. 42, 
xvi. 14, xx. 47), but is found in the wealthy tax-gatherer 
(xix. 8) and the poverty-stricken widow (xxi. 1-4). Love 
to Jesus is manifested in the same way (vii. 3, ef. xxiii. 
50-53). This very spirit was exercised on a large scale 
by the early Church (Acts u. 44f., iv. 32-37, vi. 1-6, 
ix. 36-39). It was also a bond of union between the 
Gentile Church and the mother Church (xi. 28-30, xii. 25, 
xxiv. 17). It is commended in the case of the Gentile 
Cornelius (x. 2-4, 31, 35, ef. Luke vii. 5). The love of 
money, of which a fearful example was not wanting in the 
early Church (Acts v. 1-11), had no influence on the first 
preachers of the gospel (viii. 20, xx. 31-34). Possessing 
no money, they were yet rich in God (Acts i. 6, ef. Luke 
xii. 21), and observed the word of their Master, “ To give 
is more blessed than to receive” (Acts xx. 35). Instead 
of scenting in this social morality which pervades both the 
books of Paul’s disciple, Luke, a residuum of Ebionism 
(n. 24), it is more natural to assume that here also Luke 
has in mind the fact that his work is intended for Theo- 
philus, a Gentile of high position, and also, according to 
trustworthy tradition the owner of a large house in 
Antioch (above, p. 5, n. 5), before the gate of which 
it is very possible that a Lazarus may sometimes have 
lingered. 

It was also important in writing to men, of whom Luke 
chose Theophilus as a type, to point out that Christ and 
Christianity stood in no hostile relation to the State. In 
striking contrast to Jesus’ recognition of the obligation to 
pay taxes (xx. 20-26), stand the false accusations of the 
Sanhedrin that Jesus refused to pay tribute and was re- 
bellious against the authority of the State (xxiii. 2, 5, 14), 
which are related by no other evangelist with so much 
fulness as by Luke, to which also he alone refers at an 
earlier point in the narrative (xx. 20). But the falsity of 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 75 


these particular charges is proved by the thrice repeated 
acknowledgment of His innocence by Pilate, an acknow- 
ledgment which is based upon the testimony of king 
Herod (xxiii. 4, 14-15, 22). It was only the weakness 
of this Roman official’s character, whose attitude was 
sometimes that of violence against the Jews (xiii. 1) and 
sometimes that of false compliance with their will, which 
led him to give over to their fanaticism the Jesus who, by 
his own confession as well as by the confession of other 
Gentiles (xxiii. 47), was righteous, while he released a 
robber and murderer in His place (xxiii. 25). But even 
among the “transgressors with whom He was reckoned” 
(xxii. 37),—the criminals between whom He was crucified, 
—there was one to confess that Jesus was innocent of 
all offence against the civil law and to acknowledge His 
future kingship (xxiii. 39-43). Personal interests led 
the rulers of the Jews (Acts iv. 1-7, 13, v. 28) first to 
reprimand the apostles, then to imprison and scourge 
them. The first martyr’s blood was shed through the 
testimony of a false witness and by a tumultuous pro- 
ceeding which violated (John xviii. 31) existing laws (see 
Acts vi. 11-14, vii. 54-60). In order to win the favour 
of the Jews by posing as a protector of their religion, the 
bigoted Agrippa 1, who shortly thereafter lost his life in 
an attempt to deify himself in heathen fashion, murdered 
James the son of Zebedee, while Peter escaped his hand 
only by a miracle (chap. xii.). On several occasions Paul 
was accused and unjustly treated on the ground that he 
taught doctrines hostile to the Roman government (xvi. 
21-23, 35-39, xvii. 7--9, xviii. 13). Likewise his opposi- 
tion to heathen idolatry (xix. 26 ff.) and his alleged 
hostility to Judaism and Jewish ceremonials (xxi. 28, 
xxiv. 1-9) often involved him in danger, and finally led 
to a long imprisonment. Repeatedly he saved himself 
from worse treatment by appeal to his Roman citizenship, 
and compelled the officials to apologise for their encroach- 


76 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ments upon the law (xvi. 37, 38), or to seek escape from 
the consequences of their action by perverting their official 
reports (xxii. 24-29, xxiii. 25-30). [Ὁ was the unworthy 
dependence upon his Jewish wife and the Jewish people of 
the procurator Felix, who was as base as he was low born, 
and to whose infamous immorality and unrighteousness 
Luke calls attention (xxiv. 25; ef. Schürer, i. 571 f [Kng. 
trans. I. ii. 174]), which led him unjustly to prolong Paul's 
case (xxiv. 24-26). On the other hand, where Paul had 
to do with honourable officials, who were of more dis- 
tinguished birth and more noble culture, such as Gallio 
(xviii. 12-17) and Porcius Festus (xxv. 11-xxvi. 32), he 
was treated with impartiality and was protected against 
the fanaticism of the Jews. Several Asiarchs in Ephesus, 
representatives of the emperor cult, even showed him 
favour (xix. 31). While king Agrippa IL, in pure irony, 
declares himself inclined to accept Christianity (xxvi. 28), 
the “intelligent” proconsul of Cyprus, who bore the same 
name as the apostle, really received a deep impression of 
the truth, although we cannot say how lasting this im- 
pression was (xiii. 7-12). 

After all the cheering experiences, all the divine inter- 
positions and deliverances of the second book, the reader 
would expect nothing else than to find in a third book the 
account of new victories for the good cause of the gospel 
in Rome and in the Roman empire. There is to be no 
escape from persecution (xiv. 22). As regards this pomt 
the prophecy at the beginning (Luke ii. 34) corresponds 
literally to the historical statement at the close (Acts 
xxviii. 22). Opposition is not to be confined to words. 
The blood of martyrs will also be shed, as it has been from 
the beginning, but the true minister of the word does 
not allow this to hinder his course or to dishearten him 
(xx. 24, xxi. 13), but with every new station reached he 
gains new courage (xxvili. 15). It has often been re- 
marked that Acts is pervaded by a joyful spirit; but this 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 77 


is Just as true of the Gospel (n. 25). This work also was 
of a charaeter to make a favourable impression upon an 
educated Greek whose keen interest in the gospel has 
been already awakened. 

Although enough has been said to prove the symmetry 
of the plan and the unity of the entire work, as regards 
the latter point we have independent evidence from the 
agreement as to the manner in which the material is 
handled in Luke and in Acts. If Luke ii. 2 gives the 
impression that in Pilate’s procuratorship Annas shared 
the high-priesthood with Caiaphas, and was the more 
influential of the two, the same is true of Acts iv. 6. 
The ἀπογραφή of Luke ii. 1-3 is referred to again in Acts 
v. 37 by the same name. The identity of the two is not 
affected by the fact that in the latter passage the taxing is 
described as the one famous taxing, and hence as the only 
one of its kind, whereas in Luke ii. 2 it is spoken of as if 
it were a first taxing; for the expression in Luke does not 
necessarily mean more than that such a taxing had never 
before taken place in Palestine. There was no occasion 
in Luke ii. 2 to mention the insurrection headed by Judas. 
But Luke shows that he was familiar with the then exist- 
ing party of the Zealots, not only in Acts i. 13 but also in 
Luke vi. 15, and he is the only one of the gospel writers 
to designate them by their Greek name which is found in 
both books (n. 26). The story of how the tetrarch Herod 
took part in Jesus’ trial, and especially of how he and 
Pilate were made friends through their common relation 
to Jesus, found only in Luke xxiii, 6-12, 15, prepares 
the way for Acts iv. 27, a passage which would be quite 
unintelligible without this preceding narrative. Other 
references in Acts to the gospel history agree entirely with 
the accounts in the Gospel (Acts ili. 13 f. = Luke xxiii. 16: 
Acts x. 41 = Luke xxiv. 41 f.). Although Luke does not 
in any way represent the work of Jesus as confined to 
Galilee (above, p. 64 and § 63), yet in both books he 


78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


emphasises the fact that the whole gospel movement had 
its beginning in Galilee, spreading thence over the whole 
of Judea, 1.6. Palestine (Luke xxiii. 5; Acts x. 37; cf. 
Luke iv. 14, xxii. 59, xxiii. 49; Actsi. 11,1. 7, xi. 31). 
In the two lists cf the apostles (Luke vi. 14-16; Acts 
i. 13) the names are not given in exactly the same order, 
but both agree, as against Matthew and Mark, in men- 
tioning a ᾿Ιούδας Ιακώβου (Judas | the son] of James), 
who does not appear at all in Matthew or Mark under 
this name (but ef. John xiv. 22). They also agree in 
placing this name after that of Simon, whom Luke alone 
calls a Zealot, using the Greek name of the party im both 
passages. Luke is the only evangelist who says explicitly 
that Jesus called the Twelve, apostles (vi. 13), but it is 
also Luke who teaches in various ways that Jesus did not 
intend the preaching of the gospel to be confined to those 
especially called to be preachers. As at the beginning we 
find the angels (i. 19, ii. 10) and the Baptist (ii. 18) 
preachers of the gospel, so the apostles are told not to 
forbid anyone to preach who is working in Jesus’ name, 
even though he is not of their own number (ix. 49 f.). 
Jesus Himself commands others also to proclaim the king- 
dom of God (ix. 60), and sends before Him into all cities 
and places as heralds of His preaching “ other seventy,” 
who afterwards return rejoicing because of the success of 
their work (x. 1-20; n. 27). This may partially explain 
the fact that in Luke i. 2, where another would have used 
simply of ἀπόστολοι even at the risk of inaccuracy, Luke 
chooses an expression which includes persons not apostles, 
and calls to mind those who did not become ministers of 
the word until well on in the course of the history which Ὁ 
he is setting forth. All this is preparatory to the account 
of how, in fact, men who did not belong to the apostolic 
circle, and who had received no special commission to 
preach, opened the way for missionary work, becoming 
the forerunners of the apostles just as the Seventy were 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 79 


of the Lord (Acts viii. 5-40, xi. 19-21, cf. vi. 5, xxi. 8). 
It is also preparatory to the account of the rise of a 
new apostolate coexistent with that of the Twelve, whose 
number was kept intact (Acts 1. 15-26), by which the 
gospel was rapidly carried beyond the limits within which 
the Twelve were confined by their immediate calling (Acts 
ix, 3280, xin! 2 ff.) ziv.’& 14). 

Luke’s work shows great variety in regard to language 
and style; but these are not differences as between the 
two books, of which the work consists, but are to be 
observed just as much in the Gospel as in Acts. Since 
these differences are probably to be explained, partly from 
the character of the language in the sources used, partly 
from the different character of the subjects treated, they 
may be appropriately discussed in connection with the 
investigations which follow (§§ 61, 62). It hardly needs 
to be proved in detail that, notwithstanding the differ- 
ences of style which exist between separate parts of the 
work, there is a large number of peculiar words and 
phrases to be found throughout both books, so that from 
the point of view of the language also the unity of the 
work is demonstrated (n. 28). 

Against ail the discussions of the purpose of Acts, 
which take into consideration only the second book of 
Luke’s work,—assuming that a somewhat external con- 
nection exists between it and the first book,—stand first 
of all the prologue, when this is correctly interpreted, and 
likewise many of the considerations, some of them old, 
others new, which have been adduced above. In parti- 
cular, there is no longer any necessity of disproving in 
detail the hypothesis of the school of Baur, by which it 
is assumed that the writer of Acts set out with the inten- 
tion of harmonising the unreconciled and irreconcilable 
differences in the apostolic Church, by perverting facts in 
his narrative and intentionally adding fictitious elements 
(n. 29). One could wish, however, that those who admit 


80 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


that this hypothesis cannot be accepted in its entirety 
would purge out the remnants of the old leaven that 
remain. Whatever details in the premises of this inter- 
pretation may require refutation will be discussed in 
88 62, 63. On the other hand, points in which the 
hypothesis is correct are explained by the purpose which 
the author actually claimed to have had in view through- 
out the entire work. A polemical writing produced in 
the midst of a heated contest and under great stress like 
Galatians, naturally employs language different from that 
used in an historical work designed to set forth the same 
facts perhaps twenty years later. If Luke had introduced 
into his account of the great struggle for the independence 
of the Gentile Church, and for its freedom from the law, 
the excited moods of those who actually participated in 
the struggle, he would simply have betrayed his unfitness 
to be an historian of Christianity. In a work intended 
for a man like Theophilus, who was still outside the 
Church, this would have been particularly unwise, and 
calculated to defeat the very end for which the work was 
intended. There are occasions when Luke does not con- 
ceal the fact that good Christians could differ with Paul 
(Acts xv. 37-39), and reserves his own judgment as to 
who was the more to blame. But with regard to the 
burning question of the age, Luke reports more clearly 
than is done in any of the Pauline letters, how the oppo- 
nents of the apostle, whose Pharasaic origin Luke alone 
records (Acts xv. 5), were severely and clearly rebuked by 
all the authorities of the Church (Acts xv. 10, 19, 24). 
Luke understands better than does the Roman who de- 
clared this to be his purpose (Tacitus, Ann. 1. 1), the 
meaning of tradere sine wra et studio. 

1. (P.41.) Zeller (Die AG nach Inhalt und Ursprung krit. unters., 1854, 
S. 460, 516) declares it to be practically beyond question that “the greeting” 
of this entire work, which consists of two parts, contained “the name of the 


author,” i.e. of the alleged author, “Luke.” But he says nothing further of 
the form and contents of this title. Blass (Acta ap., ed. maj., 1895, p. 2) 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 81 


proposes as the title of Acts, Aoura ᾿Αντιοχέως πρὸς Θεόφιλον λόγος β΄, and 
for the Gospel a similar title only with λόγος a’, But, is it conceivable that 
Luke should have given ἃ work dealing with so great a subject such a 
meaningless title as this, which deserved to be lost? On the other hand, 
if he actually chose a better one, why. has it.not been preserved, like, the 
titles of Matt., Mark,,and Rev.? .In antiquity the title was not such an 
essential and unalterable part of,a book as in later times, especially since 
the invention of printing. The fact that the titulus or index was attached 
to the outside of the closed roll (Birt, Das Antike Buchwesen, S. 66) rendered 
its fate all the more precarious. Our ignorance as to.what, title Josephus 
gaye or meant to give his Bellum jud,is not due to,the loss of the original 
title. Josephus himself quotes the work under different titles: in Ant. i. 
11. 4, xiii. 3. 3,.5..9, 10.6; Vita, 74, as do also the ancient writers and the 
MSS. ‚of Josephus’ work (cf. Niese, ed. maj. vi, pref. § 1 and p. 8). We are 
familiar with the correspondence between Augustine and Jerome concerning 
the title of the Vir. Ill., which was still unsettled ‚ten or twelve years after 
the appearance of the work (Jerome, Ep. Ixvii. 2, exii.'3 ; Vall. i. 403, 738). 
Least of all was a formal title necessary in the case of a writing which was 
designed and given out by the author as a private document, with no expecta- 
tion that it would haye wider circulation, The writing of another; Antiochian, 
which in this respect was similar to Luke’s work, was given inthe tradition 
the meaningless title Θεοφίλου. πρὸς Αὐτόλυκον a’ β΄ γ΄. 

τῷ, (P. 42.) Cf. the present writer’s lecture, ‘ Der Geschiehtschreiber und 
sein, Stoff im NT.,” Z/KW, 1888, S. 581-596, especially S. 690 ἢ, Josephus 
wrote his Antiquities at, the instigation of his fellow historians, one of whom 
was Epaphroditus (Amt. i. proem. 1, mentioned in the third person), to 
whom the completed work is dedicated in the closing words of the Appendix 
(Vita, 76, κράτιστε ἀνδρῶν ἜἜ Ππαφρόδιπε), as are also the two books, c, Apion, 
i. 1, ii, 1. At the close of the latter work, ii. 41, the writing is declared to be 
intended also for those who, like Epaphroditus, desire to ascertain; the truth 
concerning Judaism: Cf, the dedications and prefaces of Irenaeus, especially 
i, pref, ὃ 2-3, iii, pref. § 1; Melito in Eus. H. E. iv. 26. 13 ; Artemidorus, 
Interpretation of dreams [᾿Ονειροκριτικά], iv., with reference to the hooks i.-iii., 
dedicated to a certain Cassius Maximus who is called κράτιστος. 

3. (P..42.) Κράτιστος is used as a title of the governor of Palestine (Acts 
xxiii, 26, xxiy. 3, xxvi, 25), of the proconsuls of the large proyinces (C.J. Gr. 
Nos. 1072, 1073 ; Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus, Inscr. of the Odeum, Nos, 3, 4; 
Dioscorides, Mat. Med. i. prowem, ed. Sprengel, p. 4) and other high officials 
(Berl, ägypt. Urk,, Bd. i. 373, ii. 373 in the index under δικαιοδότης, διοικητής, 
ἔπαρχος, ἐπιστράτηγος ἐπίτροπος, and above, p. 6, n. 5); but it is also used 
to designate other men of distinction (οἵ. τ. 2), Josephus uses interchange- 
ably, in addressing Epaphroditus, κράτιστε ἀνδρῶν (Vita, 76 ; c, Apion, i. 1), 
τιμιώτατέ μοι, ii. 1 (cf. Ant. xx. 1, 2), and simply "Exadpdéure, ii. 41. In 
Christian literature we find in Zpist. ad Diognetum, κράτιστε Διόγνητε 
addressed to a pagan, according to the older view the teacher. of Marcus 
Aurelius; and in the dialogue of Methodins, de Resurr. 33, 54 (Bonwetsch, 
pp- 122, 166) we have κράτιστε Θεόφιλε addressed to the judge of a debate. 
In addressing one another, the early Christians used either the simple name 
as in 1 Tim. vi. 20; Iren. Lp, ad Florinum in Eus, H. E. v. 20, or employed 

VOL. IIL 6 


82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


distinetively Christian attributives, such as ἀδελφέ (Philem. 20), yvijou 
σύζυγε (Phil. iv. 3) ’Ovnoiuo τῷ ἀδελφῷ (Melito in Eus. H. E. iv. 26. 13), 
ἀγαπητέ (Iren. i. pref. § 2, and in the prefaces of all the books that follow), 
ἀγαπητέ pov ἀδελφὲ Θεόφιλε (Hippol. de Antichr. i.). By the beginning of the 
third century, secular titles, such as κύριε and the like, had come into use also 
among Christians ; Alex. Hieros. in Eus. H. E. vi. 11. 6; pseudo-Petr. ad 
Jac., greeting and eonclusion ; Afric. ad Orig. (Delarue, i. 10), although in 
the ey (p. 12) Origen uses the Christian form of address. 

4. (P. 43.) Since Luke construes κατηχεῖσθαι (Acts xxi. 21, 24) and ἦχος 
(Luke iv. 37) with περί τιύος; there is no reason for conte i. 4 in any 
other way than : τὴν ἀσφάλειαν τῶν λόγων περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης, nor for under- 
standing the verb otherwise than to mean a report, rumour, which one has 
heard ; cf! Philo, Leg. ad Cai. xxx. "The word in itself does not mean formal 
ἜΗΝ ction’ but the hearing or telling of something which the hearer has not 
previously known (ef. Jos. Vita, 65). Thus in Acts xviii. 25 the word does 
not, as in Gal. vi. 6; 1 Cor. xiv. 19 (cf. Rom. ii. 18), mean catechetical in- 
struction, since, at that time, Apollos had not received the baptism of the 
Church, nor had he as yet come into any contact with the organised Church, 
but indicates only the fact that he had become acquainted with Christianity 
in a general way. On the other hand, his introduction by Aquila into the 
knowledge of Christianity as held by the Church, is called an ἀκριβέστερον 
ἐκτίθεσθαι, Acts xviii. 26. The relation which the communication of Luke 
to Theophilus bore to the latter’s previous knowledge is the same. The 
latter use of the word to mean the instruction which had conversion in view, 
and was ‘preparatory to baptism, which is found in 2 Clem. xvii. 1; Acta 
Thecle, xxxix., may have been suggested by passages like Luke i. 4; Acts 
xviii. 25. Eus. Ecloye Proph. (ed. Gaisford, p. 3) construes Luke i. 4 in this 
sense, which is as yet foreign to the N.T. 

5. (P. 44.) Lagarde (Praltertum Hieronymi, 1874, p. 165) felt the state- 
ment of Luke’s reasons for writing in Luke i. 1 to be so awkward that he 
made this the main reason for his hypothesis, that Luke is here imitating 
the preface of the physician Dioscorides (circa, 40 to 70 A.D.) to his work 
περὶ ὕλης ἰατρικῆς, in which he attempts to show that, notwithstanding the 
numerous writers, ancient and modern, on the same subject, his own work 
is not superfluous, because the work of the former was not complete, while 
the latter drew largely from mere hearsay, not from their own experience 
(ed. Sprengel, i. 1f.). It is, of course, possible that Luke had read this 
work by a contemporary and a member of the same profession. But the 
resemblance between the two dedications is slight. Words like αὐτοψία, 
ἀκριβής, and their derivatives are not so distinctive in character as to prove 
familiarity on Luke’s part with Dioscorides in particular. It is, however, 
true that, throughout his entire work, Luke’s language does show the most 
striking resemblance to that of the medical writers from Hippocrates to 
Galen, as has been conclusively shown by Hobart (see n. 28 and § 62, n, 5). 
This is noticeably true in the prologue. Hippocrates and Galen use, like 
Luke, the thoroughly medical word ἐπιχειρεῖν (found in the N.T. only in 
lake i, 1; Acts ix. 29, xix. 13) with γράφειν, and Galen construes it with 
ἀνέλεῖν exactly as in Acts ix. 29 (Hobart, 87, 210). This verb occurs 21 
times in Luke, and elsewhere in the N.T. only thrice (not including the 


THE FIRST 'THREE;GOSPELS AND ACTS $3 


use of the derivative ἀναίρεσις in Acts viii. 1). Hobart (87-90, 229,/250 £.) 
cites from Galen not less than 11 instances of αὐτόπτης γενόμενος, γίνεσθαι, 
γενέσθαι, 2 instances of ἀκριβῶς παρακολουθεῖν, and numerous, instances οἱ 
διήγησις, both from medical essays and historical works. .,One of Galen’s 
dedications (ed. Kiihn, xiv.,210, τοῦτόν cou τὸν. περὶ: τῆς: θηριακῆς Χόγον 
ἀκριβῶς ἐξετάσας ἅπαντα, ἄριστε Πίσων, στουδαίως ἐποίησα), Hobart 
(251) compares to the; prologue of Luke (cf. also Acts ἅ.. 1). For the struc- 
ture of theisentence, cf. Jos. Bell,.i. procem, 1, ἐπειδὴ. «΄. ἀναγράφουσιν. 
προυθέμην eyo... ἀφηγήσασθαι ; ὃ 6 ἐπειδήπερ καὶ ᾿Ιουδαίω» πολλοὶ κτλ.» but 
especially Acts xv. 24 f. ἐπειδὴ ἠκούσαμεν. .. , ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν. Christians of ἃ 
later period very often imitated ‚the Prologue of Luke; 6.9. Athanasius. in 
his 39th Easter Epistle (see Hpist. fest. 39 in the writer’s edition, Grundriss, 
S.. 87. 94f.), toa) certain extent also, Palladius, Hist.’ Lawsiaca/ (Texts and 
Studies), ed. Butler, p. 9. 1, 10; Epiphan. Mon,, ed. Dressel, p. 45, ἴῃ ‘the life 
of Andrea. ' 19 

6, (Pp. 44, 45.) Origen, in Hom. i. im Luc. (Delarue, iii. 933, ef. the Greek 
text GK, ii. 627), followed by Eus, H. E. iii. 24. 15 and Athan. Epist. fest. 39, 
in misinterpreting ἐπεχείρησαν; understands verAnpobopnpevwv.as a stronger 
form of πεπιστευμένων, but neither of them explains adequately the transfer- 
ence of the word from its association with the person of Luke (πεπληροφόρητο 
καὶ οὐδὲν ἐδίσταξε) to the things of which he was convinced. This, moreover, 
cannot be explained. With πιστεύεσθαι, παραδίδοσθαι, ἐπιτρέπεσθαι, and 
similar. words only the reverse transfer, of the passive construction occurs, 
namely, from the thing which is entrusted, delivered, committed, to the person 
to whom something is entrusted, comuiitted, or permitted, who is charged 
with something, ete. (6... Rom. vi. 17; νο]. 1.. 374, n. 8). Even more im- 
possible is the interpretation first advocated by Lessing (ed, Maltzahn, xi, 
2. 135), which he endeavoured to support by the assumption of a Hebraism, 
According to this view, Luke would have called the facts of the gospel history 
“ Things which haye been fulfilled,’ because in them O,T. prophecies were 
fulfilled, instead of saying that the prophecies had heen fulfilled by these 
facts, With reference to this interpretation it may be remarked ; (1) Luke 
does not use Hebraisms in the prologue. (2) When speaking of the fulfil- 
ment of prophecy he uses regularly the usual πληροῦν (i. 20, iv..21, xxiv. 44 ; 
Acts 1. 16, iii. 18, xiii. 27), occasionally τελεῖν (xviii. 31, xxii. 37; Acts xiii, 29), 
once πλησθῆναι (Luke xxi. 29). (3) The thought that the O.T. prophecy is ful- 
filled in the gospel history is not at all fundamental in Luke. (4) Leaving 
out, of account the illogical substitution of the facts fulfilling the prophecies 
for the prophecies being fulfilled, it would be diflieult for any reader. to 
understand the expression standing at the beginning of the book, where as 
yet no mention has been made of prophetie prediction, while to a Gentile 
like Theophilus it would be entirely unintelligible. If it is impossible to 
construe the verb Anpobopeiv with a personal object. (or πληροφορεῖσθαι 
with a personal subject, Rom, iv, 21, xiv. 5; Col. iv.-12; Eccles. viii. 11; 
Berl. äyypt. Urk. No. 665, whence the word Anposopia), the only other con- 
struction possible is πληροφορεῖν with an impersonal object, the same as in 
2 Tim. iv. 5 (=Acts xii; 25, xiv. 26); 2, Tim. iv. 17 (=Ool. i. 25 ; Rom. 
xv. 19); also Herm, Mand, ix. 2. It is to be taken as a rhetorical synonym 
for πληροῦν (Luke vii. 1, “after he had fmished speaking”; Acts xiii, 25, 


84 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


xix. 21; 2 Cor. x. '6; Rev. iii. 2). Luke’ is fond of such formations, ed 
τελεσφορεῖν, Luke viii. 14; τροποφορεῖν, Acts xiii. 18; etpopeiv, Luke xii. 16 
(used only by Luke) ; καρποφορεῖν, Luke viii 15. Used in this connection; 
πληροφορεῖν, like πληροῦν, always means “to carry ‘through to the end,” 
“to bring to an end,” not as’ Wuttig affirms (Das joh. Ev. “und seine 
Abfassungszeit, 1897, S. 60), “to make complete” “in the sense’ of #to 
supplement.” ' Wuttig introduces a manifest change in the setise when he 
substitutes (8, 61) the meaning “to complete by the addition of a supple- 
ment”; for, while the object of πληροῦν or πληροφορεῖν may be the things 
indomiplete without this act or transaction (service, vocation, life, discourse, 
preaching of the gospel, and the like), it can never be thexé things, words, 
acts, ete., which are added to those already existent in order to make them 
complete. Wuttig’s desire in this way to derive the idea that the traditions 
which Luke and.the πολλοί worked over into literary form were ‘added’ as 
a supplement to complete ” the facts which had already been earlier reduced 
to literary form’ in the Fourth Gospel, is impossible of fulfilment; for it 
could never be said of past events which are here spoken of as- the objéct 
of literary work on the part of many, and indirectly of Luke, that they were 
added as a supplement to the already existing Gospel of the eye-witnesses 
or of one eye-witness ; but only of the oral accounts concerning these events 
by the eye-witnesses and’ the written’ records made by their disciples. “But 
Luke says nothing about an existing written Gospel of the eye-witnesses, nor 
of its completion by oral accounts of the same witnesses and ἫΝ the Me pe 
of the πολλοί. 

7. (P. 46.) The adverbial ar’ ἀρχῆς must be taken with the γενόμενοί 
which concludes the characterisation of the Drigsanl witnesses. Τῦ is likewise 
impossible to construe the phrase with αὐτόπται alone and not also with 
ὑπηρέται. : 

8. (P. 48.) There is nothing in the words παραδιδόναι ‘and νὐβαϑόσα 
themselves which determines whether the communication is in oral or written 
form. It is the function of history to transmit faets to posterity (ef. Polyb. 
ii. 35. 5, εἰς μνήμην ἄγειν καὶ παράδοσιν τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις): Concerning the 
historian Jos. remarks (c. Apion, i. 10), δεῖ τὸν ἄλλοις πάράδοσιν πράξεων 
ἀληθινῶν ὑπισχνούμενον αὐτὸν ἐπίστασθαι ταῦτα mpörepov ἀκριβῶς, ἢ παρηκολου- 
θηκότα τοῖς γεγονόσιν ἢ παρὰ τῶν εἰδότων πυνθανόμενον ; cf. Eus. H. E. ii. 
25.2; Dioskor, Mat. Med. in the prefaces to books ii. iii. iv.; in Book v. he 
uses instead ἀποδιδόναι. Hence παραδιδόναι (Acts vi. 14) as well as διδόναι 
(John i. 17, vii. 19) can be used of the giving of the law by Moses, who is 
regarded as the author of the written Law (Luke xx. 28; John v. 45-47; 
Rom. x. 5). To what has been said above (p. 48) in the light of the context 
of the prologue the following remarks may be ‘added : (1) In Jewish usage 
there is a cottrast between the written law and παραδιδόναι, παράδοσις, teach- 
ings and regulations transmitted orally (Matt. xv. 2,3, 6; Mark vii. 3-13; 
Gal. i. 14; Col. ii. 8, 22). Such tradition is “ hkard N (Matt. v. 21; John 
xii, 34). (20 Moreover, where the word is used of apostolie teaching and 
advice, this is Always oral (1 Cor. xi. 2, 28, xv. 3; Rom. vi. 17; 2 These. iii. 6; 
vol. ii, 372f., 384), where it is not expressly added that this is given in 
written form (2 Thess. ii. 15). (3) Quite apart from the dogmatic contrast 
between Holy Scripture and the less thoroughly authenticated tradition, the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS: AND: ACTS 85 


idea suggested by παραδιδόναι is always so entirely that of an oral com- 
munication, that Clement, e.g. in Helog. Proph. 27, could write: οὐκ ἔγραφον 
de οἱ πρεσβύτεροι μή ἀπασχολεῖν βουλόμενοι τὴν διδασκαλικὴν τῆς δότω τες 
φροντίδα τῇ περὶ τὸ γράφειν ἄλλῃ φροντίδι, μηδὲ μὴν κτλ. 

9. (P. 50.) ~The mistaken interpretation of παρηκολουθηκότι πᾶσιν by 
early writers (above, p. 64.); which made Luke ἃ disciple in companionship 
with all the apostles, requires no refutation. Equally impossible is the inter- 
pretation which makes Luke an active witness of all the events which he is 
about to set forth, although: this is linguistically possible, when πράγμασι is 
supplied with the correct addition (cf. Jos. c. Apion, i. 10, see n. 83 or 
what Philo, de Decal. xviii., says about the false witness, that he speaks ὡς 
παρηκόλουθηκὼς ἅπασιν). This would make Luke an eye-witness from the 
beginning, which he emphatically declares not to have been the case. 
Further, παρακολουθεῖν means to pursue and follow. with the critical and 
apprehending intelligence (Hpict. Diss. 1. 5. 5, vi. 12, 18, ix. 4, xxvi. 13 and 
14), also with the purpose of historical investigation and exposition (Polyb. i. 
13. 7, iii. 32.2). This ie the only meaning which suits ἀκριβῶς. By μετὰ 
πάσης ἀκριβείας τοῖς ἡμετέροις γράμμασι παρακολουθεῖν, Josephus, ὁ. Apion, i. 23, 
means an intelligent study of the O.T. Sceriptures.‘ If, when Luke expressed 
his purpose with reference to Theophilus, his plan had included the in- ~ 
vestigations as well as the statement of the results, he would have written 
παρακολουθήσαντι or -cavta ; cf. Acts xv. 25. 

10. (Pp. 53, 54,58.) Of the Fathers, Augustine in particular (Cons. Βουιὰ iv. 
8. 9) claims that the prologue has rateveutie to both of Luke’s books. Among 
the arguments urged against this position the most incomprehensible is that 
Acts would not then begin with another address to Theophilus, which was 
necessary in order to co-ordinate the beginnings of the two books... This is 
practically the position of Overbeck, Introduction to the revision of de 
Wette’s Komm. zur AG, p. xxi anm. (1) Acts i. 1 does not contain a second 
prologue, much less an independent prologue, but simply a reference to the 
first part of the author’s work, which serves to connect the second book with 
the first. (2) It is indeed the rule at the beginning of the successive books of 
a large work to insert a short reference to the dedication of the first book, or 
a new prologue, without the prologue of the first book thereby ceasing to be 
the introduction to the entire work. Examples from the years between 60 
and 200 are Dioscorides, Materia Mediea, libri iv. ;: Jos, ὁ. Apion, i, and 
ii. ; Artemidorus, Interpretation of Dreams [’Oveporpırıra], i.—iii., dedieated. to 
a different person than/are iv.-v. zu Iren. i-v.. Very frequently an address is 
also found at the conclusion of separate books οὐ οὗ theientire work, ‚Diose, v. 
p- 828; Jos. ὦ: Apion, ii. 41; Artemid, i. 82, iii..66, iv..845 Iven. i..31,,3, iv. 
14. 45 cf. also the present writer's “ Studien zu Justin,” Z/KG, viii. 451. (8) 
Luke does not say, Acts i. 1, that he has set forth the, gospel history; ἐν 
ἐτέρῳ (βιβλίῳ, «συγγράμματι, or perhaps λόγῳ) or ἐν ἐτέροις, but he calls the 
Gospel ὁ πρῶτος λόγος, to which Acts is added as ὁ δεύτερος λόγος. ΟἿ, Birt, 
Das antike Buchwesen, 8. 28: “A large work is composed of a number of 
λόγοι." Of course, it is possible that each one of a number of, independent 
writings might be called a λόγος, but such independent writings could not, be 
enumerated and called “the first book” and the “second book.”... Whether or 
not, when he wrote Luke i 1-4, Luke knew that the working out of his plan 


86 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


would require a work of several parts, certainly when he wrote Acts ἧς 1. πε 
was aware that his plan had been only partially carried out, and therefore, at 
this point she added what followed: as a second part οὗ ἃ. larger work, | He 
betrays this same consciousness where he gives as the subject: of the first booky, 
περὶ πάντων ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ποιεῖν re καὶ διδάσκειν. >This a fourth proof 
(4) of the seope of the prologue. On the basis simply of single passages, like 
Acts ix. 4, or in view of the tendency to consider all gospel preaching as the 
“ gospel of Christ and the word of the Lord (vol. 11. 377), it would be wrong to 
interpret this phrase to mean that Jesus was the actual subject of all that the 
Apostles did and suffered and taught. Om the other hand, the use of ἤρξατο 
in Acts is not to be. considered entirely purposeless, especially in this passage 
where Luke is speaking with his further writing. in mind. All. that 
Jesus did and said, as set forth in the Gospel, is only the) beginning. of a 
wider activity (cf. Heb. ii. 3). (This ἤρξατο. stands in. contrast to the memAn- 
ροφοῤῥημένα πράγματα of Luke i. I, which is intended to cover the subject, of 
all Luke’s literary work. In this way the proofs derived from Acts i, 1 con- 
nect themselves naturally with those derived from the preface to the Gospel 
(above, p. 53 f.). 

11. (P. 55.) | Xenophon. in: the Anabasis, like Er in. the Gallic War 
and Matthew in his Gospel, always speaks of himself in the third, person 
(Amab. i. 8.15, ii. 5.40, iii, 1. 4, 10, 47. The only paragraph in which,a 
“we” occurs, vil. 8. 25, is regarded as spurious). , In, the Memerabilia, on, the 
other hand, the author’s “I” occurs from the beginning (i. 1.1, 3. 1,4. 2). 
But.in the account of a dialogue in which he took part, 1. 3, 8-13, he uses. 
Ξενοφῶν. Thucydides uses his name from the outset, employing the personal 
pronoun; so always in speaking of: himself in the capacity of a narrator and 
of the source of his knowledge of the events which he records (i..20, 1, 22.1, 
ii, 48.13, v. 26. 4). But when referring to himself as ἃ general, he uses 
consistently the thirdo person, only indicating the identity οἵ the general 
with the author of the book at the first introduction of the name (iv. 104.4). 
Polybius is familiar with the two forms, but does not maintain the. distine- 
tion strictly. Besides “1” he frequently uses an equivalent “we” (i, 1.1, 8 ἢν, 
ii. 40, 5, iii, 5.8, 48. 12); sometimes he uses “ I” when speaking of himself as 
one of the actors (xxxix. 6); also remarks about his intentional change of 
© Polybius” to “I” or “we” (xxxvii. 1 f.). Inthe preface of the Jewish. War, 
§ 1, Josephus says, “I, Josephus, the son of Matthias, a priest of Jerusalem.” 
And universally, in speaking of himself as an author, he uses “1” or“ we” 
(Bell. v. 4.1, 5. 4, 5.7, vii 11. 5; Anti i. proem.; x. 11. 7, xii. 5.2, xvi, 7.1). 
But in the same work, when speaking of himself as an actor in the history, he 
introduces himself impersonally as “ Josephus,” first in ii. 20. 4, and regülarly 
from that point onward. Ib is only in the autobiography that he employs 
“1” throughout without adding the name. On the other hand, Porphyrius 
in the Vita Plotini writes, cc. iv.-vi., ἐγὼ ἱπόρφυριοι ἐμοῦ Πορφυρίου, mr 
ἤλθον 6 IL. For the imitations of Luke's “we” see nm. 17. 

12. (P. 55.) ‘In’ Acts xvi. 17, according to recension ß also in xwi. 10, 
“we” is found where Paul is expressly excepted |; therefore the “ we) in- 
cludes Silas, who has been with Paul since xv, 40, and Timothy, introduced 
into the narrative in xvi. 1-3. That the unnamed person designated by “1” 
and included in the “we” cannot be identified with Silas or Timothy, who 


THE FIRST THREE, GOSPELS AND, ACTS 87 


are mentioned ,hy name, is self-evident. That it was not Silas is clear from 
the following, combinations: ‘Paul and us” (xvi. 17), “Paul” (xvi. 18), 
“Paul and Silas” (xvi. 19). In both recensions (above, p. 81, π, 9) Timothy 
is excluded by xx. 4-6. He is one of those who on the journey to Troas 
preceded Paul and those associated with him who are included in the 
Swe.” 

13. (P. 56.) Concerning the text of Acts xx. 3 ff., see above, p. 31, n. 9, 
and vol, i. 209f. According to this passage, the companions of Paul’s journey 
mentioned, with the exception of Sopater, who. accompanied him. from 
Corinth, and the writer of the narrative who found him at Philippi, went on 
ahead from Macedonia to Troas before the Passover. But too much is not to 
be inferred from the absence of the “we.” In narratives where Paul alone, 
or Paul and Silas, are represented as actors or sufferers (xvi, 18-40), the “* we” 
is omitted without the absence of the narrator or of Timothy being thereby 
implied. According to xxi. 18, the narrator was,in the party that met James; 
but in what follows there is no occasion to use the “ we” again.; ;, The;same is 
true οἵ xx. 16-38, where the, account concerns only Paul’s decision and a 
transaction between himself and the Ephesian elders. “We” might have 
been used in xx. 36 (ἡμῖν instead of αὐτοῖς), although it is possible, but not 
definitely proved by the recurrence of the * we” in xxi, 1, that part of PaulJ’s 
company—among them the narrator—remained on shipboard while Paul and 
his other companions went on shore. Since the elders accompanied Paul to 
the ship (in a boat), and certainly went on board (xx. 38), those of the com- 
pany who remained on the ship could haye participated in the leave-taking of 
the elders (xxi. 1). Irenaeus’ statement; im iii. 14. 1 (GK, ii. 54, A, 2), accord- 
ing to which Luke accompanied the apostle from Antioch, apparently im- 
mediately after the separation between Paul and Barnabas, is not absolutely 
precluded hy, the absence, of “we” in the very sketchy narrative of xv. 40- 
xvi. 8. But Luke may have followed, Paul from Antioch to Troas as 
Agathopus did Ignatius (Ign. Philadel. xi.; Smyrn. x.; cf. the present, writer's 
work on Ignatius, 263 f.). 

14. (PB, 58.) Quite independently of the question concerning the correct- 
ness of the text in Luke xxiy. 51, and of the harmonistic difficulties suggested 
by a comparison of Luke xxiy. 44-53 and: Acts i, 1-14, it is shown by Acts i. 2 
that the author is conscious of haying already given an account of the ἀνάληψις 
in Luke xxiv. 51. 

(15. (P. 59.) Concerning the ‘title πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων see above, 
p: 3, n. 1., Even in the Coptic and Syriac versions the Greek word: is 
adopted into the text, although in the latter version a Syriac equivalent is 
also used (GK, i. 377 f.; for other variants, ii. 52, A.2). . The use of πρᾶξις in 
& legal sense,as a translation of Actio = “suit, proceedings of ἃ court, synod,” 
ete.,is out of the question, also the use of actum, acta, which when used by the 
Greeks is left untranslated (Just. Apol. 1. 35, 48 ; Acta Theele, xxxviii.), It 
can mean only historical facts as in Polybius (cf. Raphelii Annot. in N.T., ed. 
Hemsterhuis, 1747, ii, 2). The present writer is not familiar with any other 
ancient historical work in the title of which the word is used, The titles of 
the apocryphal πράξεις Παύλου, Πέτρου κτλ. are imitations of the canonical 
Acts (see n. 17). On the other hand, one is easily reminded) of the late 
Hebrew, neya (Mishnah, Meg» ἦν, 8; Chag. ii, 1; also in the title of the 


88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Aramaic Book of Tobit, ed. Neubauer, 1878, pp. 3, 17). Dependence upon 
this usage would argue for the very early date of the title of Acts. 

16. (P. 61.) J ode phitid writes at the beginning of the second and last book 
contra Apion, διὰ μὲν οὖν τοῦ προτέρου βιβλίου κτλ. Philo says in Quod omn. 
prs liber i., βρέ πεῖς of ἃ companion work now lost, ὁ μὲν πρύτερὸς Adyos 
ἦν ἡμῖν, ὦ Θεόδοτε, περὶ τοῦ κτλ. Also Vata Mos. ii. 1, which is correct, since 
as yet a third book was not in view. This is ΜΕΥ ΡῈ (iii. 1, τρίτον δὲ 
προσαποδοτέον). The genuine Euthalius (Zacagni, 410) writes in the same 
way of Luke: δύο βίβλους συνεγράψατο, μίαν μὲν καὶ προτέραν τὴν τοῦ 
εὐαγγελίου, δευτέραν δὲ τάὐτην κτὰ. So Origen regularly in quotations from 
1 Cor., 1 Tim., ete., in Matt: tom. xiv.'22, xv. 27, xvii. 29. The careless use of 
πρῶτος for πρότερος is not once to be fotind in Luke’s writings, where he 
could have been dependent on his sources. Acts xii. 10 “a first watch and ἃ 
second watch” is not a case in point, nor is the adverbial πρῶτον in Luke xiv: 
28, 31. Bunsen’s Anal. Antentc, i. 130f., calls attention to the use of πρῶτόν, 
Acts i. 1, as distinguished from #rporepov. 

17. (P. 61.) The not ungifted author of the Acts of John and the Acts of 
Peter, whom we now know to have been a member of one branch of ‘the 
Valentinian School, introduces himself in the former work by a “we,” as 
Luke does in Acts, making himself a witness of the history of John which he 
fabricates. He also uses occasionally an “I,” and once at least the name 
Leucius Charinus ; ef. the present writer's Acta Jo. Ixviii., Ixx., xevii. ; GK, ii. 
860. In his Acts of Peter the same author clearly imitates and borrows from 
Acts (GK, ii. 854f.). It is not likely that the author meant to identify him- 
self with the Lucius in Acts xiii. 1, still less with Luke. Equally im- 
probable is the conjecture of James (Apocr. Anecd. ii. p. xi), that the author of 
the Muratorian fragment regarded the stories of Leucius as a work of Luke, 
implying by the nse of semote, line 37, that this work was a non-canonical, 
unpublished writing by the author of the canonical Acts: The Oatholic 
author of the Acts of Paul, and, as we now know, of the Acts of Theele, which 
are a part of it, has followed Acts even more closely than has Leucius. The 
much later biographer of the Apostle John, Prochorus, took his name from 
Acts vi. 5, and derived much of his material from this source (Acta Jo. liv.). 

18. (P. 64.) In Luke iv. 44 the reading τῆς Ἰουδαίας is very strongly 
attested both as to age and currency by NBCLQ (fifth century) R (sixth 
century), Ss S*, copt. and a large number of cursives, so that it is not to be 
compared with the τῆς Ἰουδαίας in i. 26, for which there is only one witness 
(x*). Furthermore, thé entire context after iv. 14 suggests no objection to 
Γαλιλαίας, Whereas Ἰουδαίας would necessarily have raised questions, | More- 
over, the variants τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (cf. vii. 3), rots ᾿Τουδαίοις (the Jewish popula- 
tion of Galilee in contrast to numerous persons in this country who were not 
Jews) and αὐτῶν (according to iv. 15), which have only a single MS. in their 
support, prove that there stood here originally a reading which created 
difficulty,’ namely, τῆς "Iovdalas. Unfortunately Mareion’s text has not come 
down to us (GK, ii. 478). But, according to a statement of an anonymous 
Syrian writer, Mareion made his Christ appear first between Jerusalem and 
Jericho (Mus. Brit. Add. 17215, fol. 30; ef. Academy, 1893, October 21); and 
although it has not vet been possible to bring this statement into agreement 
with that of Tertullian (ThLb, 1896, col. 19), it argues in favour of the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 85 


assumption that Marcion, who construcied the beginning of his Gospel in the 
most arbitrary fashion out of Luke ii. 1, iv. 31-35 (or 399), iv. 16-43 (or 
44%), found Ἰουδαίας in this passage. If Luke wrote the word, he certainly did 
not employ it in the narrower sense, implying complete exclusion of Galilee 
(v. 17, xxiv. 8), but in the broader sense according to which it includes 
Galilee, as in i. 5, vi. 17, xxiil.5; Acts x. 37 (ef. vol. i. 186). This is in 
keeping with the context ; for after the mention of Galilee in general (iv. 14) 
and of Nazareth (iv. 16-30), and of the “Galilean city, Capernaum” (iv. 
31-42), in particular, ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν (iv. 43), without any modifying 
words, means all the other cities in Jesus’ sphere of labour, exclusive of those 
already mentioned. Among these not the least important was Jerusalem 
(ii. 38, xiii. 33f.), but all the other Jewish cities of the Holy Land are 
included (cf. Matt. x. 23). It is, therefore, possible that in v. 12 a city in 
South Palestine is meant, as Tatian assumed »—possibly influenced by the 
original text of Luke iv. 44 (Forsch. i. 251 f.; GK, ii. 545), just as in x. 38 
a village near Jerusalem is meant, although it is not expressly said that this 
is the location. 

19. (P. 66.) In ix. 18-x. 42 we seem to have a series of events closely 
connected in time and piace. The temporal connection is directly indicated 
in ix. 28, 37, x. 1, 21, also to some extent in x. 17, and possible in x. 25 by 
καὶ ἰδού. The way is prepared for the journey to Jerusalem, ix. 51, by ix. 22, 
31. Evidently in ix. 57 the same πορεύεσθαι is referred to as in ix. 56. This 
seems also to be the case in x. 1, 38. If it could be assumed that Luke knew 
Cesarea Philippi to be the scene of what is narrated in ix. 18-27 (Mark viii. 
27-38), and that he knew the location of the village referred to in x. 38 
(John xi. 1, 18), and its name, Bethany, we would have here a journey from 
the extreme northern part of Palestine to Jerusalem, and it would be natural 
to assume that the material of the parable in x. 30 ff. was suggested by Jesus’ 
journey through Jericho to Bethany and Jerusalem. But Tuke does not make 
such combinations. He mentions neither Caesarea nor Bethany ; he would 
not have mentioned the fact that the city in ix. 52 was Samaritan if it were 
not necessary for understanding what took place. This is true also of the 
statement that Jerusalem was the goal of His journey, as is shown bya com- 
parison of ix. 51 with ix. 53. There must have been an interval of a con- 
siderable number of days between x. 1-16 and x. 17, and nothing is: said of 
Jesus’ progress. The äveorn, x. 25, seems to presuppose that Jesus was 
surrounded by a crowd of seated listeners (Mark iii. 34), although immediately 
before Jesus is represented as being alone with His disciples (Luke x. 23). 
Throughout the book there is no external connection between events. On 
the other hand, the logical connection is very elear—partieularly between 
ix. 49 f. and ix. 54-56. Everything from ix. 22 onward is designed to show 
how the disciples—even those of them who were most trusted—needed to be 
brought, contrary to their natural inclinations, to the state of mind necessary 

or experiencing the sufferings and death of their Master. The conclusion of 
this train of thought is reached at x. 24, and at this point we have'the 
beginning of a new series of events which likewise are related logically, 
not locally or in respect of time. If in x. 38 we are in the vicinity of 
Jerusalem, the supposed account of the journey to Jerusalem can go no 
farther. In xiii. 1, Jesus is certainly not in Jerusalem, and it is not until 


90 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


xili. 22-35 that we find Him on His way hither, and then He seems to be at.a 
considerable distance away, in the domain of Herod Antipas (xiii. 31-33), 1.6. 
either in Galilee or Perea. An examination of xiii. 33-35 shows that 
Jerusalem is mentioned in xiii. 22, not in order to begin or to continue, the 
account of a journey, but in order to make intelligible a word of Jesus’ spoken, 
ab this particular, time (xiii. 31). In xiv. 1-+xvii. 10 the references to time 
and place are vague, as is also the reference to.a journey in xiv. 25. Again, 
in xvii, 11 the place is mentioned only in order to make clear the passage 
xvii, 12-19. Τῦ is not until xviii. 31, 35, xix. 1,11, 28, 41, 45 that we havea 
continuous development of the course of events. Nevertheless, it, is possible 
that we have here scattered statements concerning a journey to Jerusalem, or, 
as we may say in view of ix. öl, the last journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. 
Since quarters were refused Jesus in a Samaritan city (ix. 52), we may infer 
that the village in ix. 56 was Jewish, and. assume that Jesus gave up his 
intention to. go to Jerusalem through Samaria, taking instead the route 
through Perea (Mark x. 1; Matt. xix. 1; vol. ii. 589, n. 4). With this 

xvii. 11 may be connected. That the er in this passage is not to a 
journey through the midst of Samaria and Galilee is self-evident, because, in 
this case, it would necessarily be a journey from Judea to the northern 
boundary of Galilee, because of the order in which the countries: are men- 
tioned, and because the readings διὰ μέσης or διὰ τῆς, by which this meaning 
is expressed, are practically unsupported, Probably the most original reading 
is μέσον, without a preposition (D, ef. viii. 7, x. 3). This was replaced by 
ἀναμέσον (Ferrar group), which was not a bad conjecture, by διὰ μέσου (AX, 
ete.), which, on. the other hand, was worse, and by διὰ μέσον (NBL), which is 
very bad. Jesus travelled along the border between Samaria and, Galilee 
naturally from west to east with the intention in the neighbourhood of 
Scythopolis of crossing the Jordan into Perea, ‚and thence to journey. to 
Jerusalem. So it happened that in one of the border villages nine Jewish 
and one Samaritan leper met Jesus. Here could have followed what. is 
recorded in xiii, 22-35, if these events occurred in Perea (see above), although 
Luke records them at an earlier point in the narrative. In xviii. 31, 35, 
xix. 11, 28, 41, 45 we follow Jesus through Jericho to the Temple in Jerusalem 
without again being carried back in time or place. 

20, (P. 68.) Of the proper names that are found in Matt. or Mark only 
Archelaus (Matt. ii, 22), Bartimaeus (Mark x. 46), and the names of Jesus’ 
brothers are Jacking in Luke. On the other hand, omitting the genealogy 
and O,T, names, the following are peculiar to Luke; Zacharias and Elisabeth, 
with very explicit, statements about them, i. 5, ef. 36; Augustus and 
Quirinius, ii. 1, 2; Simeon and Anna, with explicit statements regarding 
them, ii. 25, 36 ; Tiberius and Lysanias, iii, 1 ; Annas, iii. 2, Acts iv. 6 (also 
John xviii. 13); Simon the Pharisee, vii. 40; Joanna and Chuza, yiil, 3, ef. 
xxiv. 10; Susanna, viii, 3; Mary and Martha, x. 39 (also John xi.) ; Zaechaus, 
xix, 1; Cleopas, xxiv, 18, A proper name is found even in one of the 
parables (xvi. 20), It will also be observed that in Acts a number of persons 
are mentioned who play only a subordinate role in the narrative, or none at 
all, and who, if we may judge from analogy, would not have been mentioned 
in. Matt. or Mark ; e.g: in iv, 6, v. 1, vi, 5 (altogether seven persons, only two 
of whom are. mentioned again); ix, 10, 11, 33, 36, x. ı1, 32 (Peter’s host) ; 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS: AND) ACTS 91 


xi. 28, ef. xxi. 10, xii. 12, 13 (the maid) ;Ixii. 20, ΧΗ]. 1 (three,, obscure 
persons with very explicit statements about them, still more in, text ß, see 
above, p.28f., n. 6); xiii. 6-8, xvil. 6, xviii, 7, 8, 17, xix. 9, 14, 22, 24, 29, 33, 
xx. 4, 9, xxi. 16, xxiv. 1, 24, xxvil. 1, xxviii, 7, 

21. (P. 69.) In some of the passages of Luke’s narrative, where he calls 
Jesus 6 κύριος, the text is uncertain as regards this particular point. The 
present writer regards the following passages as gennine ;,vii. 13 (not vi. 31) ; 
x. 1, xi. 39, xii, 42, xiii. 15, xvii. 5, 6, xviil. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 31, 61 (twice) ; 
(xxiv. 3?) ; altogether twelve or thirteen times. In John it is found only 
four times (iv. 1, vi. 23, xi. 2, xx. 20). But in the only passage really com- 
parable with it (John iv. 1), possibly ὁ Ἰησοῦς is the correct reading. In 
xx. 20 the author speaks from the point of view of the disciples. In vi..23, 
xi. 2 we have the evangelist’s own words, which have no connection with the 
narrative. This usage is not found in Matt. or Mark, On;Mark-xvi. 19 see 
vol. ii. 476. With reference to the reticence of Luke in the account of the 
Last Supper, cf. the present writer’s essay: Brod und Wein im Abendmahl, 
1892, 5. 14f. 

22. (Ρ..10.) The Israelitish tone is strongly marked in chs. i,-ii. (i. 6, 32f., 
54 f., 68-79, ii. 4, 11, 21-24, 25, 31f.,34,37f,41f.). The man Jesus, however, 
is represented: as loving His people (xiii. 16, xix. 9), and as, therefore, very 
deeply pained both by their sins and misfortune (x. 31 ff, xiii. 34, xvii. 18, 
xix, 41-44, xxiii, 28-31). He acknowledges not only the prophetic and 
doctrinal significance of the O.T. (iv. 4-12, 17-21, x. 25-28, xiii. 28, xvi, 16, 
29-31, xviii. 19f., xx. 37, 41-44, xxii. 37, xxiv. 27, 44-46), but also the 
inviolability of the law (xvi. 17). He Himself was submissive to the law to 
which as a child He was made subject (ii. 21-24), and remained loyal to the 
religious customs (iv. 16, 31, xxii. 7-16) under which He was brought up 
(ii. 41f.).- He made no objection even to the painfully literal fulfilment. of 
the law by the Pharisees, so long as they kept also the fundamental moral 
law (xi. 42, ef. v. 34ff.). In relation to the Sabbath He takes the same liberal- 
conservative attitude asin the other Gospels (vi. 1-11, xiii. 10-17, xiv. 1-6) ; 
see vol. ii. 585 ff. His disciples also live according to the law (xxiii. 56). 
His Church retains its connection with the Temple, and is full of zeal for the 
law (xxiv. 53 ; Acts ἢ. 46, v. 12, 42, xxi. 20). The significance of Israel: is 
not destroyed by the rejection of the Messiah and of the apostolic preaching. 
The times of the Gentiles shall pass away (Luke xxi. 24), The nation which 
it was Jesus’ first mission to redeem (i. 54, 68-79, ii. 34, 38, xxıv. 21; Acts 
ii. 39, iii. 25) shall finally acknowledge and enthrone Him (xiii, 35, xxii, 30; 
Acts iii. 20f.). No man can know, nor is any man privileged to know, the 
time (Acts.i. 6f.). But the fact is certain. 

23. (P. 72.) Cf. E. Curtius, SBAW, 1893, S. 928f.,0n Phil. iv. 8, and 
similar statements of Paul. Cf. also what Herder says (Vom Erlöser der 
Menschen, 1796, S. 218): “He (Luke) might be called the evangelist. of 
Philanthropy, if this word had not been desecrated... Such a Gospel is in 
keeping withrthe character of a man who had made numerous journeys 
among the Greeks and Romans with Paul, and who dedicated his writings 
to'a Theophilus.” 

24. (P. 74.) With regard: to the alleged Ebionitie doctrine of the meri. 
torious, ‘or God-pleasing character of voluntary poverty, see vol. 1. 147f, 


92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


There is no reason why anyone should have been misled, as has ‘repeatédly 
been the case, by Origen’s scholastic play on words (Princ. ivi 225 6. Celsy ii, 
1; ef. Eus. H. E. iii. 27. 6) into the very remarkaple opinion that the Ebionites: 
were so called because of the poverty of their thought, or that they‘ called 
themselves by this name because of their extreme poverty (Epiph. Her. 
xxx. 17). auaal, 

25. (P. 77.) No other Gospel emphasises so strongly the joy, the 
pleasure, the enthusiastic admiration occasioned by Jesus: ii.'10, 20, 47, 52, 
iv. 22, v. 26, vil. 16, 35, ix. 48, xi, 27, ΧΙ 17, xviie 15; xviii. (43, xix. 
37 ff., 48, xxi. 38, xxiii. 8, xxiv. 52, ef. i. 14, 46 ff., 68, ii. 29 ff, x. 17 ΕἾ, xv. 
7, 10, 23, 32. Only a few of these passages have parallels in the other 
Gospels. ] 

26. (P. 77.) Instead of ζηλωτής, Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13, Matt. x. 4, and 
Mark iii. 18, we find the Hebrew term.‘ Josephus speaks of them asa party 
in the account which he gives of their origin, but mentions no name (Bell. 
ii. 8. 1; Ant. xviii. 1. 1 and 6); elsewhere he calls them (Arai (Bell. iv. 5! 
1,6. 1). For the ἡ ἀπογραφή and ἀπογράφεσθαι of Luke, Jos. uses various 
terms : ἀποτιμᾶν, ἀποτιμᾶσθαι, ἀποδίδοσθαι, ai ἀποτιμήσεις, also ai ἀπογρᾶφαί, 
Ant. xvii. 13. 5, xviii. 1. 1, 2.1, Bell. vii. 8. 1, but never ἡ ἀπογραφή. 

27. (P. 78.) The number 70 or (according to BD, Tatian, ancient Syriac 
and Latin versions, see Forsch. i. 148) 72 disciples in x/ 1 has no more 
connection with the 70 Gentile nations and their languages and angels, as 
the Jews recorded them (Schiirer, ii. 343, iii. 198 [Eng. trans. 11. 1. 344, 
iii. 64]), than it does with the 70 members of the Sanhedrin or the 70 trans- 
lators of the O.T. or any other number 70. The 70 were not sent to the 
Gentiles, and there is nothing to indicate that Luke meant it to be taken in 
this symbolical sense. Luke and Theophilus were not Jews, and could not 
have expressed or understood such a thought simply by the’ use of the 
number 70. On the other hand, the contrast between ihe 70 and the 12 
(Luke ix. 1) is clearly expressed, and, as shown above (p. 78), the way) was 
prepared by ix. 49f., 60 (cf. also viii. 39), for the transfer of the preaching 
office to those who were not apostles. According to an ancient. tradition, 
accepted as true by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii, 25), and probably 
derived from the Gospel of Philip, it was Philip who was addressed, in Luke 
ix, 60; and since the person here spoken to must be one who was not an 
apostle, the evangelist Philip must be meant (cf. Forsch. vi. 26; 168 f.).: 

98, (P. 79.) Concerning the linguistic unity of Luke's work, cf. ARLLER, 
S. 415-425, 442-446, 498 ff. ; LeKeBuscn, Komposition und Entstehung der 
AG, 1854, S. 37-81; Knosrermann, Vind, Lucane seu de itinerarti in libro 
actorum asservati auctore, 1866, pp. 46-63 ; Howart, The Medical Language of 
St. Luke, a proof from internal evidence that the Gospel according to St. 
Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same person, and that 
the writer was’a medical man, Dublin, 1882; Voaun, Zur Characteristik. des 
Lucas nich Sprache und Stil, eine philologische Laienstudie, 2te Aufl, 1899. 
For details see above, pp. 28 f., nn. 6, 75 37 f., n. 18; 82 ἔν, nn. 4-6 ; below, 
§ 61, nn. 10-12, 26; § 62, ἡ. 5. 

29. (P. 79.) M. Scunroxenpuraer (Uber den Zweck der AG, 1841) made 
the first important investigation in the direction indicated/by the title, He 
takes no account of the prologue, which he thinks belongs only to the Gospel, 


THE FIRST THREE | GOSPELS AND ACTS 93 


nor of the dedication to Theophilus, but argues from Acts xviii.-xxviii, that 
the purpose of the entire second book, which he thinks was written in Rome 
by Luke the disciple of Paul after the death of the apostle and before the fall 
of Jerusalem, is to give an apologetic portrayal of the apostolic labours of 
Paul in answer to all the accusations and misinterpretations of the Judaisers 
which come to light in the Pauline letters;| The principal means by which 
this is accomplished is the constant contrast between Paul and Peter. He 
defends the consistency of this irenic tendency of Luke with his trustworthi- 
ness and familiarity with the facts against the criticism, which was even then 
being made by Schrader and Baur, that in many instances the history was 
deliberately falsified by Luke. Starting with the hypothesis of Schnecken- 
burger, who had only half worked it out, but at the same time developing 
principles that; he himself had already laid down, Baur (Paulus?, i. 7-16; 
Christentum und Kirche der 3 ersten Jahrh.? S. 50, 125 ff., and in many other 
passages) showed that Acts was a partisan work, dating from about the middle 
ofthe second century. it is attributed with some hesitancy to Luke; the 
disciple of Paul, who, as a representative of the modified Paulinism of his 
time, recasts in this work the ‘entire history of the Apostolic Church in thé 
most arbitrary manner, in order to bring about an adjustment with Jewish 
Christianity, which it is alleged was still powerful at that time, and in order 
to effect a catholic union. This view was so thoroughly worked out by E, 
ZELLER (Die AG nach Inhalt und Ursprung krit. unters. 1854), who dated the 
work between 110 and 130 (8. 466-481), that Baur felt that this could. be 
called simply “the, critical view,” in contrast to which any view which 
differed from it essentially was “uncritical.” A similar point of view is 
represented by Overbeck (in the introduction of his revision of de Wette’s 
Komm. zur) AG, 1870). However, according to Overbeck, Luke’s purpose 
was not conciliatory in the Tiibingen sense, 7.6: in the sense that it is 
designed primarily for Jewish Christians, but it is apologetic from the point 
of view of Gentile Christianity, which had become estranged from 'genuine 
Paulinism, and which was practically dominant in the Church in, Trajan’s 
time (98-117). Besides the emphasis laid upon a “national anti-Jndaism,” 
Overbeck calls special attention to a “secondary, political: aim,” namely, to 
show that Christianity is in harmony with the Roman government. From 
this it follows that Acts “could not well have been directed to any one save 
to Gentiles outside the Church” (p. xxxiii). More recently J. Weiss 
(Über die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der AG, 1897), in opposition 
to one-sided efforts to determine the sources of Acts, and with full recognition 
of Overbeck’s services, has made an investigation with the following result : 
“ Acts is an apology for Christianity to the Gentiles against the charges of the 
Jews; it shows how Judaism was supplanted by Christianity in its world 
mission.” In.order to obtain what is correct in the views of Overbeck and 
Weiss, namely, the fact that Acts was designed for Gentile readers, it is not 
necessary to have recourse to highly questionable interpretations and forced 
inferences. It follows as a matter of course from the prologue and the 
dedication of the work to the Gentile, Theophilus (above, pp. 61-80). Of 
works in opposition to the “ tendenz criticism” special mention may be made 
of those by E. Lexesuscu (Komposition und Entstehung der AG, 1854); A. 
KLOSTERMANN (Vindicie Lucane, 1866); C. Scumm (Die AG unter dem 


94 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Hauptgesichtspunkt rer Glaubwürdigkeit, i, 1882, unfinished). | Still wort} 
reading is HormanN’s unpretending essay, “ Das Geschichtswerk, des Tuugag/ 
Fernie hte Aufs., 1878, S. 153-176). [ioei fond 


τ feds 


§ 61. THE SOURCES USED BY LUKE: » > doid 


From the language of the dedication we ‚might. infin 
hat Luke derived all the material which he used, eithe 
from his own recollection of what he had experienced,.0 
from the oral reports of older Christians, especially oft 
disciples. of Jesus.; But it is hardly probable that on 
who was conscious that. his task was that. of an investigato 
and an historian, as Luke shows himself to have been 
would have confined himself to these sources, and hay 

made no use whatever of the: large body. οἵ. literatux 
dealing with his subject, of which ‘he himself speaks 
We should expect, further, that he would, ‚have user 
documents where it was possible for him to obtain them. 
and since it was part of his purpose to connect the histor 
of Christianity with the history of the outside world, i 
would not be surprising if he consulted some» οὗ t 
accounts of contemporary history, : 

Taking up this last point, it has been thought ag 
to prove that Luke took numerous facts from the work: 
of Joseruus, also that he modelled his style after thi 
writer (n. 1) The latter is @ priori improbable. . 
Greek who could write such a periodic sentence as Luk 
i 1-4 would not have copied a Jew, who, by his ow: 
confession, talked more or less of a jargon: all his. life 
and who was not able to publish his Greek writing 
without the help of men. who were masters. of. thi 
language (n. 2). Dependence of Luke upon Josephus i 
also improbable from chronological reasons. The wor 
on the Jewish War appeared in its Greek form betweer 
the years 75 and 79 (Schürer, i 79 | Enge. trans. 1. 831) 
the Antiguitiés, in 93 or 94; the Vira, either at thi 
same time as anvappendix tothe Amsiquataas, or, according 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 95 


to others, not until after 100; and the books contra 
Apion, later than 94. Since the question here does not 
in any way concern the use of the Jewish War alone, 
but quite as much, and even more, the use of the later 
works of Josephus, Luke's writings, if dependent ‘upon 
Josephus; would have to be dated at the very earliest 
in the year 100. Against this, however, is, first, the 
unanimous tradition which, up to the present time, has- 
not been’ successfully. controverted, that the author of 
the Gospel and Acts’ was Luke, the friend of Paul, and 
the éye-witness in the “we” passages of Acts. If he 
was’a member of the Antiochian Church in the year 40, 
though he may have been not more than twenty years 
of age at the time, it is very improbable that he should 
have elaborated as late as the year 100 this great work, 
which certainly does not give the impression of being 
the éffort of an aged man, using the recent writings of 
his younger contemporary, Josephus (born 37 A.D.). It 
is also unlikely that he would have entertained at this 
late date the purpose of further continuing the work 
(above, p. 86 8.). In the second place, quite aside from 
the confirmation which the tradition regarding the author 
receives from Luke’s writings themselves, strong proof is 
to be found in them that they could not well have been 
written later than 80 (§ 62). This makes the use even 
of the earliest writings of Josephus improbable, while 
employment of his later works is entirely out of the 
question ; and, if striking resemblances should be found 
to exist between the two writings, it must have been 
Josephus who used Luke’s work, which appeared some ten 
or twenty years before the publication of the Antiquities, 
and not the reverse. 

Dependence of the Christian upon the Jewish historian 
would most naturally betray itself in statements regarding 
political coriditions. But the very opposite is what we 
actually find. Both Luke (ii, 1-3; Acts v. 37) and 


96 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Josephus know of a “taxing” earried, out, in Palestine 
at the, beginning of our era, which was the, first ‚and, 
for ἃ long time, the only one of 105. kind, and ‚to, which 
was due the,bloody insurrection of Judas the Galilean 
(n. 3). But here the resemblance ends. Luke refers ‚the 
taxing to,a decree of Augustus, in which, it was) com- 
manded that the whole world—naturally the world under © 
the Roman dominion—should be taxed. In the Jewish 
War and the passages of the Antiquities where the 
matter ‚is treated; in, detail, Josephus speaks only of an 
order which covered. the territory οὗ Archelaus, which 
did not include even the whole of Palestine (Ant. xviii 
1.1; 2.15,Bell. {γιὶς 8.1; cf; 1.) 8.1, 17.8). Tn, one 
passage only, where the matter is mentioned incidentally 
(Ant. xvii. 13. 5), 10 is made to cover Syria. This, how- 
ever, is connected with an idea which first, appears in the 
Antiquities. In, the Jewish, War, Quirinius nowhere 
appears as the governor of Syria, but is a high official, 
who, after the deposition of Archelaus, was sent thither 
with the extraordinary commission to organise the 
territory of, Archelaus, \ which ‚was. now ‘taken, directly ὦ 
under Roman econtrol.. On the other hand, in. the © 
passages where Quirinius is mentioned in the Antiquities, © 
the very inaccurate; or rather erroneous, assertion 18 
twice made, that the territory, of Archelaus was at this . 
time added to the province of Syria (xvii, 13. 5, xyiii, 1. 1), Ὁ 
But neither in this passage nor anywhere else does Josephus — 
call Quirinius the governor of Syria. The; reader of the | 
Jewish War would never guess that he had at any time | 
occupied this position, nor could it be inferred from, the 
unclear hints of the Antiquities, We have, therefore, a 
second statement of Luke's which is independent, of ! 
Josephus, namely, that, the taxing took place while 
Quirinius was governor of Syria. On this, point the 
Antiochian, Luke, is better informed than Josephus, since, 
as a matter of fact, P. Sulpicius  Quirinius,, who was 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 97 


consul in the year 12 B.0., was governor of Syria from 
autumn of the year 4 (B.0.) to the year 1 (8.0.}... Accord- 
ing to an inscription, the genuimeness of which was long 
questioned, but which was proved to be correct by a 
discovery of the year 1880, a certain @. Aimilius Secundus, 
by order of the royal governor of Syria, Quirinius, had a 
census taken in the Syrian city, Apamea (n. 4). 

A third point in’ which Luke proves himself to tie 
independent of Josephus, and where he shows a know- 
ledge of the facts which is certainly closer to, the historical 
truth than Josephus’, is the chronology.’ The latter 
writer, whose information for the four decades between 
the death of Herod (4 B.c.) and his own birth (37 a.p.) is 
extremely meagre (Schürer, 1. 84 f. [Eng. trans. 1. i. 88 £.]), 
dates both the taxing by Quirinius and the insurrection 
of Judas in the year after the deposition of Archelaus 
(6-7 Aa.D.). But it is inconceivable that Judas, who was 
a native of Gamala, in Gaulanitis, and who was called 
the ı“ Galilean ”—not beeause Galilee was his home, but 
because it was the scene of the insurrection which he led 
(Acts v. 37; Jos. Bell. i. 8. 1, 17. 8, Ant. xvii. 1. 6)— 
should have raised the banner of revolt in a year when 
there was no political change of any kind in Galilee. 
That Josephus is in error is very clear from the fact that, 
in addition to this insurrection, he tells of still another 
revolt led by one Judas in Galilee, which took place in 
the year of Herod’s death (4 B.c., Bell. ii. 4. 1; Ant. 
xvi. 10. 5), and which is really identical with the one 
already mentioned. His error is further shown by the 
fact that, without any explanation, he repeats again in 
the year 6-7 (A.D.) the) short high-priesthood: of Joazar, 
who sought to quiet this disturbance, and who held office 
im the year 4 8.0. (ef. on the one hand, Ant. xvii 6. 4, 
9.1, 13. 15 Bell. ii. 1. 2; on the other, Ant. xviii. 1. 1, 
2.1). This tendency of Josephus to repeat events is 


quite surpassed by the modern historians, who, in order 
VOL. II. 7 


98 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to'save Josephus from inaccuracy, assume still a second 
Syrian governorship of Quirinius covering the year 6-7, 
in addition to the historically attested governorship οὗ 
the year (eirca 4-1 B.c.); although as a matter of fact 
Josephus does not anywhere say that Quirinius was ever 
governor of Syria. The insurrection of Judas, the rise 
of the party of the Zealots (Luke vi. 15 ; Acts i. 18, v. 37), 
the deposition of the high priest Joazar, who had been 
installed in office a few months before, and the taxing 
under the direction of Quirinius, took place in the first 
year after Herod’s death (March 4-3 B.¢.). Josephus, 
who places these events in the year 6-7 a.D., although he 
reproduces them in part in the year 4-3 B.c., has made a 
mistake οἵ ἃ decade, and, in other respects as well, displays 
a serious lack of critical judgment. Even if Luke was 
mistaken, it is certain that he does not copy his errors 
from Josephus, and his chronology is independent of the 
Jewish writer. The reader, who knows from Luke 1.'86 
that Jesus’ birth took place a few months after that of 
the Baptist, cannot’ very well assume that the events 
recorded in Luke ii. 1-39 occurred later*than the reign 
of Herod 1, mentioned in 1.. 5 (n. 5), especially sinee 
no conflicting dates: are mentioned in ii. 1; and it is 
not ‘until iii, 1 that we find a new and thoroughly detailed 
chronological notice. This unavoidable impression is fully 
confirmed by Matt. ii, 1-22, from which we know that, 
according to. the tradition of Palestinian Christians im 
60-70, Jesus was born shortly before the death of Herod 1. 
When, therefore, Luke makes the birth of Jesus contem- 
poraneous with the taxing which took place during the 
Syrian governorship of Quirinius (ii. 2), it does not mean 
that, im unconscious contradiction to the Christian tradi- 
tion, he places the birth of Jesus shortly after, instead of 
shortly before, the death of Herod, but that he dates the 
governorship of Quirinius, together with the taxing which 
took place under‘ his direction and the insurrection of 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 96 


=, 


Judas, shortly before, instead of shortly after, Herod’s 
death, thus making a mistake of at least several months— 
possibly of from one to two years, For it is certain, not 
only from Josephus, but also from coins, that the governor 
of Syria, during the last year of Herod’s reign and after 
his death—from the autumn of 6 B.c. at the latest until 
the summer of 4 B.0.—was Varus, not Quirinius (Schürer, 
i. 322 £. [Eng. trans. 1.1. 851). ‘In view of the result of 
the discussion of this one example, which at the same 
time gives us an insight into the characteristics of the 
two historians, detailed discussion of the other accounts 
of Luke and Josephus which have been compared may be 
omitted. There is not a single historical notice of Luke, 
whether correct, inaccurate, or questionable, which can be 
explained on the supposition that he had read Josephus. 
On the other hand, in many instances he shows ‘an 
acquaintance with contemporary events and with more 
or less distinguished persons outside the Church which 
can be shown to be quite independent of Josephus. The 
slaughter of the Galileans in the temple as they were 
offering sacrifices (Luke xiii. 1); the estrangement between 
Pilate and Antipas, and their reconciliation (Luke xxii. 12); 
the names of the distinguished priests, Alexander and 
(if the correct reading be not Jonathan, cf. Jos. Ant. 
xviii, 4.:3) John (Acts iv. 6); the imposing figure of 
Gamaliel (Acts v. 34, xxi. 3), mentioned by Josephus 
only as the father of the younser Gamaliel (Bell. iv. 3. 9; 
Vita, 38, 60); the Samaritan Simon (Acts viii.'9); the 
officers of Herod, Chuza (Luke vii. 3) and Blastus (Acts 
xii. 20, ef. also xiii. 1); the chiliarch, Claudius Lysias 
(Acts xxiii. 26); the centurions, Cornelius and Julius 
(Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1); and the orator, Tertullus (xxiv. 1) 
—all these statements and names could not have been 
taken by Luke from Joseplius.” In the instances where 
their accounts ‘cover the same eround, we find traces of 
independent and variant traditions (n. 6). Tn the ‘ease 


100 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of the Antiquities and Vita, which, according to ali 
indications, are considerably later than Luke’s work, it 
is more natural to suppose that Josephus is dependent 
upon Luke than that the reverse relation holds; and it 
does not seem to the present writer entirely creditable to 
those who feel that the agreements between Josephus and 
Luke call for explanation, that they have not, seriously 
considered this possibility. This is not the place in which 
to discuss the question at length (n. 7). [Ὁ is sufficient 
to have shown that Luke could not have followed Josephus 
as an authority in historical matters, nor have copied the 
Greek style of this writer. 

At first glance, the genealogy (Luke ii. 23-38), the 
communication of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem 
(Acts xv. 23-29), and the letter of Lysias (xxiii. 26-30) 
give the impression of being reproduced from orginal 
documents. If the second of these was a communication 
actually sent from Jerusalem, delivered in Antioch with 
the solemnity which Luke describes, and communicated 
also to other Churches (xvi. 4), it is impossible, to. suppose 
that so important a document was immediately lost. If 
Luke was a member of the Antiochian Church at the time 
when the communication was delivered there (above, 
p. 2), he probably heard it read, but this is no evidence 
at all against the possibility of his having had a copy of 
it when he wrote his history. The style is not that of 
Luke, and the secular tone of the introductory and 
coucluding formule is against the assumption that, the 
author composed the document, either from his imagina- 
tion, or from indistinet recollections (n. 8. This could 
more easily have been the case with the letter in xxiii. 
26-30, but it cannot be proved. In the proceedings 
before Felix (xxiv. 1-23) and Festus (xxv. 1-12) the 
report of Lysias would almost, certainly have been read, 
and, if written in Latin, translated into Greek. The 
situation in which Paul found himself in Czsarea 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS [ΟῚ 


(xxiv. 23), and the friendly relations which always 
existed between him and the military officers to whose 
charge he was committed (xxvii. 3, xxvii. 16, 808; 
Phil. i. 13), make it quite conceivable that he and his 
friends may have secured a copy of this report, which, 
though brief, was of fundamental importance in his trial. 
Against the assumption that the language of the report 
is entirely Luke’s, which, according to methods of historical 
composition in antiquity, might very well be possible, is, 
first of all, the fact that, although there is no stylistic 
necessity for it, Luke makes the chiliarch, who has not 
been mentioned by name up to this time (xxi. 31- 
xxiii. 22), and who afterwards is called simply Lysias 
(xxiv. 7, recension 8; xxiv. 22), write his name Claudius 
Lysias. | In the second place, Lysias’ report shows marked 
variations from the facts as previously recorded. If the 
author of Acts was inventing this report, only partially 
true, he would have directed special attention to the 
effort of the chiliarch to obscure the law in the case, and 
to conceal his own mistake. The connection in which the 
genealogy is recorded, and its conclusion (ii. 23-38), 
indicate that it is an expression of Luke’s own peculiar 
thought (above, p. 70f.); but this does not explain its 
independetice not only of Matt. 1, but also of the O.T., 
in so far as the latter could be used for a source. Since it 
was impossible for Luke himself personally to investigate 
the contents of vv. 24-31, and inasmuch as the tradition 
here presupposed could have been transmitted only in 
written form, he must have made use of an older record. 
We know that the relatives of Jesus and their descendants 
interested themselves in these matters (n. 9), 

Since Luke was familiar with a number of attempts 
to write the history of Christianity, and since his char- 
acterisation of these efforts perfectly suits Mark’s Gospel 
(above, p. 49), it is natural to suppose that he used! this 
writing. He was acquainted with Mark and knew his 


ı02 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


relation to Peter, who was a prominent eye-witness of the 
gospel events. He was in Rome in company with Mark 
about the year 62 (Col. iv. 10, 14), and possibly again in 
66 (2 Tim. iv. 11), consequently at the time when Mark 
wrote his Gospel. A comparison of the two Gospels gives 
for the various portions a greatly varying picture. With 
reference to the order of single narratives, not much is‘to 
be coneluded from Mark 1. 1-13 = Luke iii. 1--ἰν. 13, since 
the order of these events—the preaching and baptism’ of 
John, the baptism and temptation of Jesus—is determined 
by their very nature. Moreover, Mark’s account here is 
nothing more than a brief sketch. Leaving these passages 
out of account, therefore, the first notable parallel is that 
between Luke iv. 31-vi. 19 and Mark i: 21-11. 19 ; Luke 
vill. 4-|χ. 17 = Mark iv. 1-vi 44 is a second; Luke ix. 
18-50 = Markowiil. 27+ix. 40 is a third; Luke xviii) 15-43 
= Mark x. 13—52)a° fourth ; and Luke xix: 29—xxiv. 8 = 
Mark xi. 1—-xvi. 8 a fifth. Inthe case of these five series 
of ‘passages the parallelism is by no means complete. 
Luke interrupts the! first series with a narrative, v. 1-11, 
only remotely similar to Mark i. 16-20. Im’ the second 
series Luke inserts.a passage, vill. 19-21, which is found 
in Mark aii. 31-35, while Mark. iv.) 26-29, 30-32, ‘and 
vi. .1-6 arevomitted. There is nothing at all in Luke 
corresponding to the first passage, the second is found 
in Luke’ ‘xiii! 18-19, closely connected with a narrative 
peculiar to him, while in place of the third we find a 
much fuller account in the early part of Luke’s Gospel, 
iv. 16-30. In the fourth series, between xviil. 34 and 35, 
Luke omits the narrative found in Mark x. 35-45; @iving 
only a meagre substitute for it in Luke xxii, 24-27. In 
the fifth series, the cursing of the fig-tree, Mark xi. 12-14, 
20-25, the question about the greatest of the command- 
ments, Mark xii. 28-34, and the anointing in Bethany, 
Mark xiv.»3-9, are not found in Luke. .For the last, 
Luke vii. 36450 is substituted; for the second, Luke’ x. 


THE FIRST 'THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 103 


25-37 ; while in'a measure Luke xiii. 6-9 takes the place 
of the first (cf. § 63); and for a single saying in this same 
passage, Mark xi. 23 (Matt. xxi. 21, xvii. 20), we find a 
similar saying in Luke xvii. 6. Since these equivalents 
for such material as Mark retains and Luke omits are 
all peculiar to Luke, it is clear that, although Luke 
consciously omitted some things found in Mark, he en- 
deavoured to find substitutes for the omissions. On the 
other hand, in the last series of parallels, Luke substitutes 
a number of brief accounts which are peculiar to himself 
(xix. 41-44 [xxi. 20-24], xxii. 35+38, xxiii. 6-12, 39-43). 
In all five series, however, Mark’s order is, without excep- 
tion, retained throughout. This of itself is sufficient to 
render necessary some explanation of the dependence of 
one of the Gospels upon the other—particularly since, in 
many instances, the order followed is not a reproduction 
of the real succession of events. This lack of ehrono- 
logical order does not escape the attention of the careful 
reader of Mark (vol. ii. 499 f.), and Luke betrays a clear 
consciousness of it. There is evidence that Luke made an 
effort to fix more definitely the time of events, as, e.g., 
when he gives a more definite datt to a Sabbath which 
Mark leaves undetermined—following the Jewish calendar 
(Luke vi. 1)—and distinguishes it expressly from another 
Sabbath (vi. 6), whereas the ordinary reader might infer 
from Mark iii. 1 (ef. Matt. xii. 9) that the transactions 
which Luke assigns to two different Sabbaths happened 
on the same day; cf. also other occasional instances where 
he gives’ the time more accurately (e.g. vi. 1, 6, vii. 11). 
In many‘ instances, however, he either did not do this at 
all or did it ‘ineffectively, as is proved by the use of 
formule such as are found in v. 12, 17, viii. 4, 22, ix, 18, 
xx. 1. These occur in the sections parallel to Mark, as 
well as in other parts of Luke’s Gospel (v. 1, x. 38, xi. 1, 
29, xiii. 10, xiv. 1; ef. above, p. 66). When, however, 
notwithstanding this formal disavowal of all attempt tc 


104 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


give an exact chronology where this is not attainable, he 
nevertheless follows in these five series exactly the same 
order as Mark, the coincidence can be explained as due 
neither to a stereotyped oral tradition, nor to accident. 
But if one of these Gospels is dependent upon the 
other, Mark must be considered the earlier of the two. 
Leaving out of account the tradition, according to, which 
Mark wrote before Luke (vol. ii. 392 ff.), and the proofs 
which we have from Luke’s own work that it was written 
later than 70 (8 62), this conclusion follows from a com- 
parison of the details of the parallels. Combinations’ of 
words, such as. κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας eis) ἄφεσιν 
ἁμαρτιῶν, Which are found in Mark 1. .4 following: καθὼς 
γέγραπται. ἐν τῷ ‘Hoaia τῷ προφήτῃ, in Luke iii. 8 before 
ὡς γέγραπται ἐν βίβλῳ λόγων Ἡσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου, do not 
originate independently, of each other. Luke appears 
here, however, as the stylist smoothing down the awk- 
ward expressions which Mark. uses in making his: citations 
(n. 10). In. fact this 'is everywhere the case. It is not 
to be. assumed ‚that, Luke undertook to remove all the 
Hebraisms which, ‚he found in’ the accounts he used, and 
to produce an historiwal work uniform in style, modelled 
after the language of Polybius or the periods of bis own 
preface. As regards style, Luke’s work is as varied as it 
could well be, The narratives in. Luke i—ii.) and the 
psalm-like discourses of, these chapters read like. sections 
out of the O.T.; while the style and. language of the 
discourses of Paul, on. the Areopagus).( Acts) xvil. 22-31) 
and before the noble lords, and ladies in Caesarea (xxiv! 
10-21, xxvi. 2-23) are, more like, those of the, orator 
Tertullus (xxiv. 2-8), and of the. procurator Festus (xxv. 
14-21), than the discourses in| Acts ux. Luke usesia 
few Hebraisms, not only in the, narratives, probably, or 
certainly, taken from ‚older | sources, but, in. connective 
phrases and summaries, which are) of his ;own) composi- 
tion (n. 11).;, He shows a, feeling for the, special style 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS τος 


corresponding to the sacred character of his theme, and 
does not allow the spirit in which the eye-witnesses 
and ministers of the word were wont to speak from the 
beginning to be replaced) by a secular tone. He does, 
nevertheless, soften somewhat the Semitic colouring, set- 
ting aside expressions unnecessarily harsh, and striving 
to make the narrative more lucid. Not only are the most 
marked Hebraisms and the Aramaic words of Mark re- 
moved, but also such characteristic expressions as Mark’s 
εὐθύς (n. 12), also such peculiarities as are due to Mark’s 
personal relations and the fact that his Gospel was de- 
signed for Roman readers (Mark xu. 42, xiv. 17, 51 f,, 
KV. 21} see vol. 11.1487’f. ;cf. Luke xxi. 2, xxi 14, 53, 
xxiii. 26), and. imperfections in the presentation due to 
‘Mark’s very exaet reproduction of the narratives of Peter 
(Mark i. 29= Luke iv. 38; Mark ii. 26= Luke vi. 14; 
Mark ix. 14 f= Luke ix. 37£. ; Mark xii. 1-3 = Luke 
xxi. 5). He avoids also other redundancies and awk- 
wardnesses which occur in Mark (e.g. Mark i. 32 = Luke 
iv. 40), and in countless instances. selects words which 
are more pleasing or more expressive (n. 13). . Since some 
of these words and phrases are hapaxlegomena in the 
N.T., and inasmuch as others of them are used in the 
same way elsewhere in Luke’s work, and only in Luke's 
work; they are to be considered as peculiarities of his 
style, and are not to be explained as derived from one 
of the sources which Luke and Mark may have used in 
common. This, like the other assumption that Mark had 
Luke before him, would compel us to assume that Mark 
intentionally and regularly replaced) the better language 
of Luke, or of the common source, by more awkward 
expressions: But this is incredible. Consequently ἃ 
comparison of the style of Mark and Luke shows | that, 
inthe five sections of his Gospel mentioned, Luke made 
use:of Mark in preparing his own work. 

While Luke recasts the style of Mark with consider: 


106 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW "TESTAMENT 


able thoroughness, very little change is to be noted ir 
the contents of such portions as he adopts, and) which 
he does not replace in other parts of his work by similar 
and sometimes fuller narratives (above, p. 102). Only 
in one important point does Luke consciously vary his 
account from that of Mark. Mark i. 14, like Matt. iv. 
12, connects the beginning of the Galilean ministry 
with the arrest of the Baptist, and associates it) with 
the account of the temptation in such a way. as to 
lead the reader readily to infer that the arrest of 
the Baptist follows immediately upon the temptation. 
Luke, however, varies this order of events. On the 
one hand, he, alone of the Synoptists, connects the 
beginning of the Galilean ministry of Jesus definitely 
and closely with His baptism (iv. 15, ev τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ 
πνεύματος ; cf. 11]. 22, iv. 1), and describes the journey to 
Galilee, which introduces His ministry there, as a return 
(iv. 14, ὑπέστρεψεν ; cf iv. 1) from the journey which had 
taken Jesus to the place of His baptism and temptation. 
On the other hand, he wholly separates this journey from 
the arrest of the Baptist (above, p. 63:f.), a later ineident 
which here he anticipates in the form of an episode in 
ii. 19-20. The journey to Galilee, which: Luke: places 
after the baptism and temptation, is not the same as: the 
journey to Galilee, which in Mark follows the arrest of 
the Baptist. It must be assumed that the apparent 
succession of events in Mark is replaced in) Luke by 
another, which is the result of the author's investiga- 
tions, and which is adopted in view of καθεξῆς in 1.3. 
This conclusion is not affected by the fact that thereafter 
Imke introduces immediately and chiefly events, which 
Mark:and Matthew place in Galilee after the arrest, of 
the Baptist ; since it is apparent that throughout. his 
Gospel, in the sections following iv. 14-15, tuke eon- 
sciously abandons the attempt to arrange the single 
narratives chronologically (above, p. 64). It is ‘also 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 107 


clear that, according to him, the work of Jesus between 
His baptism and temptation is by no means confined to 
Galilee (iv. 44, x. 38-42; above, p. 88 ἢ, n. 18). It may 
be remarked here, that through his investigations Luke 
made marked advances on the form of such an historical 
work as Mark’s Gospel in the direction of what we find 
in John. He is no mere imitator of written models 
which he has before him, nor is he satisfied simply to 
recast the style of his sources; he is rather an historian 
who handles his material critically. We may assume that, 
in addition to Mark, he made use of other attempts at 
a gospel history, working them over in the same way that 
he did this Gospel. 

We have already seen from the prologue that Luke 
did not have access to any gospel writings that originated 
with an apostle or disciple of Jesus (above, p. 49); it 
is, therefore, equally improbable that he used Matthew ; 
for the latter was never attributed to a disciple of an 
apostle, but was from the first assigned to the apostle 
Matthew (vol. ἢ. 177 ff.). This statement would be true 
of an “original apostolic document” or the “logia,” if 
these books ever existed ; since, if their existence be as- 
sumed, all the traditions denied with reference to Matthew 
must be transferred to them. One of these mythical 
books, from which the author of our Matthew is supposed 
to have drawn, must have passed as the work of the 
apostle Matthew, otherwise we are unable to understand 
why, from the very first and uniformly in the tradition, 
the Greek Matthew was ascribed to this apostle. More- 
over, we have seen the correctness of the position, accord- 
ing to which Matthew is the translation of an Aramaic 
book, the contents of which were for'a long time accessible 
only through oral interpretation to those who were un- 
familiar with this language. The same would be true of 
the “logia.” But it may be doubted whether Luke, who 
was a Greek, was able to read an Aramaic book. His 


t08 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


citations from the O.T.. betray no knowledge whatever of 
the original text, or of a Targum. Not all of the fou 
translations’ of Aramaic names which we find im Luke's 
work (Acts 1. 19, iv. 36, ix. 36, xil..8) are beyond 
question, and if they were it is perfectly possible that 
Luke may have taken his translations from others, with- 
out himself possessing even a superficial knowledge of 
Aramaic. There are several Aramaic words with which, 
as a native ofıAntioch, he may always have been familiar; 
and others, together with several Hebrew termini, with 
which he} became acquainted in the common life of the 
Chureh (m 14). On the other hand, if, as is probable, 
the Greek Matthew was not written before the year 80 
(vol. 11. .516¢f.), it isounlikely, for chronological reasons, 
that Luke vead it before writing his own Gospel (§ 62). 
This improbability is) strengthened into impossibility! by 
a comparison of the two Gospels, One who: had read 
Matt. itii—especially in a work which purported, to be 
that of an apostle—could not -have written Luke ii. im 
its; present form, which is practically without resemblance 
to the narrative in Matthew (itis only necessary to compare 
Luke! i..316 and Matt. 1. 21a), notwithstanding the fact 
that) there is much that is common in the subject-matter. 
Moreover, the later writer would certainly have betrayed 
his attempt at correction or improvement, where he) be+ 
lieved that the contents and form of Matt. iii. could be 
improved, In. particular, it would have been impossible 
for an historian of the character Luke shows himself ‘to 
be, us compared with) Mark, to pass, by practically um; 
noticed material so important as that in Matt. ii--really 
excluding it as he does by Luke ii. 39. It may after ἃ 
fashion ‚be, possible in.a Gospel harmony to, reconcile’ the 
contents of the opening chapters of the two Gospels, \in- 
cluding Luke iii. 23-88, but a synoptic presentation, jis 
out of the question, Not, until Matt. iii) 1 = Luke iu. 1 
is this possible, and then only here and there. 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS tog 


The proof derived from a comparison of the opening 
chapters of the Gospel and confirmed by the, hints οἱ 
Luke’s prologue, that Luke did not use our Matthew asia 
source; is so strong, that the only question which ean be 
seriously discussed is whether Luke and Matthew drew 
from common sources. We know that Luke made use of 
written sources, and the relation which’ has been proved 
to exist between Luke and Mark leads us to assume that, 
in addition to Mark, he used other similar documents. 
It is, however, ὦ priori improbable that he used docu- 
ments which earlier or later were employed in the com- 
position of Matthew ; since our investigation of Matthew 
gave no occasion for the assumption that this author 
made any use whatever of written sources (vol. ü. 581 ἢ.) 
In the investigation of this question the five sections ‚of 
Luke, which we saw were taken over by Luke from Mark 
with certain modifications, are to be excepted ‚at the 
outset (above, p. 102 f.); since whatever agreements. be- 
tween Luke and Matthew appear in these passages, all 
go back to Mark, and are to be explained on the ground 
of the relation of Mark to Matthew (see vol. ii, 601 £.), 
and the connection which has been shown to exist between 
Luke and Mark (see above, p. 101 f.). In these five sections 
there is not a single sentence from which a direct. relation 
between Luke and: Matthew, or the relation: of Luke to a 
source used in Matthew, can be proved (n. 15). In the 
second place, in the critical comparison of Matthew and 
Luke, the following passages peculiar to Luke are. to, be 
left out of consideration—passages to which there is ἃ 
remote parallel are placed in parentheses : i, 1-3, ii. 10- 
15, 23-38 (iv. 16-30, y. 1-10); vii 11-17,.36-50, viii. 
1-3, ix. 51-56, 61-62, x. 1-20, (with the exception of a 
few sayings), x. 29-42 (xi. 1-4), xi. 5-8, 27-28, 37-41, 
xii, 13-21 (32-57), xiii, 1-17, 31-33, xiv, 1-16, 31 (with 
the exception of xiv. 11,.17,,xv, 4-7); xvil. 7-22, xviii. 
1-14, xix.) 1-27, 41-44 (xxi. 20-24), xxiii, 5-12,,27-31, 


ıro INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


39-43, xxiv. (1-11) 12-53. Comparatively little re- 
mains, and, with the exception of short disconnected 
sentences, this consists of only the following passages 
[parallels of Matthew in parentheses]: iii. 7-9, 17 (ii. 
7-12), iv. 1-13 (iv. 1-11), vi. 20-49 (5-7), vii. 1-10 (viii. 
5-10, 13), vii. 18-35 (xi. 2-19), ix. 57-60 (viii, 19-22), 
x. 13-15, 21-24 (xi. 20-27, xiii. 16-17), xi. 24-26, 29- 
36 (xii. 38-45, v. 15, vi. 22-23), xi. 42-52 (xxiii, 4285), 
xii, 2-12 (x. 17-33), xii. 22431 (vi. 25-33), xii, 41248 
(xxiv. 45-51), xi. 54-56 (xvi. 2-3 2), xii, 57-59 (v.°25- 
26), xiii 24-30 (vii. 13-14, 21-23, viii. 11-12), xiii 
34-35 (xxiil. 37-39), xvii. 23-37 (xxiv. 23-28, 37-42), 
xix. 12-28 (xxv. 14-30). In order accurately to com- 
pare these parallels, even more than in other eritical 
investigations, it would be necessary to have a text of 
both Gospels, but especially of Luke, and this reliable 
even in smallest details, since nothing contributed so 
much to the degeneration of the Gospel text as the 
tendeney to supplement and correct one Gospel from the 
parallels in the others, and in fact especially the text of 
Mark and Luke on the basis of Matthew. In the Textus 
receptus the Gospels are very much more alike than in 
any even moderately critically corrected text; and the 
difference would be even greater, if text criticism were 
more advanced than it is at present. Few narratives are 
to be found among the parallels cited, though, on the 
other hand, there are numerous sayings, which are gener- 
ally reported with an historical setting. As regards the 
narrative sections, it is impossible to form an intelligent 
conception of a single written source from which, e.g., the 
two differing narratives in Luke vii. 1-10 and Matt. viii. 
5-10, 13 could both have been derived through a process 
of revision on the part of the authors. What Luke adds 
(vv. 3-5) has the marks of genuine tradition, and the 
effort to secure brevity, to be seen in some parts of 
Matthew (vol. ii. 583 ἢ, 607) could not have brought it 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 111 


about that in this passage the narrative should be of the 
character of an excerpt 3 since the account is enlarged by 
the insertion of a saying of Jesus, probably spoken on 
another occasion (Matt. viii. 11-12, cf. Luke xiii. 28-29). 
Even if Luke made use of an earlier account im this 
passage—as is perfectly possible—in the last analysis the 
divergence of his narrative from Matthew goes back to 
variations in the historical’ material, which appear when- 
ever what has happened and been experienced) is re- 
peatedly related by different persons, even when there 
are eye-witnesses among the narrators. The accounts of 
the temptation are very similar in Matthew and Luke; but 
the differing order in which the second and third tempta- 
tions are narrated is most naturally explained by the 
assumption that those who had heard Jesus give an 
account of them (n. 16) repeated what they heard from 
memory in different ways. It is inconceivable that Luke 
should have deliberately chosen the reversed order, if he 
had had before him Matt. iv.'1-11,'or any other docu- 
ment having the order of Matthew’s account ; since the 
close of Luke’s account, which leaves Jesus standing upon 
the pinnacle of the temple instead of upon a mountain in 
the wilderness, cannot be said to be an improvement on 
Matthew. ῃ δ. 9: 

Some of the discourses’ and sayings common to 
Matthew 'and Luke’ show striking similarity, but others 
vary widely from each other in form, though having 
essentially the same content and'showing the same: pro- 
gress of thought. The best example of the former is the 
denunciatory address of the Baptist (Luke 11. 7-9, cf. 
also x. 21-22, xiii, 34-35), of the latter, the Sermon on 
the Mount (vi. 20-49, cf: xiii, 24-40). Elements of the 
tradition similar to ’those'which appear in Luke ii. 7-9, 
ete., could be easily preserved and strongly impressed 
upon the memory quite without the help of writing. On 
the other hand, when sayings) like Luke iii. 7-9, Matt. 


112 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ii. 7-10 came to be written, it was necessary at least ‚to 
intimate who the persons were whom John called. a 
“ generation of vipers.” Here, however, the accounts of 
Matthew and Luke vary widely from each other. The 
Sermon on the Mount in Luke (vi. 20-49), cannot. be 
regarded as an excerpt from Matthew (v.-vii.), nor can 
the latter be explained as a remodelling of the material in 
Luke. Even granting that Luke may have left out state- 
ments of great importance for the first evangelist, such as 
are found in Matt. v. 17-43, because they did not suit) his 
purpose,—assuming, of course, that he found them in one 
of his sources, and granting that Matthew incorporated 
into. his account of the Sermon on the Mount more 
passages belonging in a different historical connection 
than we are able at present to prove (vol. 11. 558 f.), —in 
those parts which are parallel we find differences in the 
language which cannot be explained as due to necessity 
for modification in style, or rearrangement of material. 
These differences are, however, natural, if the discourse 
was heard by numerous persons and variously reproduced 
in the oral tradition. It is more than, likely that, Luke 
found this and other discourses im one or more of the 
records of the “ many”. of whom he speaks (i. 1). In 
view of Luke’s handling of Mark’s Gospel, we are justified 
in assuming that the greater elegance of style, e.g. Luke 
vi. 47-49 = Matt. vii. 24-27, is due to him. But we are 
not able to go much beyond such assumptions in. ascer- 
taining what other sources, besides Mark, Luke used, in 
his Gospel (n. 17). 

Passages like Luke 1.-1., the poetical charm and, true 
Israelitish spirit of which in, the narrative portions and 
the inserted psalms is comparable only to the finest) parts 
of the books of Samuel, could not have been written by a 
Greek like Luke. They must have originated in Pales- 
tine, where men and women of prophetic temperament 
and prophetic gifts were closely associated with the be- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 113 


ginnings and progress of Christianity (i. 41, 46-55, 67- 
71, ii. 25,86 ; Acts 11. 17, xi. 27 f., xv. 32, χα θη} 
Luke twice points out (i. 19, 51, cf. 1. 66) that Mary 
kept in memory and pondered significant sayings associ- 
ated with the childhood and youth of her son. This’ is 
said only of Mary, not of Joseph, though at this time he 
must have been still alive. In this way Luke indicates 
that the traditions in Luke 1.-11. were transmitted through 
her. Who first wrote them down and when they were 
written we do not know. Nor can any intelligent critic 
regard the other narrative sections peculiar to Luke 
as his own fabrications, or as legends which originated 
outside of Palestine in the second or third generation 
after Christ. Their striking originality, which could not 
have been invented, has impressed them upon the mind 
of the Christian world to an extent scarcely true of any 
other portion of the whole body of gospel literature. In 
the distinctively historical portions we find indications of 
locality (vii. 11, xvii. 11, xix. 1, xxiv. 13), names of 
persons (vil. 40, vill. 8, x. 38 ἢ, xix. 2, xxiv. 18), and 
delineations of character difficult to invent (x. 40, xiii. 
32, xix. 3 f.), also references to current events otherwise 
unknown (xiii. 1, 4, xxiii. 12), and a genuine Israelitish 
colouring (xi. 27, xii. 11, 14, 16, xiv. 15, xix. 9, xxiii. 
28-31, 42 f., xxiv. 21)—all of which is proof against the 
suspicion of later invention. The same is true of the 
parables and kindred sayings of Jesus (x. 30-37, xii. 16— 
21, xili. 6-9, xiv. 16-24, xv. 1-xvi. 31, xviii. 1-14). When 
on one occasion Luke says, in flat contradiction to Mark 
x. 46, which he had before him, that Jesus healed a blind 
man as He drew near to Jericho (xviii. 35), not as He was 
leaving the city, it must be because he has before him 
still another account of the incident, from which he does 
not wish to vary; and the more unimportant the detail 
the more likely is this to have been the case. The 


passage xix. 1-10 shows that he had at his disposal 
VOL. II. 8 


[14 INTRODUCTION 'TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


independent traditions regarding the events of this par- 
ticular day. - Whether this information was derived from 
Zacchzeus, or from a book, no one is able to, say (n. 18). 
The two narratives concerning Herod Antipas peculiar to 
Luke (xiii, 81-33, xxiii. 6-12, 15)—the way for the 
second of which is prepared as early as in ix. 9 by an 
addition peculiar to Luke, which is also referred to again 
in Acts iv. 27—naturally recalls the fact that the wife 
of an official, under this prince was one of those who 
accompanied, Jesus (Luke viii. 8, ef. John iv. 46 2), 
also that, according to Acts, xi. 1, a foster - brother, 
or youthful companion of the tetrarch, was one of the 
teachers of the Church in Antioch at the time when the 
narrator, in Acts was a member: of that congregation 
(according to xi, 27 £, above, p. 2). But the existence 
of such oral sources, upon which Luke could draw in 
making his. investigations, does not preclude, the, possi- 
bility of his having used, in addition to Mark, one or 
more of the numerous written accounts which are men- 
tioned in Luke i. 1. The fact that Luke modified materi- 
ally the style of the documents which he used, as proved 
by his relation to Mark and by a comparison of his 
Gospel with Matthew (above, p. 104, and below, nn. 
9-12), deprives us almost entirely of one favourite means 
of determining sources, namely, by comparison of language. 
Here and there we find narratives which more than others 
show genuine Jewish conception and modes of expression, 
or greater elegance of Greek style ; but on the whole the 
narratives are uniform. The differences for the most part 
are to be easily explained by the variety of the material 
and of the setting (above, p. 104, and below, n. 19). 
With. reference to most of the accounts in Acts, 
the author was in a different situation than he was im 
regard to the contents of his, first book—-provided our 
interpretation of the prologue be correct (above, p. 41 f.). 
In much of the history which he here records he had been 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 115 


a participant, as he indicates by the introduction of a 
“we” in parts where this was the case (above, p. 54 f.). 
Among these “ we” passages there are two long sections, 
xx. 5—xxi. 17 and xxvii. 1—xxviii. 16, which stand out as 
peculiar, in character. While im xi. 27 »(above, p. 4, 
u. 3), xvi. 10-17 the only practical purpose which the 
“we” seems to serve is to call attention to the presence 
of the narrator, without the narrative on this, account 
assuming a character, different from, that of chaps. zii. 
XV. XViil—-xix., in the two passages (xx, 5—xxi.. 17, 
xxvii. 1—xxviii. 16) we have connected accounts of journeys 
which are totally distinet from all other parts of Acts, 
the contents of which admit of comparison. The journey 
from Antioch to Philippi,,and thence to Thessalonica, and 
from Bercea by way of Athens to Corinth (xv. 40—xvi. 12, 
xvi. 40—xviii. 1) is so. briefly sketched that for the most 
part we must conjecture the route selected, the places 
touched on the way, the length of the stops, and the time 
of the year (vol. 1. ὃ 13). Only when the author records 
what happened in the cities of Philippi, .Thessalonica, 
Athens, and Corinth does the account become more de- 
tailed ; practically nothing is said concerning the journey 
itself, Essentially the same is true in the case of the first 
missionary journey, Acts xii.—xiv. Other journeys, e.g., 
in, Acts xi. 30-xü. 25; xviii... 18-xix., 1, xx. 1-4, are) dis- 
missed with a few words; but in xx. 5—xxi,. 17 and 
xxvii. 1~xxviii. 16 we have practically, a daily record 
of the journey with numerous exact statements as to the 
time of the year (xx. 6, 16, xxvii. 9, 12), the various 
stopping places on the way—even those where nothing of 
any special importance took place (xx. 13-15, xxi. 1-8, 
xxvii. 3-8, 16, xxvii. 12-15)—the time occupied by 
different parts of the journey and by the stops, the 
change of ships, the nationality, destination, and names 
of ships in which, the journey was made (xxi. 2, xxvil. 
2, 6, xxviil. 11), changes from trayel by land to travel by 


116 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


sea and vice versa (xx. 13, xxi. 7), conditions of weather 
and the minute details of the sea veyages. In not ἃ 
single instance can the indications of time be said to be 
designed to make the history elear. After what is said 
in Acts xx. 6, 16, the reader is interested to know 
whether Paul succeeded in reaching Jerusalem before or 
after Pentecost, but he is destined to be disappointed. 
There is no clear indication of the time when the end of 
the journey was reached, and, from the notices of the 
daily journey which precede, we are unable to estimate 
the length of time occupied between Philippi and Jeru- 
salem, since the length of the stay in Miletus and Ceesarea 
(xx. 15-xxi. 1, 8-15) and the length of the voyage from 
Rhodes to Tyre (xxi. 1-3) and of the land journey from 
Tyre to Ptolemais and from Ceesarea to Jerusalem are not 
given by days. It is true that the elaborateness of these 
two accounts does impress the reader with a strong sense 
of the situation. He receives a vivid impression of the 
care exercised by divine providence over the life of the 
apostle who was destined to do more great things. But 
most of the details mentioned have no bearing on this 
point. They are out of relation to the main historical 
idea that is being developed to an extent not paralleled 
anywhere else in Luke’s work. 

Luke’s interest in minute details, proper names, ete., 
which are not absolutely necessary in the narrative, is to 
be observed elsewhere also (Acts ix. 25, xii. 13, 20, xiii. 1, 
31.29.37 Fo eet) 2, Ra 16 198 exh SL LY mei ap 
11), and it would be arbitrary to infer from the absence 
of ‘“we” in xx. 16-38, xxi. 19-26, 32, that the narrator 
was less familiar with the facts which he records in these 
passages than he is with the facts recorded in the “we” 
passages. [or it will be observed that the sections where 
the “ we” is omitted deal in every instance with some 
action or suffering of Paul’s which could not be shared by 
another in the same way that a journey in company with 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 117 


him from Philippi to Jerusalem and from Ceesarea. tc 
Rome could be shared (cf. above, pp. 55f., 87, n. 13). 
In connection with the meeting with James, where the 
narrator was present (xxi. 18), it was necessary to. omit 
the “‘ we,” because Paul alone had to do with the elders in 
Jerusalem. As yet no evidence has been advanced which 
proves that the person who wrote’ the entire section, 
xx. 4-xxvill. 31, was not always in close touch with the 
events which he records. Nevertheless, the accounts of 
the two journeys mentioned—to which possibly xvi. 10- 
18 may be added as a remnant of a third—are distinct in 
character. They could not have been written for the first 
time when the author composed his history ; rather he 
must have had them in his possession and have inserted 
them in his book, retaining all the details which were not 
necessary, either for the sake of the narrative or for the 
readers’ understanding of the history. There may be 
difference of opinion as to how many changes Luke made 
in the form and contents of these journey-narratives, 
whether he inserted passages from his memory of events 
that had happened elsewhere, or narratives of his own 
invention. But, apart from all these conjectures, there is 
no doubt as to the fact that these portions are distinct in 
character from the rest of the book. 

Repeated examination of chap. xxvii. by experts has 
shown that, while it could not have been written by a 
mariner, it must have been written by some gifted) man 
who accompanied Paul on the journey, and who had an 
appreciation of nature and of the incidents of a sea voyage 
(n. 20). If, without recourse to the tradition, we were to 
ask which one of Paul’s travelling companions was most 
likely to have been the author of the accounts of these 
journeys, the most probable answer would be Luke, the 
physician. If he is, at the same time, the author of the 
entire work, it was his own notes, which he had written 
down in the form of a journal during the voyage, that he 


118 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


incorporated in his history. Even the best memory wil: 
not retain for decades all such details as changes in the 
weather and the movements of the sailors in a voyage 
lasting for months, and no historian would record in a 
large work such recollections as he might have, simply 
because he had not forgotten them. The incorporation 
by the author in the work of these accounts, which in 
their details are so out of proportion to the other narra- 
tives in the book, is most conceivable, if they were 
recorded by him years before. In addition to the pur- 
pose which he had accomplished in an earlier passage by 
the introduction of “we ”—namely, to prove that he had 
been an eye-witness of the events recorded—he secured 
by this means vividness in the narrative which could be 
obtained in no other way. The fact that Luke incor- 
porates into his work only accounts of travels, is easily 
explained by the common experience that persons who do 
not regularly keep a journal do so with the greatest pre- 
cision when they travel. However uninteresting and 
meagre such notes may be in themselves, for the person 
who afterwards has to relate the history of travels in 
which he was one of the party, they are invaluable and 
become more and more so as the years pass. 

A further point to be noted—self-evident, but ‘at first 
thought strange—is the fact that Luke did not use as 
sources the letters of Paul, which in our estimation are 
authorities of the first importance for the history which 
Luke records (n. 21). When Luther expresses the opinion 
that Acts may well be called “a gloss to the Epistles of 
St. Paul” (in a preface of the year 1534), he means that 
Acts furnishes historical illustrations of Pauline doctrine. 
Acts may be so designated also because it furnishes the 
reader of Paul's letters with an historical guide, without 
which even those who question its genuineness could 
not make their way through the Epistles. If, on other 
grounds, it were conceivable that Luke had never heard 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 119 


of Paul’s letters, this unaccountable ignorance on his part 
would be quite confirmed by the entire silence of Acts 
concerning the Hpistles of Paul (n. 22), and by the 
absence of points of formal resemblance between Acts 
and the letters, where both handle the same facts. Of 
course there are points of similarity between the contents 
of an early account of Paul’s missionary work and the 
letters which Paul wrote in the midst of this work : if 
the ease were otherwise, it would be necessary to assume, 
either that the Epistles are pure forgeries or the historical 
accounts pure inventions. Since neither can reasonably 
be accepted as time, it is not surprising that the Epistles 
and Acts agree as to numerous facts. But the fact that 
the narratives of Acts are uniformly independent of the 
Epistles, both as regards the form and the compass of 
historical material handled, is of great significance in 
the criticism of Acts. Exactly the same relation exists as 
between Luke ii. and Matt. 1. ἢ. (above, p. 108 f.). It 
is altogether inconceivable that an author, who read the 
letters of Paul for the sake of the historical information in 
them, and who intended to use them as sources, should 
have made no use of the wealth of interesting historical 
matter which they contained, particularly if he were 
short of material. Such a procedure would be inexplic- 
able, even if the author were so devoid of conscience as 
to esteem his own theological or ecclesiastical opinion and 
purpose above historical truth as contained in such ancient 
documents as the Pauline letters. For he was under 
obligation, not simply to pass by the things which he 
desired to set in different lieht from that in which they 
had been represented by Paul, in fact he had no right to 
do so, but he was able, and was in duty bound, to recon- 
struct Paul’s statements to suit his own unhistorical purpose. 

Taking up first the gospel history, if the opinion 
regarding the text of Luke xxii. 17-20 expressed above, 
p. 39 f., ‘be correct, Luke did not utilise im any way the 


ı20 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


account in 1 Cor. xi. 23-25. If the text, as it stands 
proves to be the right one, significant differences ‚still 
remain, and the agreement may be very simply explained 
as due to the fact that Luke belonged to the Church in 
Antioch at the time when Paul was a teacher there (above, 
pp. 39 f£, 28 f.), so that his idea of the institution of the 
Lord’s Supper was derived from the same oral tradition as 
that of Paul. It may be for the same reason that Luke x. 7 
agrees with 1 Tim. v. 18 (μισθοῦ), as against Matt. x. 10 
(τροφῆς). Luke makes no use whatever of the account in 
1 Cor. xv. 5-7, which, in our estimation, is so important. 
During the forty days mentioned in Acts 1. 3) there was 
ample time for the appearance to the “more than five 
hundred brethren,” and to James. There is no evidence 
of a disposition on Luke’s part to emphasise the exclusive 
authority of the twelve apostles (but ef. above, p. 49 f.), or 
to minimise James’ position in the Church. The fact that 
he mentions an appearance to Peter alone, but without 
giving any account of it (Luke xxiv. 34=1 Cor. xv. 5), 
and the fact that he records an appearance to the group of 
apostles on Easter evening, and still another appearance to 
the same circle at the olage of the forty days (xxiy. 36; 
Acts 1. 4 ff.)—seeming in these points to agree with 1, Cor. 
xv. 5b, 7b—do not lessen at all his manifest independence 
of Paul. Luke makes no use of Paul’s autobiographical 
statements. A statement of the apostle’s descent from the 
tribe of Benjamin (Phil. ii. 5) would have been just as 
much in place in Acts xxi. 3 as is the remark in Luke 
ii. 36 (cf. also Acts xiii, 21). No mention is made in 
Acts of “the contest with wild beasts” in Ephesus (1 Cor. 
xy. 32), which in the Aets of Paul is enlarged into an 
adventurous story (GK, ü. 880). Nor is anything said 
about the five times thirty-nine stripes which Paul received 
from the Jews, the three shipwrecks prior to the voyage 
to Rome, dangers by rivers and perils by robbers (2 Cor, 

23-26). Luke mentions only one instance when the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 121 


apostle was stoned (Acts xiv. 19=2 Cor. xi. 25; ef. 2 Tim 
ii. 11), and of the three scourgings with rods he gives an 
account of only one, and records only one of the numerous 
imprisonments which Paul suffered prior to his long im- 
prisonment (Acts xvi. 22-40; 2 Cor. xi. 23, 25). ‘From 
all this it appears that Acts gives us anything but a 
complete history of Paul; at the same time, it is evident 
that its reports are derived from independent and trust- 
worthy sources. As regards Paul’s history before his 
conversion, at the time of it, and shortly afterwards, 
one acquainted with the Epistles, who had formed his 
conception of the scene near Damascus from 1 Cor. 
ix.) 1, xv. 8; cf. Gal. iL. 12, 16; 2 Cor iv. 6, would 
hardly have obscured, so completely as.in Acts ix. 4-7, 
xxil. 6-11, xxvi. 12-19, the fact that Paul saw the form 
of Jesus, nor would the testimony to this fact be sc 
indirect as in Acts ix. 17, 27, xxii. 14,15; ef. ix. 7b. 
There is no reason why, if Luke used Paul’s letters, he 
should have passed over the journey to Arabia, which 
is mentioned in Gal. i. 17, as a merely temporary absence 
from Damascus, and which, therefore, could very well have 
taken place during the ἡμέραι ἱκαναί of Acts ix. 23; nor 
isjit easy to see why he should have omitted all reference 
to the part taken by the ethnarch Aretas in the plot 
against Paul’s life (2 Cor. xi. 32)—which does not in any 
way exclude the possibility of the plans having originated 
with the Jews (Acts ix. 23 ; seen. 23)—nor why he should 
have replaced the notice of the personal contact of Paul 
with Peter and James (Gal. i. 18f.) by the colourless 
statement that Paul had intercourse with the apostles 
(Acts ix. 27 f.), nor why the exact) statement that Paul’s 
stay in Jerusalem lasted but fifteen days should have 
been exchanged for a brief sketch which leaves the reader 
to guess whether this sojourn lasted ten days or several 
months. Even where Luke and Paul do agree, no striking 
similarity of expression is to be observed (n. 23). In the 


ı22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


account of the first missionary journey (xiii. 2-Xiv. 28) 
besides the similarities in the story of the stoning in 
Lystra, which has been already mentioned, Luke’s narra- 
tive has points of resemblance to 2 Tim. ii. 11, and to 
various hints and presuppositions in Galatians (vol. 1 
§ 11). "While, on the one hand, it would be impossible 
to form a definite idea of the course of events from ‘the 
hints of Galatians—for example, from the reference in 
Gal. iv. 14 f. to the event deseribed in Acts xiv. 11-18 
(vol. i: 180)}—without aid from the vivid narrative of 
Acts, on the other hand, it is just'as impossible to suppose 
that Luke's account, which is so full of details, was derived 
from this source. The very clear statement’ of Paul (Gal. 
iv. 13; vol. i 165, 181), that his sojourn in the cities of 
ayobsiid was due tovan illness, is not found in Acts at all. 

The relation of this account of Luke to Paul's letters 
may be summarised in a word, by saying that it is such 
as would naturally exist between the account of a well- 
informed and truthful historian and original sources whieh 
he had not seen. This is the case also with reference ' to 
the second missionary journey (Acts xv. 40-xvii. 17). 
Silas was the elder of Paul’s two helpers, and Paul always 
places his name before that of Timothy (1 Thess. 1. 1; 
2 Thess. i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 19), but Luke never calls him by 
his Roman name, Silvanus, as does Paul uniformly (vol. i 
31£, 207). Luke’s statement that Timothy's mother was 
a Jewess and his father a Greek (xvi. 1), is confirmed by 
what is said and left unsaid in 2 Tim. i. 5 (volo 11. 22, 
n. 4), but Luke does not mention the name’ Eunice. 
The hints with reference to the ordination of Timothy 
in. Tim. i. 18, iv. 14; 2 Tim. i 6 (1 Tim. νἱ. 12) 
harmonise with Acts xvi. 2 (vol. ii 28, n. δ, 94), but 
there is no evidence of dependence. We know from 
Phil. iii 3 (vol. i. 538, n. 7) that Timothy was cireum- 
eised (Acts xvi. 3); and that this was done in Timothy's 
home, the province of Galatia, is confirmed by Gal. v. 11 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 123 


(vol. i 182). But if these facts are overlooked or denied 
by our clever critics, notwithstanding the fact that they 
have the “gloss to the Hpistles of St. Paul,” how could 
Luke have constructed his concrete narrative from such 
obscure hints? No notice is taken in Acts of the names 
of the persons who are prominent in the organisation of 
the Church in Philippi, Phil. iv. 2-3 (voli. 529 f., 532 f.), 
or the remittances of money from the Philippians, Phil. iv. 
15-16, and of the hints in 1 and 2 Thess. concerning the 
cireumstances under which the Church in Thessalonica was 
organised. The only point directly confirmed in Acts’ is 
the fact that Paul went to Thessalonica from Philippi 
after he had been maltreated in the latter city (1 Thess. 
i. 2). In Acts xv. 15 f., xviii, 5, Luke leads the reader 
to infer that Paul remained in Athens alone without his 
two helpers, and that these did not join him again until 
after his arrival in Corinth (vol. i. 205, 210f.), which is 
directly opposed to 1 Thess. 11. 17-111. 6,—a contradiction 
for which there is no conceivable reason, while there is no 
contradiction between Paul and Acts with regard to the 
history of the Corinthian Church (vol. i. 265); their state- 
ments are as mutually independent of each other as they 
could well be. What we learn from 1 Cor. 1. 1, 14, xvi.'19, 
regarding Sosthenes, Crispus, ‘Aquila, and’ Priscilla does 
not in any way resemble what is said of these persons in 
Acts xvii. 1-17. The names Chloe, Gaius (it is not the 
Corinthian Gaius who is referred to in Acts xix. 29, xx. 4), 
Stephanas, Achaicus, and Fortunatus do not occur in Acts 
(ef. 1 Cor. i. 11, 14+16, xvi. 15-17). The description of 
Apollos in Acts xvii. 24-28 in every way supplements 
what may be inferred concerning him from 1 Cor. 1. 
12-iv. 6, xvi. 12, but there is nothing to indicate ‘that 
Luke had read Paul’s opinions concerning him and thie 
results of his work. From the character of Luke’s book, 
which is intended to set forth the progress of missionary 
work—from chap. xiii. onwards, particularly Paul’s' mis- 


124 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


sionary labours—we should not expect an account of the 
internal development of the various Churches, nor of the 
heated conflicts concerning which we learn in 1 and 2 
Cor., nor of Paul’s journey from Ephesus to Corinth 
(vol. i. 271), nor of the important journeys of Titus 
spoken of in 2 Cor. ii. 13, vi. 6-16, vill. 16-24, xi, 
17 £., nor of the stay of Paul in Antioch (Gal. i 11). 
But even when the development of missionary work led 
to transactions within the Church of such a nature) that 
Luke does not leave them unnoticed, there is no evidence 
that he was influenced by Paul’s accounts of the same 
events. 

This is not the place in which to discuss the question 
whether, in view of Gal. ii. 1-10, Acts xv. 1-33 is to be 
regarded as historical. All that needs to be shown is that 
Luke had never read Gal. ii. 1-10, or, at least, did not 
recall it when writing his own account. Here again the 
proof is to be found in the omission of features for the 
intentional suppression of which there is no conceivable 
motive, as well as in the absence of all traces of formal 
imitation, or of conscious denial, of what Paul had written. 
There is room enough in Acts xv. 2 for the statement that 
Paul made the journey to Jerusalem in consequence of a 
revelation (Gal. ii. 1), and this would be in perfect 
harmony with the spirit of Acts, where the co-operation 
of human reflection and effort with divine suggestion is 
frequently mentioned (cf. xvi. 6-10, xx. 16 with xx. 22, 
xix. 21 and xxv. 10 with xxiii. 11 and xxvil. 24; see 
above, p. 16 f.). It could not have been Gal. i. 1-3 which 
influenced Luke to let Titus—whom he had mentioned, 
according to the 8 text, in xiii 1 (above, p. 28, n. 6)— 
disappear among the τινὲς ἄλλοι in Acts xv. 2. In Acts 
xv. 5 he himself relates how the demand that all Gentile 
Christians be circumcised was made in Jerusalem as in 
Antioch, and even if Luke, like some modern writers, mis- 
understood Paul—supposing him to mean that ‘Titus was 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 125 


circumcised out of deference to the Judaisers—in view of 
what is said in xvi. 8, Luke could not have objected to it. 
There was nothing about the Gentile missionaries’ recogni- 
tion of their duty to care for the poor in Jerusalem (Gal. 
ii. 10) that could displease him (cf. xi. 29f., xii. 25, 
xxiv. 17); and if he had wanted to mention still other 
stipulations not mentioned by Paul, he needed only to 
omit the μόνον in Gal. 1. 10. No writer who had read 
Galatians with a view to informing himself from this first- 
hand source regarding these matters, could disregard 
altogether the impressive words, Gal. ii. 7-9, in which 
Paul expressed the recognition received from Peter, John, 
and James of the standing and independence of his 
apostolic work. With regard to the apostolic decree, 
see above, p. 18 f.,, and below, $ 62. 

The undeniable fact that Luke did not feel it necessary 
to draw from Paul’s letters as sources, or in any way to 
take account of them, is decisive proof of his close relation 
to the events recorded in Acts xii.-xxvii. Whether the 
author of Acts was a friend of Paul’s, or someone who 
wrote between 100 and 120, it is inconceivable that a 
Christian so deeply interested in Paul as was the author 
of Acts should have been ignorant of his letters, and, if 
they had come into his possession, that he should have 
left them unread. They made a deep impression, and 
attracted attention even among contemporaries outside 
the circle of those to whom they were originally ad- 
dressed (2 Cor. x. 10f.; 2 Pet. iii. 15f.; vol. ii. 276 ff.). 
From the close of the first century onwards, the letters of 
Paul came to be more and more the means by which the 
apostle’s memory was kept fresh in the mind of later 
generations (n. 24). The relation of Acts to the Pauline 
letters proves not only that the former was written before 
the close of the first century (§ 62), but also that its author 
was so close to the apostle, and had been associated with 
him so long, that it was not necessary for him to study 


126 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


his letters in order to enlarge his.own knowledge of the 
history. While, on any other hypothesis, the relation, of 
the author of the Lucan history to, the Pauline letters is 
an anomaly, the relation is perfectly natural, if ıt was 
written by Luke (or Timothy or Titus). ‚The only source 
which a man like Luke required for the composition of 
Acts xill.-xxvill., and, also of Acts vi. 8—vill. 3, 1x, 1-30, 
was his remembrance of what he had heard from Paul, 
and of events in which he had participated. Naturally, 
in the course, of conversation Paul must frequently have 
spoken of his: earlier experiences, and this is abundantly 
confirmed by his, letters (1,Cor, ix. 1-6, χν. 8, 8, 32; 2 Cor: 
i (85L0,. x1,[,22-x. 95, Gal, 1,11, (143, Eph. πὶ. 08: 
Phil. i1..37,,iv. 3, 15-16 5,1 Tim. i, 12—16;,11,.7 ; 2, Tim. 
i. 3, iii. 10-11, ive 16-17,;\.Rom,., xy. .16-32,.xvi. 7), 
Especially, in, times of enforced idleness when Luke; was 
with him, as, for example, during the second captivity in 
Rome (2 Tim. iy. 11), and during the winter months spent 
on the island of Malta, perhaps also during the two years’ 
imprisonment in Czesarea (above, p. 56), we cannot think 
of a more natural subject of conversation between the 
apostle and his friends than the experiences of the years 
when he had been fully, occupied with his labours. Upon 
returning from missionary journeys, and on many other 
occasions, Paul and his companions must often have given 
before an assembled congregation a connected and detailed 
account of their, experiences (Acts xiv. 27, xy. 3, 12, 26, 
Kxi. 19 καθ᾽ ὃν ἕκαστον ; Gals 11. 3, 7-9). It is just as con- 
ceivable that some of those who, heard these narratives, or 
that Luke, after such conversations, made notes of them, 
as that a Timothy or Silvanus kept a sort of daily journal 
during, their, travels, as did the author of the, “ we” 
passages, though, of course, it cannot be prov ed. 
Throughout Acts, as, in. xiii—xxvili., we note the 
absence Ἢ variations in the Somers such as are 
naturally explained by the ‚use of different sources im- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 127 


perfectly worked over. [Ὁ may seem peculiar. that 
Agabus is introduced in xxi. 10 as if entirely unknown, 
although he has been introduced earlier in an exactly 
similar manner, xi. 28. But both notices (the first in 
the recension 8) are in “we” sections (above, p. 4, 
n. 3). It is, therefore, necessary to assume that in 
xxi, 10 the author either. did not. recall the cursory 
mention of Agabus which he had made earlier, or did 
not venture to assume that the reader still remembered 
it. . Where this could be assumed, as in the case of 
Philip, xxi. 8, such references to earlier passages are to 
be found—in this particular instance to vis 5 and Viii. 
5-40. The substitution of the name Paul for Saul, in 
xii. 9, cannot ‚bei explained by supposing that at this 
point a new source, in which the apostle is called by 
his Roman name, takes the place of an earlier source 
in which, he is called Saul. Such a new source could 
not well begin in the middle of an account of Paul’s 
sojourn in Paphos. A new account does begin with 
ΧΙ], 1, or perhaps xii, 25, but here we find the name 
Saul also, xii. 25, xiii, 1, 2, 7 (n. 25). Luke exchanges 
one name for the other, for reasons similar to those 
which led to the substitution of Peter for Simon (vol. ii. 
219, n. 9). As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had 
always been known by his Roman name, Paul. Hence 
it) was, appropriate that he should be so designated in 
Luke's narrative at the point where he ceased to appear 
in the synagogues (xiii, 5, ix. 20-xxii. 29) and in the 
role of a teacher in congregations composed of Jews and 
Gentiles (xiii. 1, xi: 25-30), and became a teacher in the 
home of a Gentile in opposition to unbelieving Judaism 
(Acts xiii.) 8-12). 

If some of the events narrated in Acts vi. 8—viii. 3, 
ix. 1-30, xi. 19-30, xii, 25-xxvii. 31 were experienced by 
Luke, and if he had such abundant opportunity to hear 
the account of others from those who were participants, 


128 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


so that, as seems to be the case,-he felt no necessity for 
using written sources or literary helps in the preparation 
of these parts of his work, the question arises whether he 
was dependent at all upon earlier written sources in the 
preparation of his second book. If he was a guest of 
Philip for several days (xxi. 8-12), and if, during Paul's 
two years’ imprisonment, he was with him even occa- 
sionally, he had in Philip the best possible witness for the 
events reeorded in viii. 4-40, also in vi. 1—vill. 3 and 
x. 1-xi. 18. What he relates in ix. 31-43 may have been 
learned from Mnason, who lived midway between Ceesarea 
and Jerusalem, and who had been a disciple from the very 
earliest times, Acts xxi. 16 (above, p. 18). If Luke was 
a member of the Church in Antioch when Barnabas came 
hither from Jerusalem and settled there, he had for a 
number of years the opportunity of hearing from him the 
story of the mother Church. That Barnabas would have 
occasion to relate this history is self-evident. It would 
also be a strange coincidence if, among the men of Cyprus 
and Cyrene, who in the year 35 fled from Jerusalem to 
Antioch, and there proclaimed the gospel for the first 
time to the Gentiles, there were not also those who had 
been’ baptized on the first Christian Pentecost (Acts xi. 
19 f., xiii. 1; οὗ ἢ. 10, 41). Indeed, these men must have 
related to the younger Christians all they knew. And 
one of them, Lucius of Cyrene, was still alive when Luke 
wrote (above, p. 28, n. 6). So there were eye-witnesses 
and ministers of the word from the beginning for the 
events narrated in Acts ii—v., from whom Luke could 
have obtained his information directly. It is possible 
that some one of these, or Barnabas, noted down at a 
comparatively early date recollections of what had taken 
place during the early years of the Church’s history. If 
Mark pl: anned to extend his work to cover apostolie times 
(vol. ii. 479, above, p. 50), he may have left behind notes 
which he had gathered for the part of his book that was 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 129 


never written, and possibly these fell into Luke’s hand. 
But neither of these things can be proved. In order to 
explain the fact that there are more Hebraisms in 1.-xü. 
than in xiii.—xxviii. (n. 26), it is not necessary to assume 
the use of written sources showing this characteristic, if 
Luke heard these narratives from Jewish Christians who 
were Palestinians, and had been in Palestine, and if he 
had sufficient literary sense in the narratives to retain 
their native colouring (above, p. 104 8). The assumption 
that the history of the early apostolic age was written in 
Hebrew or Aramaic (n. 27) is not only incapable of proof, 
but also extremely improbable; since the ‘‘ Hebrews” 
would have had very little occasion to use such a book, 
and the reasons which influenced Matthew to write in 
Aramaic (vol. ii. 521) would not apply in this case. A 
Greek like Luke would certainly not have been in a 
position to make use of such a book. Notwithstanding 
numerous attempts to distinguish different sources in 
Acts, this has- never been shown to be even remotely 
probable (n. 28). The general outcome of such attempts 
is the conclusion that the author of the Lucan history, 
who was in reality a man of fine literary training, and 
an intelligent, thoughtful, and systematic writer, was a 
miserable bungler. They fail also to explain the tradition 
according to which Luke was the author of these writings, 
or to weaken the proofs of the correctness of this tradition 
which are to be found in the writings themselves. 


1. (P. 94.) M. Krenkel (Josephus und Lucas, 1894, 5. 1 ff.) discusses at 
length the sources upon which Luke depended. His method is not to be 
commended, In the section on “ Josephus’ influence upon the language of 
Luke,” S. 283 ff., the comparison, arbitrarily limited to these two writers and 
the LXX (with the exclusion of 1 and 2 Macc., books so very essential just 
at this point), is put in tabular form. But what value has the comparison 
when such words as αἰσθάνομαι, γῆρας, δῆμος are found in a table purporting to 
give the vocabulary which the three works have in common, or when words 
like δορκάς, doxn, ἐρείδω, areipos are included in a list of words supposed to 
give the vocabulary of Luke and the LXX, not found in Josephus. More 
than this, the citation of the first of these words, δορκάς, is incorrect (cf. Bell. 


VOL. III. 9 


130 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


iv. 3. 5 with Acts ix. 36). The only list of words which really belongs: here 
is that of the words common to Luke and Josephus, not found in the LXX 
(S. 304-309). And this would be significant (1) only if very familiar words 
were excluded, such as are found quite universally in literature since Homer 
—as ἄγνωστος, ἀνατρέφω, ἐκεῖσε, μόγις, περαινέω, πλοῦς κτὰ. In this class 
belongs also αὐτόπτης, Luke i, 2, upon which Krenkel (S. 55,.56, 305) lays 
weight ; whereas it is used by Herodotus, iv. 16; Polybius, i. 4. 7, iii. 4, 13, 
and frequently—generally with γίνεσθαι, asin Luke. The last passage eited 
from Polybius (διὰ τὸ τῶν πλείστων μὴ μόνον αὐτόπτης, ἀλλ᾽ ὧν μὲν συνεργύς, 
dy δὲ καὶ χειριστὴς γεγονέναι) can just as well as Jos. c. Apion, i. 10, be compared 
to Luke (see above, p. 82f.,n. 5). (2) It would also be necessary to omit all 
words, the use of which time or circumstance rendered impossible in the 
LXX, eg. ἀνθύπατος, κολωνία, νεωκόρος, ῥήτωρ, Σεβαστός, σικάριος, στρατοπε- 
δάρχης. (3) It would also be necessary to compare other authors known. not 
to be dependent upon Josephus, who might show points of resemblance to 
Luke in content and form: the O.T. Apocrypha, especially those portions of 
it which are of a narrative character, Philo, the other N.T. writers, the 
historians from Polybius to Herodian, also the medical writers whom Luke 
may have read (see above, pp. 32f., 92, nn. 5, 28). It would be particularly 
necessary to make comparisons with Polybius, from whom such ‘a writer 
as G, Raphelius, Annotat. in. 8. script. ex Xenophonte, Polybio, ete... 1747, 
tom, i. 431-602 ; ii. 1-209, has collected much material. If this extended 
investigation should show a special resemblance between Luke and Josephus 
in language and style, it would naturally be explained by the fact that both 
are in a sense writers of Jewish history and contemporaries. Cf. A. Harnack, 
Lucas der Arzt als Verfasser des 3 Ev. und der AG, 1906 [Eng. trans. 1907] 
(Beiträge zür Ein]. in d. NT., 1 Heft) received too late for consideration. 

2. (P.94,). In the matter of Josephus’ imperfect command of Greek, ef. 
Ant. xx. 12 (cf. also procem., 8 2) ; as to literary assistance rendered him, ef. 
ec. Ap. i. 9, ef. vol. i. 63, n. 9. On the other hand, regarding the style of 
Luke i. 1-4, ef. the conclusions of Blass, Ntl. Gr. § 79. 6 (Eng. trans. § 79. 6); 
Vogel, S. 18. 

3. (P. 96.) The present writer’s extended discussion of the Syrian 
governorship of Quirinius (Ν᾽ ΚΖ, 1898, S. 633-654) cannot here be quoted at 
length. When Schiirer, i. 542 (new, not in Eng. trans.), has nothing more to 
say against the writer’s “fascinating” argument than that, even if it be valid, 
“nothing of apologetic value would be gained,” his criticism is evidence of a 
lack of regard for an historical investigation, carried out without consideration 
of desired conclusions.. The investigations of Ramsay, embodied in his book 
Was Christ, Born at Bethlehem ? 1898, have not as yet resulted in a perfectly 
clear conclusion. Cf. Grenfell and Hunt, The Oxyrhynchos Papyri, ii. (1899) 
p, 207 ff, among others in Schiirer, i, 514, A. 21 (new, not in Eng, trans.). 
Worthy of note is Origen’s exposition of the matter, tom. xvii. 25 tn Matt., 
which is probably dependent on Philo (cf. Forsch. vi. 304f.). Krenkel 
discusses the question without any attempt at a criticism of Josephus 
(S. 64-75). The vain effort to prove that πάσα or ὅλη ἡ οἰκουμένη, Luke ii. 1, 
Acts xi. 28, cf. Matt. xxiv. 14, Rev. 111. 10, xii. 9, xvi, 14, can mean Judea in 
Luke’s writings need not be here considered, since Krenkel does not think 
that Luke uses it in this sense, All examples of the use of the word cited 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 131 


prove that, in order to mean anything other than the whole world, 7 οἰκουμένη 
must have a modifier (Luke iv. 5; Acts xvii. 6, 31, xix. 27, xxiv. 5) such as 
ἡ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ βασιλευομένη, Jos. Ant. xi. 6. ὅ (a modification of the exaggerated 
expression in xi. 6. 2), or ἧς emnpxev, Ant. xix. 1. 2, or ἧς ἐβουλήθη, sc. 
κρατῆσαι, Ant. xi. 6. 6. The word ttself is used with a single general 
limitation —in other words, it is customary to treat the parts of the world 
which are civilised and ruled by the Romans as the world proper, and simply 
to designate them as such (Philo, Leg. ad Can. ii.), except where the context 
makes it necessary to say more accurately ἡ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς οἰκουμένη, Ptolem. 
Geogr. ii. 1..1, cf. $ 2; Jos. Bell. ii. 16. 4 (Niese, 378), as contrasted with 
another ἑτέρα Or ἄλλη οἰκουμένη, Bell. ii. 16. 4 (363), Ant. iv. 6.8. Of. the 
distinction made by us between the old world and the new world, 1.6. the 
more recently discovered world—a distinction which is disappearing. The 
limitation of the meaning in Luke ii. 1 to the world ruled by the Romans is 
clear from the very character of the statement made ; similarly in Acts ii. 28 
it is expressed by the name of the Emperor. The same exaggeration of 
statement is to be found in Paul’s writings, Col. i. 6; Rom. x. 18; 1 Tim. 
iii. 16; 2 Tim. iv. 17. This, however, is to be said with reference to the 
alleged unhistorical character of the statement in Acts xi. 28 : the scarcity of 
food, and the consequent rise in its price in Rome in 41-43 A.D., and again in 
51 (Dio Cass. lx. 11; Tac. Ann. xii. 43; ef. Anger, De temp. in Actis ratione, 
42), must have been due to repeated failure of crops in Egypt, which would 
increase the price of grain in other lands. There is also to be considered in 
this connection the reports regarding conditions in Palestine (Jos. Ant. iii. 
15. 3, xx. 2. 5, 5.2) and Greece (Eus. Chron. Anno Abr. 2064, cf. ad 2057). In 
a metrical inscription from Apollonia in the province of Galatia (Le Bas- 
Waddington, Asie min. No. 1192=C. I. G. 3973), dating possibly from the year 
57 a.D. (Ramsay, Stud. Oxon. iv. 1896, p. 52 {f.), is found the following : ὅτε 
βούβρωστις κατὰ γαῖαν vapkoßopos δεινή re, φόνον βρείθουσα ἀἄλυκτον! κόσμον 
ἐπέσχεθε πάντα. Even if the date of the inseription be considered uncertain, 
because of the impossibility of determining exactly the period to which it 
belongs, the text does show how educated people in imperial times were 
accustomed to speak of such calamities. The carping critic must also admit 
that Luke uses the language to which exception is taken only in reproducing 
the prophecy of Agabus, he himself adding merely the brief remark that this 
was fulfilled under Claudius. No details are added, which show how nearly 
the events corresponded to the letter of the prophecy. This fact Theophilus 
and every contemporary knew better than Overbeck and Krenkel. How one- 
sided Krenkel is in his treatment of this problem appears on S. 281, where 
the frequently noticed parallelism between Josephus (Vita, 3) and Paul’s 
voyage to Rome (Acts xxvii.-xxviii.) is passed over without further discussion, 
and the dependence of Luke upon Josephus in this passage is denied, on the 
ground that Acts xxvii. and xxviii. are the report of an eye-witness. Both 
authors agree in the following points: (1) The dangerous journey by sea 
from Palestine to Italy ; (2) the extreme dangers in the Adriatie Sea, and by 
night (Acts xxvii. 27); (3) the loss of the ship (Acts xxvii. 27, 41-44) ; (4) 
the transfer from one ship to another during 'the journey (Acts xxvii. 6, to an 
Alexandrian ship; Josephus, to a Cyrenean ship); (5) landing at Puteoli. 
It is an unimportant difference in the accounts that Paul made his journey 


ı32 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


in the autumn of 60, Josephus in the autumn of 64. Nor is the resemblance 
rendered less striking by other differences, such as that in the size of the 
crews, Paul’s sojourn in Malta, etc. 

4. (P. 97.) 0. I. L. v. i. No. 136%: de Rossi, Bull. di arch. Christ. 1880, 
p- 174 and plate ix.; Mommsen, Ephem. Epigr. iv. (1881) 8. 537-542 ; also 
the present writer’s essay quoted above, n. 3, NKZ, 1893, 5. 647 1. 

5. (P. 98.) It is hardly necessary to prove that the Herod referred to 
in Lukei.5can be no other than Herod the Great, who died in March of 
4 2.0. (Matt. ii, 1-19). Agrippa 1. (37-44 A.n.), who is also called Herod in 
Acts xii, 1-23, and Agrippa 1. (Acts xxv. 13 [50 to 93 or 100 A.D.]). are 
entirely out of the question. It is also inconceivable that Luke should have 
called by the title “King Herod” the Archelaus, who governed a part. of 
Palestine from 4 B.c. to 6 A.D. under the title of ethnarch. For, in the first 
place, Luke always employs exact titles in designating the rulers of this 
house, iii. 1, 19, ix. 7; Acts xii. 1, xxv. 13 (cf. per contra vol. ii. 503, n. 3); in 
the second place, the name Herod is never substituted for that of Archelaus 
either by Josephus or in the N.T. (cf. Matt. ii. 22) (Schiirer, i. 450 [Eng. trans. 
1. ii. 39)). 

6. (P. 99.) The more noticeable resemblances between Jos. and Acts in 
points of detail are the following: (1) Theudas, Acts v. 36, Ant. xx. 5. 1. 
The question cannot be here discussed whether the same individual is 
referred to in both passages, or whether, as Wieseler (Ohronol. Synopse, 103 f. ; 
Beiträge, 101 1.) endeavours to show, the Theudas of Luke is identical with 
the Matthias in Jos. Ant. xvii. 6; Bell. i. 33. Whether Luke himself com- 
posed the speech of Gamaliel, or took it from some older writing, he certainly 
was of the opinion that the insurrection under Theudas took place a long 
time before the speech in question, namely, before the insurrection of Judas 
and the one famous taxing, which in Luke ii. 2 he places between 4 and 1 8.0. 
(above, p. 94 ff.). According to Josephus, the insurrection under Theudas 
was put down by the procurator Fadus in 45 a.D.—a date considerably later 
than Gamaliel’s speech, and from forty to fifty years later than the insurrec- 
tion under Judas. The account in Josephus cannot be accepted as of 
unquestionable trustworthiness. Josephus was at the time a child between 
seven and nine years of age. Moreover, his reports of the history of this 
period are extremely meagre; the story about Theudas is a very isolated 
supplement to the description of Fadus’ procuratorship in xx. 1, and is 
separated from it by the long episode in xx. 2. 1-4. 4. If Josephus is right 
and Luke wrong, at all events it could not have been Josephus that misled 
Luke into this chronological error of half a century. No credence is to be 
given Krenkel’s hypothesis (163 ff.) that the mention of the sons of this Judas 
in the following paragraph of Josephus (xx. 5. 2) caused the confusion of 
father and sons in Luke’s mind,—leading him to suppose that the insurrection 
of Judas followed that of Theudas, For in this case Luke must have over- 
looked or forgotten the fact that Josephus, a few lines before, had mentioned 
the great famine—which, as Luke knew, took place under Claudius (Acts 
xi, 28)—as well as the names of the procurators, Cuspius, Fadus, Tiberius 
Alexander, Cumanus, and the name of the Emperor Claudius in Ant. xx. 
5. 1-2. Furthermore, the agreement between the two narratives is so slight 
as to leave it only probable that Josephus and Luke are referring to the same 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACIS 133 


event. According to Josephus, Theudas is a juggler, who pretends to be a 
prophet, leads his followers to the Jordan, and promises by a miracle to 
render easy the passage of the river. He is beheaded by a company of cavalry, 
who destroy part of his company and take the rest prisoners, and his head is 
sent to Jerusalem. It will be seen that much is wanting in Luke’s account 
besides the name of Fadus. The number of followers which Luke gives 
(400) could not have been suggested by Joseph ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος, and only 
frequently used words are common to the two accounts (Luke ἀνῃρέθη, Jos. 
ἀνεῖλεν, Luke ἐπείθοντο, Jos. Emeide,). (2) The death of King Agrippa 1., 
Acts xii, 19-23; Jos. Ant. xix. 1,2. In passages that precede and follow, 
Josephus calls him Agrippa. In this passage he calls him simply “the 
King”; Luke says “ Herod.” According to Josephus, the occasion of his 
death was a feast of several days in honour of the saving of the Emperor, at 
which the distinguished persons of the region were gathered ; according to 
Luke, it was the presence of a number of Tyrians and Sidonians, who, on 
account of their dependence upon the King’s country for their supply of 
grain, through the chief chamberlain, Blastus, begged peace of the enraged 
monarch. According to Josephus, the King appeared in the theatre on the 
second day of the feast; according to Luke, he delivered an oration to the 
ambassadors before all the people, on a day appointed with the Tyrians for 
the discussion of the matter. While Josephus describes in detail the splendid 
garments of the King, and the reflection of the morning sun upon them (ef. per 
contra Luke, ver, 21), and represents the flatterers of the court as proposing 
in well-turned phrases an apotheosis of the King, Luke produces a greater 
effect by the use of five words, in which he gives the exclamations of the 
people. In place of Luke’s impressive conclusion of the scene in ver. 23, 
Josephus gives the following account: Suddenly Agrippa saw an owl sitting 
upon a rope, and, because of an earlier experience with an owl which he had 
had in Rome, recognised at once that it was a messenger (ἄγγελον) of death 
(Ant. xviii. 6. 7). He was seized with severe pains in the abdomen, delivered 
a philosophical discourse to his friends, was carried into the palace, was 
deeply moved by the sympathy of the people, and died five days later. It is 
pertectly clear to everyone that each story has as its basis an entirely 
independent tradition, and it requires no great exercise of one’s historical 
sense to understand that Luke has reproduced more successfully than 
Josephus the spiritin which the event was recounted by those who witnessed 
it. The “ Angel of the Lord,” which the Gentile Luke represents as acting, 
is more natural in the story of the death of a Jewish King in Palestine than 
the discourses about mortal nature and fate which the Jew Josephus represents 
the King as delivering. The very fact that Josephus calls the owl an 
“ἄγγελος " in a different sense from which it is used in Luke’s account, would 
seem to’ indicate familiarity with the popular account of Jewish contem- 
poraries. Christian writers have transformed the owl again into what it 
was originally, a real angel (cf. Eus. H. E. ii. 10.6). (8) The Egyptian, Acts 
xxi. 38; Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 6, Bell. ii. 13.5. It is possible that Luke may have 
taken his short notice, which, however, is connected with another event in a 
manner hardly to be considered as invented, trom the longer accounts of 
Josephus ; but there is nothing to prove it. Nothing in Jos. indicates that 
the followers of the Egyptian were Stcarit. Indeed, Josephus describes the 


134 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


activity of this body in an entirely different way (Ant. xx. 13.3, Bell. ii. 8. 10), 
and does not connect them at all with the Egyptian. Their number in Luke, 
4000, agrees neither with the 400+200 of Ant. xx. 8. 6, nor with the 30,000 
of Bell. ii. 13.5. The other points in which the accounts agree prove nothing 
as to the dependence of one author upon another. Luke cannot win the 
favour of the critics: When he differs from Josephus, he errs or fabricates ; 
when he agrees with him, he copies; what he omits or adds is due to 
arbitrariness or misunderstanding ; but Josephus is always infallible. 

7. (P. 100.) The question whether, before completing his Antiquities and 
writing his Vita, Josephus read Luke’s work, cannot -be answered without 
entering at length into Josephus’ attitude toward the religious life of his 
people, the Messianic expectation, and the Christian movement. He did not 
understand this movement any more than would the rich, worldly, and 
heartless Jew of our own time. But he knew ten times more about it than 
he says. The famous testimony to Christ is put into his mouth by someone 
else, and there is a suspicion that the same is true of the statement about 
James, the brother of the so-called Christ ; ef. Forsch. vi. 301-305. A con- 
venient starting-point for the discussion of this question is the chapter on 
John, Ant. xviii: 5. 2, which Grätz (Gesch. ἃ. Juden®, iii. 294) declares to be 
a forgery, while Ranke (Weltgesch.t iii. 1. 161, 2. 39) uses it as a principal 
source, instead of the gospel account. It is an episode at the beginning and 
end, of which regard is had for the popular way of treating history, 
characteristic of certain Jews. It is senseless to suppose that’ Antipas feared 
that John would create a popular uprising, if at the same time he exhorted 
the people only to righteousness and piety, because this leaves out of account 
altogether the preaching of the nearness of the Kingdom of God and the fire 
of judgment. When Josephus makes John teach’ that men ought to be 
baptized, “not in order to apologise for certain offences,” there is implied a 
direct rejection of the Christian tradition, according to which he preached a 
βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (Luke iii. 3; Mark i. 4f.). If Josephus 
had read Luke iii. 10-14, it explains the very moderate moral teaching 
which he puts into the mouth of the Baptist. The variation in the statements 
about Quirinius in the Antiquities from the earlier account in Bell. (above, 
p. 96) is explained, if between these writings Josephus had read Luke ii. 2. 
It is noteworthy, moreover, that the two important parallels between 
Jos. and Acts are to be found only in the Antiquities, not in Bell. ; see n. 6. 
The story (Vita, 2) of the fourteen years old Josephus, whose advice was 
sought by the high priests on questions of the law, has the appearance of 
being a grotesque imitation of the incomparable story in Luke ii. 41-52. The 
present writer has no desire to argue with one whose taste permits him to 
regard the reverse relation as possible. 

8. (P. 100.) Concerning the secular χαίρειν, Acts xv. 23 and Jas. i. 1, 
which is almost contemporaneous, see vol. i. 119, n. 7. To this corresponds 
ἔρρωσο, xv. 29-—-the verb is not found in the N.T. (in xxiii. 30 it is probably 
spurious), Leaving out of account expressions required by the subject under 
discussion, this short message contains the following words not found else- 
where in the writings of Luke or the N.T. (the latter are indicated by *), 
ἀνασκευάζειν, διαστέλλεσθαι (only five times in the writings of Mark, a native 
of Jerusalem) ; ἐπάναγκες, εὖ mpdrrew*, of ἀγαπητοὶ ἡμῶν, without ἀδελφοί ; 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 135 


the appositional ἀδελφοί after πρεσβύτεροι, undoubtedly the correct reading. 
On the other hand, ὁμοθυμαδόν, which is used 8 or 9 times in Acts, but never 
with γίνεσθαι ; διατηρεῖν, not as used in Luke ii. 51, but in an essentially 
different sense, and ἐπειδὴ ἠκούσαμεν---ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν, ver. 24f. (ef. Luke i. 1-3), 
need hardly be taken into account, 

9. (P. 101.) Julius Africanus in Eus. H. H. 1. 1. 7-15. The δεσπόσυνοι 
drew partly from family traditions, partly from chronicles ; see ZKom. Matt. 
44f. A. 7. 

10. (P. 104.) To Luke the use of the article, with both the name and 
the title of Isaiah in Mark i. 2, seemed harsh, as did also the bare phrase, 
“in Isaiah” (ef. Rom. ix. 25, xi, 2). One reads “ Isaiah” (Acts viii. 28, 30; 
cf. xv. 21) as he does “‘ Homer,” but “ the book of the prophet Isaiah” (Luke 
iv. 17) is handed to him, and when this and other books are quoted, reference 
is made to the book (Luke iii. 4, xx. 42; Acts i. 20, vii. 42). Because 
Theophilus is not entirely familiar with the work, it is remarked, in. con- 
nection with the first cuotation from it, that the book is a collection of the 
sayings of the prophet mentioned (Luke iii. 4). 

11. (P. 104.) Outside of chaps. iii. in the narratives peculiar to Luke, 
but certainly not created by him, we find such expressions as ὁ οἰκονόμος 
τῆς ἀδικίας, XVi. 8; ὁ μαμωνᾶς τῆς ad., Xvi. 9 (ver. 11 is different); ὁ κριτὴς 
τῆς ἀδ., XVill. 63 ev τοῖς ὠσίν, eis ra ὦτα, Luke iv. 21, ix. 44; Acts xi, 22; 
ἰδού or καὶ ἰδού (apart from quotation) 56 times in the Gospel, 23 times in Acts, 
often where it is not found in the parallels in Mark (found in this Gospel 
only 8 or 10 times), frequently wanting also in Matt., Luke v.12 (=Matt. 
viii. 2, not Mark 1. 40); v. 18 (= Matt. ix. 2, not in Mark 11, 3) ; vi. 23 (not 
in Matt. v. 12); ix. 30 (=Matt. xvii. 3, not in Mark ix. 4); ix. 38, 39 (not 
in Matt. xvii. 15; Mark ix. 15). Passages without parallel: vii. 12, 37, 
x. 19, 25, xi. 41, xiii. 7, 11, ete. Noticeable is the frequent occurrence of 
Kal ἐγένετο or ἐγένετο δέ (often with ἐν τῷ, followed by the infinitive or 
ὡς ἤκουσεν and similar expressions, or with a statement of time). This is 
found in a number of different constructions: (a) followed by the principal 
verb, without καί, i. 8, 23, 41, 59, ii. 1, 15, 46, vil. 11, vili. 40, ix. 18, 
33,-37, x1.01, 14, 27, xvii. 14, xviii 35, xix, 29, xx, 1;.(0), with καί, ν, 1, 
12, 17, viii. 1, 22, ix. 51, x. 38, xvii. 11, xxiv. 4, 15; (c) followed by the 
infinitive with the accusative, iii, 21, vi. 1, 6, 12, xvi. 22. Of these con- 
structions only the third, which is (in the first place) found in vulgar Greek, 
also occurs in Acts and very frequently (iv. 5, ix. 8, 32, 37, 43, xiv. 1, 
xvi. 16, xix. 1, xxi. 1, 5, xxii. 6, 17, xxvii. 44, xxviii. 8, 17; about xi. 26 
there may be a question), The second construction (b) is: the most 
Hebraistic of the three, especially in constructions like Luke xiv. 1, καὶ 
ἐγένετο, ἐν τῷ ἐλθεῖν αὐτόν... καὶ αὐτοὶ ἦσαν ... καὶ ἰδού, οἵ. vi. 1, 2, 
xxiv. 4. It is avoided altogether by Mark and Matt. The only one of the 
constructions used by Matt. is (a) vii. 28, ix. 10 (where the correct reading 
is ἰδού without καί), xi. 1, xiii. 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1; Mark uses it twice, i. 9, 
iv. 4; also (b) 11, 15, 23, twice. 

12. (P. 105.) For the use of εὐθύς in Mark see vol. ii. 482. Luke uses 
εὐθέως appropriately, also παραχρῆμα, which is found outside of Luke’s 
writings (Gospel 10 times, Acts 6 times) only in Matt. xxi. 19f. The 
strong Hebraism in Mark vi. 39 is removed in Luke ix. 14, as are also the 


136 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Aramaic words and names, Mark iii. 16, 18, v. 41, ix. 5, x. 46, 51, xi. 10, 
xii. 43, xiv. 32, 36, 45, xv. 22, 34. In some cases translations are substi 
tuted: ζηλωτής, Luke vi. 15 (Acts i. 13); ἡ mais Eyeipov, viii. 54 ; emıorara, 
ix. 33 (v. 5, vill. 45, ix. 49, xvii. 13, where there are no parallels ; viii. 24 
for διδάσκαλε) ; κύριε, xvili. 41 (for paßßovvi), ἀληθῶς, xxi. 3 (for ἀμήν 
removed in xxii. 18 altogether, used only 6 or 7 times in the Gospel). In 
other cases the Hebrew or Aramaic word, or name, is simply stricken out, 
xix. 38, xxii. 40, 42, 47, xxiii. 33. In Luke’s writings are found the 
following Hebrew words: ἀμήν, iv. 24, xii. 37, ete. (used by Jesus only in 
connection with λέγω ὑμῖν, hence not found in Acts) ; BeeACeSovA, xi. 15-19 
(with explanation); yeevva, xii. 5 (but in xvi. 23 döns); πάσχα, 11. 41 
(ἡ ἑορτὴ τοῦ m., as in Matt. and Mark); xxii. 1 (with detailed explanation), 
ef. Acts xii. 3, 4, xxii. 7-15 ; σάββατον and σάββατα, often in the sense of 
week, xviil. 12, xxiv. 1; Acts xvii. 2, xx. 7, vol. i. 212, n. 5 ; Σατανᾶς 5 times 
in the Gospel, twice in Acts (also διάβολος from 4 to 6 times in the Gospel ; 
twice in Acts); σίκερα indeclinable, Luke i. 15 (Isa. xxiv. 9 nom. Num. vi. 3 
gen., Deut. xiv. 26, Cod. AF dat., Lev. x. 9 ace.). Luke and Theophilus, who 
lived in Antioch, were probably familiar with the Syriac words papevas, 
xvi. 9-13, and βάτος, xvi. 6 (more correctly written βάδους, NLX, Epiph. 
Mens. xxii. 4. 10, which is the source of the reading in D xadovs), ef. vol. 
i. 18; regarding the use of Syriac in and about Antioch see Forsch. i. 40 ff. 
13. (P. 104.) : The expression ἄνθρ. ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ in Mark i. 23, 
v. 2 is improved in Luke iv. 33, viii. 27. In two instances ἐξ αὐτοῦ 
following ἐξελθεῖν, Mark i. 25f., is changed into ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, iv. 35 (cf. iv, 41, 
v. 8, viii. 29, 33, 35, 38, 46; Acts xvi. 18, xix. 12); ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ, Mark i. 28, 
is replaced by ἦχος περὶ αὐτοῦ, Luke iv. 37; in two cases κράβατος, Mark 
ii. 4, 11, is replaced by κλινίδιον in Luke v. 19, 24, left out altogether in 
v. 23 (Mark ii. 9) and reproduced by a circumlocution in ν. 25 (Mark ii. 12), 
while the word is tolerated in Acts v. 15 (along with κλιν άρια) and ix. 33. 
For words and phrases in parallels in Mark, not altogether polished in 
character, Luke substitutes the following (those not occurring elsewhere 
in the N.T. are marked with an *): mapadoga*, v. 26; δοχή, v. 29 (also 
xiv. 13), ὑγιαίνοντες, v. 31 (also vii. 10, xv. 27); Ixnas*, νη]. 6; δέχεσθαι, 
viii. 13; ἀποδέχεσθαι, viii. 40, ix. 11 (used similarly 3 or 4 times in Acts) ; 
reXeohopeiv*, vili. 14; δοκεῖ ἔχειν, Vill. 18; συντυχεῖν rıwı*, vill. 19; λίμνῃ, 
viii. 22, 23 (also v. 1, 2, viii. 33 always instead of θάλασσα in Mark and 
Matt. and John, of the sea of Gennesaret) ; διηγεῖσθαι, viii. 39, ix. 10 (Acts 
ix. 27, xii. 17, διήγησις, Luke i. 1); προσαναλώσασα ὅλον τὸν βίον, Vili. 43°; 
διαπορεῖν, ix. 7 (Acts v. 24, x. 17; in the middle voice in ii. 12); βρέφη for 
παιδία, xviii. 15 (i. 41, 44, ii. 12,16; Acts vii. 19) ; ἐξεκρέμετο αὐτοῦ ἀκούων", 
xix. 48; ἀναθήμασι κεκόσμηται, xxi. 5 ; mpopederav®, xxi. 14 ; amoAoyeiodaı, 
xxi. 14 (xii. 11, 6 times in Acts). For medical terms cf. § 62. While Luke 
does not avoid altogether Latin terms, such as ἀσσάριον, xii. 6; δηνάριον, 
vii. 41, x. 855; Aeyıov, viii. 30; Καῖσαρ (in the Gospel 6 times, in Acts 
10 times), which are found also in the other Gospels, he does avoid κεντυρίων 
(Mark, Luke has instead ἑκατόνταρχος, vii. 2, 6, xxiii. 47, 13 or 14 times in 
Acts) κουστωδία (Matt., but cf. Acts xii. 4); κῆνσος (Matt., Mark for which 
Luke xx. 22, xxiii. 2 has φόρος) ; κοδράντης (Matt., Mark for which Luke 
xxi. 2 has δύο λεπτά, which in Mark xii. 42 is given as the equivalent of one 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 137 


quadrans, vol. ii. 504 ; ξέστης (Mark); σπεκουλάτωρ (Mark) ; 'τίτλος (John); 
φραγελλοῦν (Matt., Mark), see vol. ii. 504. In Luke xx. 24 probably the 
correct reading is νόμισμα instead of δηνάριον. Neither does Luke use 
πραιτώριον designating the guard in the passion history (Matt., Mark, John), 
but only in Acts xxiii. 35. In Acts we have colonia (xvi. 12) and sicaris 
(xxi. 38). Otherwise Luke uses Greek names for everything Roman 
(officials, the military, ete.): ἀνθύπατος, ἡγεμών, ἡγεμονεύειν, ἡγεμονία, 
στρατόπεδον, στρατοπεδάρχης, στρατεύεσθαι (στρατιά, Luke ii. 13; Acts vii. 42 
applied to the world of spirits), χιλίαρχος (so used elsewhere only in John 
xviii. 12; in Mark vi. 21, Rev. vi. 15 more indefinite) ; σπεῖρα (of cohorts, 
Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1, also in Matt., Mark, John); τετράδιον στρατιωτῶν (Acts 
xii. 4) ; δεξιολάβος (Acts xxiii. 23) ; παρεμβολή (elsewhere only in Heb. and 
Rey.). Likewise for Jewish officials and authorities Luke uses only Greek 
titles: στρατηγός (xxii. 4, 52; Acts iv. 1, v. 24, 26); γερουσία (Acts v. 21); 
νομικός (6 times elsewhere, only in Matt. xxii. 35); νομοδιδάσκαλος (Luke 
v. 17; Acts v. 34). 

14. (P. 108.) For the Hebrew and Aramaic words in Luke’s writings 
see n. 12. On Akeldama see vol. i. 28; on Barnabas, vol. i. 30. The 
translation of the word Tabitha only (Acts ix. 36) is unquestionably correct 
(cf. Jos. Bell. iv. 3. 5). In xiii. 8 the text is obscure, cf., however, NKZ, 
xv. 195ff. To the mind of the present writer, Klostermann (Probleme im 
Apostelt. S. 18) has, with great probability, proved that μεγάλη, Acts viii. 10, 
was originally xbap or ‘ban (“ The Revealer”), which Luke has misunderstood. 

15. (P. 109.) In the parallels between Matt., Mark, Luke there are a 
few words in which Luke agrees with Matt. against Mark. But in the case 
of the more important of these there is a suspicion about the correctness of 
the text, e.g. ὡς ἡ ἄλλη, Luke vi. 10 (omitted by NBL, Old Lat. and Copt.) 
= Matt. xii. 13, not found in Mark iii. 5; like the preceding ὑγιής, which 
likewise is genuine only in Matt., it has crept into the text of Luke, only 
at an earlier date, and, therefore, is found more generally in the MSS. 
Other agreements may be due to the fact that the translator of Matt. and 
Luke both made the same changes in the clumsy language of Mark; in 
which process the former may have been influenced by the latter ; cf. vol. ii. 
574 f., 594. 

16. (P. 111.) Matt. iv. 1-11 and Luke iv. 1-13 must be based upon a 
report by Jesus to His disciples, and this is confirmed by Matt. xii. 29; 
Mark iii. 27; Luke xi. 21f.; also by Luke x. 18, when this saying is rightly 
understood ; cf. ZKom. Matt. 147 f. 

17. (P. 112.) Feine (Hine vorkanonische Überlieferung des Lc. 1891) con- 
structs, on the basis of material found only in Luke, a Jewish Christian 
“source,” 1.6. a source which originated in the Christian Church in 
Palestine before 70, peculiar to Luke. This fourth source Luke used in 
addition to the other sources, which in learned fashion he adopted, namely, 
(1) Mark; (2) “ The original synoptic document” (following B. Weiss) ; 
(3) “Sayings” (Logia). But, according to Feine, Luke probably found this 
fourth source already combined with the third. In Acts i. 1-viii. 24, ix. 31- 
xi. 23, xii. 1-24 he finds essentially unaltered a writing closely related to 
this fourth source, “ possibly ” (8. 236, 244) in some way combined with it 
into a whole. 


138 INTRODUCTION TO ‘THE NEW TESTAMENT 


18. (P. 114.) It is to be assumed that the subordinate characters ir 
the gospel history, who are mentioned by name in the Gospels (Jairus, 
Bartimeeus, Simon of Cyrene, Alexander, Rufus, Nicodemus, Lazarus) were 
more or less widely known in the apostolic age as members of the Church, 
as was also the rich, small statured chief publican of Jericho. According 
to Clement, Hom. iii. 64-71; Recogn. iii. 65-68; cf. Hom. ii. 1, xvii. 1.6; 
Recogn. ii. 1, he became bishop of Ceesarea. Of the fifteen Jewish Christian 
bishops of Jerusalem before 132 or 135 the fourth to be mentioned is a 
Zaccheeus (Kus. H. E. iv. 5. 3), or, according to Epiph. Her. Ixvi. 20, 
Zacharias, which, however, is only the full Hebrew form for the Aramaic 
abbreviation; ef. Dalman, Aram. Gr.? 178. For further a Ses of the 
subject see Forsch. vi. 291 f., 500 ἢ. 

19. (P. 114.) Luke x. 30-37 is freer from Semiticisms than other 
passages peculiar to this Gospel. In xv.-xvi., xviii. 1-14 also, notwith- 
standing thoroughly Jewish expressions and ideas (xv. 18, 21, 24, 32, 
xvi. 8, 9 [n. 11], 22, xviii. 6), a fairly good style is to be observed. 
Naturally one speaks of heaven and hell (xvi. 22f., xxiii. 43) in a different 
way than of the happenings of a journey and of inns (x. 30-35). . 

20. (P. 117.) J. Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 1848, 
3rd ed. 1866; A. Breusing, director of the naval academy in Bremen 
(Die Nautik der Alten, 1886, S. 142-205). In his introduction, p. xiii, 
Breusing says: “The most valuable nautical document preserved to us 
from antiquity is the description of the sea journey and shipwreck of the 
apostle Paul. Every seaman recognises at once that it must have been 
written by an eye-witness.” Th. Mommsen (Sitzungsber. d. berl. Ak. 1895, 
S. 503) has not increased his reputation by his scornful remark, that “ Luke 
speaks of the Adriatic Sea in the vicinity of Crete, and of the Barbarians 
on the island of Malta.” Even Strabo (pp. 123, 317) knows ’Adpias to be the 
common name of the Adriatic proper and of the Ionian sea; and in 
Ptolemeus (iii. 4. 1, ef. Pausan. viii. 54. 2) it ineludes also the Sicilian 
(or Ausonian) sea. Just as Strabo (p. 123) remarks that the Sicilian sea 
reaches to the western end of Crete and to the Peloponnesus, so Ptolemeeus 
says (111. 17. 1) that Crete is bounded on the west by the Adriatic sea. 
Luke, whose chronological position is between Strabo and Ptolemzeus, had 
no more occasion than did Josephus (Vita, 3) to make an accurate geo- 
graphical statement regarding the scope of the term ’Adpias, but, like 
Ptolem®us and Josephus, he seems to have made it include the entire sea 
lying between Crete and Sicily (Acts xxvii. 27); for during the fourteen 
days (xxvii, 27, 33) after land was lost sight of on the south-west coast of 
Orete, namely, the island Cauda (xxvii. 16 B vg, also 51 not Clauda, called 
now Gavdos or Gozzo), until shortly before the stranding of the ship on 
Malta it was tossed about in the Adriatic sea. Mommsen’s mocking remark 
deserves even less credence than the claim that Luke included Malta in the 
Adriatic sea, upon which W. Falconer (Dissertat. on St. Paul’s Voyage and 
on the Apostle’s Shipwreck on the Island of Melite, 1817, 2nd ed., by Th. 
Falconer, 1870) based the hypothesis that Melite is to be identified with the 
modern Meleda, on the Illyricum coast. But the inference would be wrong 
in any case (cf. Breusing, 8. 150). Proeopius (de Bell. Vand. i. 14) makes 
the islands of Gaulos and Malta the boundary between the Adriatic and 


'THE FIRST ‘THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS τς 


Tyrrhenian seas. That Luke’s view was the same cannot be proved. It 
would be pedantic, in order to make Luke agree with Ptolemeus (iii. 4. 1, 
cf. iv. 3. 47), to require him to say that during the last of the fourteen days 
the ship passed the longitude of Cape Pachynos, so that when Paul landed 
on Malta he was no longer in the Adriatic (Siculum) sea, but in the African 
sea. With reference to the βάρβαροι on the island of Melita (Acts xxviii. 
1, 4), it is difficult to understand how Mommsen knows that in the year 60 
the Punic language had died out on this island, which was long a part of the 
dominions of Carthage—its name Melita being in fact a Punic name—and 
was also an old Pheenician colony (Movers, Die Phönizier, ii. 2. 347-358 ; 
ef, the inscriptions in Schröder, Die phön. Sprache, 8. 232-235), especially in 
view of the fact that on the mainland opposite there were extensive regions 
where it remained the dominant language until within the fifth century 
(GK, i. 40-42 ; Movers in Ersch and Gruber, Eneye., article “ Phonizien,” 
433f.). Of the twelve existing coins which were struck on the island of 
Malta between the time of Roman annexation (218 2.c.) and Augustus 
(A. Mayr, Die antiken Munzen der Inseln Malta, Gozzo, and Pantelleria, 
Miinchen, 1894, especially S. 18f.), numbers 1 to 4 are Punic, from 5 to 10 
are Greek and Latin, and 12 is Latin. Punic and Greek coins were struck 
cotemporaneously: All that Luke says is that the fishermen, sailors, and 
peasants whom those who were shipwrecked first met did not know Greek. 
On account of the close connection between Punic and ancient Hebrew, it is 
quite possible that Paul understood at once the words of the Barbarians 
(xxviii. 4). The landed proprietor Publius, with whom those who were 
shipwrecked, or at least part of them,—among these the three Christians 
in the company,—spent three days as guests, and most of the inhabitants of 
the city where they spent three months (xxviii. 11) may have understood 
and spoken Latin, or Greek, or both. Luke shows his knowledge of 
actual conditions in Malta by the use of the title ὁ πρῶτος τῆς νήσου, 
xxviii. 7, which is attested for this island by ©. I. @. No. 5754=Kaibel 
1. @. Sicilie, No. 601: ἱππεὺς Ῥωμαίων, πρῶτος Μελιταίων καὶ πάτρων. 
C. I. L. x. No. 7495, municipti Melitensium primus ommium, according 
to the addenda to this inscription, p. 994, dating from the first or second 
century. 

21. (P. 118.) The literary relation of Acts to the letters of Paul is not 
carefully investigated by those critics, who are most under obligation to do 
so, because of the late date which they assign to Acts, and because of the 
conscious modification of the Pauline history which they assume. ZELLER 
speaks very incidentally (S. 518f.) of “the Pauline letters,” and especially 
of Gal., as sources of Acts. OVERBECK (p. lix) claims in a mere remark—as 
if this question were not of fundamental importance in any critical estimate 
of Acts, that while as a matter of course Luke was acquainted with the 
genuine Epistles of Paul, as evidenced by ix. 19-30, xv. 1-33, xviii. 24-28, 
these Epistles were “not among the sources of Acts.” There is, however, 
nothing added to explain this, which Overbeck calls “a characteristic fact.” 
JACOBSEN (Quellen der AG, 1885, S. 8 ff.), on the other hand, represents the 
author of Acts as elaborating the most important statements and narratives 
even of chaps. i.-xii. from the hints in Paul’s letters, while Steck (Gal. 1888, 
S. 78-151) thinks that he is able to show that the author of the four “ chief 


140 INTRODUCTION "TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Epistles” presupposed and utilised Acts and perhaps even the Gospel οἱ 
Luke (S. 191-211). 

22. (P. 119.) The reading ἐπιστολήν for ἐντολήν (Acts xvii. 15 ES! 
“And when they parted from him they received from him a letter to Silas 
and Timothy”) is untrustworthy, and, if genuine, would refer to a lost 
letter. 

23. (P. 121.) Paul refers to his Pharisaism in the description of his 
condition before conversion, Phil. iii. 5f.; Gal. i. 14; Luke does not refer 
to this until much later, and then in a different connection, Acts xxiii. 6, 
xxvi. 5, and the expression ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων, Gal. i, 14=Acts xxii. 3, is not 
at all striking ; ef. Acts xxi. 20. There is nothing in Luke which reminds 
us of the bold figure in 1 Cor, xv. 8. The fact that besides the more 
common διώκειν (1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 13, 23; Phil. iii. 6; 1 Tim. i, 13) 
πορθεῖν is used twice by Paul (Gal. i. 13, 23) and once by Luke (Acts ix. 21) 
proves nothing ; Philo also, ὁ. Flace. vili., calls the Jew baiting in Alexandria 
πορθεῖν Ἰουδαίους. In the description of the flight from Damascus in Acts 
ix. 341. and 2 Cor. xi. 32 all the words are different, until the designation of 
the city wall, which it was necessary for both to mention, and except χαλᾶν, 
which is used by Luke elsewhere (Luke y. 4,5; Acts xxvii. 17, 30); Paul: 
ἐφρούρει τὴν πόλιν .. . πιάσαι pe. διὰ θυρίδος ἐν σαργάνῃ. διὰ τοῦ τείχους ; 
Luke: παρετηροῦντο τὰς πύλας ἡμέρας τε καὶ νυκτός, ὅπως αὐτὸν 
ἀνέλωσιν, λαβόντες δὲ. .. νυκτὸς διὰ τοῦ τείχους καθῆσαν αὐτὸν χαλάσαντες 
ἐν σπυρίδι. (On this point cf. NKZ, xv. 34-41. 

24, (P. 125.) Clement of Rome possesses independent knowledge about 
the end of Paul’s life (1 Cor. v.; vol. ii. 68f.), but nevertheless refers the 
Corinthians in chap. xlvii. to 1 Cor., as if it were the first letter in a 
collection of Pauline letters (cf. GK, i, 812f.). Ignatius (Eph. xii. 2; 
Rom. iv. 3) and Polycarp (Phil. iii. 2, xi, 3) uniformly treat Paul as the 
author of the letters that pass under his name (vol. i. 535, n. 3; GK, i. 811- 
822), although they were not unfamiliar with Acts (GA, i. 923). Marcion 
confines himself entirely to the letters, and leaves Acts out of account 
altogether. The schools of Basilides and Valentinus made large use of the 
Epistles, while it is impossible to prove certainly that they utilised Acts 
(GK, ii. 751-763, 773). In the Acts of Paul, including the Acts of, Thecla 
and in the Gnostic Acts of Peter, we find the Epistles of Paul just as much 
noticed or imitated as Acts (GK, ii. 854 f., 887-889, 903-909, i. 783, 787- 
789). 

25. (P. 127.) On p. 127 above, in xii, 25-xiii, 9, the a text is pre- 
supposed. 88 and p have ὁ ἐπικαλούμενος Παῦλος after Σαῦλος in xii, 25, and 
the latter alone, Παῦλος instead of Σαῦλος in xiii. i, 2 also, but see p, 28, n. 6 
above. If, in view of xi, 25,30, it is probable that SavAos was used in 
Antioch when Paul first came to the city, the scantily attested| Παῦλος in 
xiii. 1, 2 is improbable, and for the recurrence of Σαῦλος in xiii. 7 there is no 
sufficient reason, and the addition in xii. 25 is superfluous. For the two 
names see vol. i. 69f. It is very possible that Paul’s, own companions, 
Barnabas and Mark, up to this time had used Aramaic in conversing with 
him, hence had called him Σαῦλος. From the time, however, when they 
found it necessary to use Greek they called him Παῦλος, 

26, (P. 129.) The following are Hebraistic expressions in Acts i.-xül.: 


THE FIRST THREE (GOSPELS AND ACTS 141 


διὰ χειρὸς (χειρῶν), ii. 23, ν. 12, vii. 25, xi. 30; οἷ, ἐν or σὺν χειρί, Vil. 35, alse 
xiv. 3, xv. 23, xix. 11; ἐκ χειρός, xii. 11; Luke i. 71, 74, also xxiv. 7; ἦν χεὶρ 
κυρίου per αὐτῶν, xi. 21, elsewhere only in Luke i. 66, but ef. also Acts 
iv. 28, 30, xiii. 11; διὰ στόματος, 1. 16, iii. 18, 21, iv. 25 (Luke i. 70), alse 
xv. 7, ef. xxii. 14; Luke xi. 54, xix. 22, xxi. 71; ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα, viii. 35, 
x. 34 (viii. 32 quotation), cf. xviii. 14; ἠκούσθη eis τὰ Gra, xi. 22, cf. Luke 
i. 44; Matt. x. 27; Jas. v. 4; ἰδού, 16 times in chaps. i.-xii., only 7 times in 
chaps. xiii—xxviii, see above, p. 135, n. 11. 

27. (P. 129.) E. Nesrne has repeatedly attempted to explain the 
variations of Cod. D and the allied MSS. from the commonly accepted. text 
in Acts, on the supposition that they are different translations of the same 
Hebrew (or Aramaic) original, or due to variations in this, original 
(ChW, 1895, off print, 5. 6;  Philol. sacra, 1896, 8. 39 ff.; ThStKr, 1896, 
S. 102f.). This is conceivable, if, with D. Schultz (De cod. Cantabrig. 1827, 
p- 16), we may regard the text of D as a later form of the text, dependent 
upon a Syriac translation of Acts; but this theory is irreconcilable with the 
view that both a and ps originated with the author, and that 8 represents 
his original draft of the book. For, in view of the language conditions of 
the time, it is impossible to believe that one so thoroughly Greek in 
character as the Antiochian physician Luke, the author of the prologue, and 
the author or redactor of the entire Lucan work, could have read a Hebrew 
book. To every thousand Jews (Syrians, Copts) who at that time were able 
to read, write, and speak Greek, there could not at most have been more 
than one Greek who had obtained a corresponding knowledge of Hebrew 
or Aramaic. And the present writer confesses that he has sought this rara 
avis in vain. A few words and expressions were occasionally picked up 
from the natives (Forsch. i. 41), but it occurred to no educated Greek or 
Roman to learn their language in a systematic way (vol. i. 34 ff.), Except 
in cases where a Greek pastor was assigned to a region where only Syriac 
was used (Forsch. i. 43), this was not done until Christians, such as Origen 
and Jerome, studied Hebrew in the interest of theology, Among these 
Aquila would be included, if he were actually a native Gentile and a 
Greek. 

28. (P. 129.) Soawanseck, Uber die Quellen der Schriften des Le., vol. i. 
(the only vol.) ; der AG, 1847; ZELLER, 8. 489-524. Jaconsen, Quellen der 
AG, 1885; Soror, Entstehung der AG, 1890; Spitta, Die AG, ihre Quellen 
und deren geschichtl. Wert, 1891 ; GERCKE, Hermes, 1894, S. 373-392; Der 
δεύτερος λόγος des Le. und die AG; FEINE, Eine vorkanonische Überlieferung 
des Le. 1891; Jüngst, Quellen der AG, 1895. Cf. the review by Zöckler, 
Greifswalder Stud. 1895, S. 107-145: “Die AG als Gegenstand höherer und 
niederer Kritik.” It would be useless to undertake to review the separäte 
hypotheses of the scholars mentioned. It will be sufficient to illustrate the 
conception of the redactor of the entire work, if attention be called to 
Spitta’s idea of his work in writing down Acts ii. 1 (S. 23, 51). In the A 
source the outpouring of the Spirit was connected with the choice of an 
apostle by the words καὶ ev τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι, to which the indulgent 
reader was left to supply αὐτούς or τὸν ἀριθμόν, sc. τῶν ἀποστόλων. At the 
moment when the number of the apostles was complete they were all filled 
with the Holy Spirit. In the B source the story began with the words, 


142 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


“But when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together." 
The redactor, however, misunderstood A, and out of A and B constructed 
the alleged bungling construction of ii. 1. The only conceivable motive for 
the retention of συμπληροῦσθαι, which was misunderstood,—also entirely 
unintelligible in A,—would be the childish fondness of the redactor for this 
word, which is found elsewhere only in Luke viii. 23, ix. 51, and used here 
inaccurately, as in Luke ix. 51. For also in Luke ix. 51 it is not the time 
until the taking up, which is said to be fulfilled,—the natural expression,— 
but the time at which the taking up oceurs. Itis the same common shift- 
ing of the idea that we have in the πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός of Mark 1. 15; 
John vii. 8, and other similar combinations (cf. Luke ix. 31; John iii. 29). 
In this way it comes about that a point of time or an event which really 
marks the conclusion of a period at the end of which these are expected, is 
itself said to be fulfilled. 


$ 62. THE AUTHOR OF THE WORK ATTRIBUTED TO 
LUKE AND THE TIME OF ITS COMPOSITION. 


Assuming that the “we” passages, Acts xvi. 10-18, 
xx. 5-xxi. 18, xxvii. 1-xxvi. 16, were written by a 
travelling companion of Paul’s, either in the form m 
which we now possess them, or at least in substance 
(above, p. 115f.), it is entirely arbitrary to attribute their 
composition to some person other than Luke, to whom they 
are assigned by the tradition, whether it be to TimoTHy 
or Sıras (Silvanus) or Trrus (n. 1). 

The first two names are excluded because both are 
mentioned in the third person and by name in xy. 22- 
xviii. 5, directly before and directly after the first long 
“we” passage. Timothy is mentioned again in xix. 22 
and once more in xx. 4, directly before the “we” re- 
appears. The sudden transition from the impersonal 
designation of one of these persons, “ Silas or Timothy,” 
to “I,” which is implied by the use of ‘ we,” and especi- 
ally the contrast between one group of individuals, which 
includes Timothy, and a second group, which includes 
Paul and the narrator speaking in the first, person (Acts 
xx. 4-6), would not only make the narrative: incredibly 
awkward, or introduce into it a needless element of 
mystery, but would be positively meaningless (above, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 143 


p. 86 f., nn. 11-13). Moreover, if the “we” im xi. 27 
is original (above, p. 4, n. 3; 28, n. 6), Silas and 
Timothy are excluded. Silas was not at this time a 
resident of Antioch, but of Jerusalem (xv. 22), and 
Timothy had not yet become a Christian ; for it was not 
until very much later that the gospel reached the province 
where he lived (xiv. 6, xvi. 1). 

Furthermore, Silas is not mentioned as one of Paul’s 
companions in any of the letters written from Rome. 
But, according to Acts xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16, the narrator 
accompanied Paul to Rome, and, unless we assume that 
a strange accident took place, he was, like Aristarchus 
(xxvii. 2), whom we meet again in Col. iv. 10, Philem. 
24, one of the persons mentioned in Col. i. 1, iv. 7-14; 
Philem. 1, 23 f. 

Since Paul took Titus with him from Antioch to the 
apostolic council after the first missionary journey (Gal. 
ii. 1), possibly he may be concealed behind the “we” of 
Acts xi. 27. Since, moreover, he is not mentioned at all 
in the prevailing text of Acts (see, however, above, p. 28, 
n. 6), some of the difficulties disappear in which we are 
involved when we assume that the “we” passages were 
written by Silas or Timothy. But Titus could not have 
been the author of the “we” passages, because there is 
nothing to indicate that he accompanied Paul to Rome, 
or was with him there during the first imprisonment. 

It has already been remarked (above, p. 117) that, if, 
without reference to the aneient tradition, we were under 
necessity of conjecturing which one of Paul’s friends who 
were with him in Rome wrote the account of the journey 
in Acts xxvii., the choice would most naturally fall upon 
the physician Luke. | But, in addition, there is an ancient 
and unanimous tradition which represents Luke as the 
author of the entire work, 1.6. identifies him with the 
person speaking in Luke i. 1-4; Acts i. 1, also, how- 
ever, with the person associated with Paul and his 


144 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ce 


other travelling companions in the “we” passages of 
Acts. It is impossible to explain this tradition unless 
there are at least good reasons for assuining that Luke is 
the author of the “we” passages. For it is inconceivable 
that Luke should be the author of the entire work and 
at the same time have appropriated for his own use, in 
different parts of his work accounts of journeys written by 
Titus, or some third party, without so much as changing 
the inappropriate “we” into the third person. A man 
with the literary training of the writer of these two books 
could not have made such a blunder unintentionally (n, 2), 
Nor could a man like Luke, who was so closely associated 
with Paul and the events narrated, have endeavoured to 
deceive his readers by borrowing the journal of another 
disciple of Paul’s and by retaining the “we” used in these 
accounts. He did. not need to borrow a mask; his own 
authority was sufficient. In this case it would be neces- 
sary to assume at once’ that some later writer, out of 
touch with the events which he was about to narrate, 
sought by the retention of the “we,” which he found in 
one of his exemplars, to create the impression that he was 
an eye-witness. And, as a matter of fact, this is the 
assumption made by those who grant that Luke was the 
author of the “we” passages, but not of the entire work 
(n. 3). But this hypothesis is in itself incredible and 
incapable of explaining the tradition. One unacquainted 
with the original work would not notice the fact that in 
Acts several of its passages had been borrowed, and hence 
could not in this way be led to believe that Luke, who 
may have been known as the author of the original work, 
was the author of the much later compilation. But the 
same would be true also of the reader, who was acquainted 
with the original work, and who knew that Luke was; its 
author; since such a person would detect the plagiarism 
and could not possibly confuse a large historical work, 
consisting of two books, with a work by Luke of, an 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 145 


entirely different character, because of a few chapters 
incorporated from the latter. Nor is any such deception 
to be attributed to the author of the Lucan work; for if 
this were his purpose, then the means which he chose in 
order to pass himself off for Luke, the friend of Paul, 
were ridiculously inadequate. In the preface he would be 
merely suggesting that, in the course of the history which 
he is about to set forth, he became an eye-witness of the 
events which he records, and a helper in the proclamation 
of the gospel. And, indeed, in such a delicate way that 
modern readers can deny that the passage really contains 
the author's testimony to himself which we have found it 
to contain (above, pp. 46f., 54f.). When he comes to 
deal with the events where he wanted the reader to think 
that he was an eye-witness, when he was not, he would be 
concealing his identity by the use of a “we,” which clearly 
includes several persons, without indicating the specific 
person for whom he wishes himself to be taken, and with- 
out relating how he became a companion of Paul.. Why 
did he not use one of the unmistakable methods employed 
by the classical historians, or by Polybius, or Josephus, 
or Porphyry, when they wanted to make clear to their 
readers things about themselves and their personal rela- 
tions to the facts which they recorded (above, p. 86, 
n. 11)? Anyone having such a purpose, no matter how 
stupid he was, could not have failed to make use of 
means which were suited to accomplish it. In particular, 
judging by all analogous cases, the deceptive intention 
of the author to pass himself off for Luke must have 
betrayed itself in a bold use of unmistakable designations 
of himself (n, 4). The modest way in which the author 
refers to himself in the hints of the prologue, and the 
corresponding manner in which he introduces himself in 
Acts xi. 27, and from xvi. 10 onwards, is evidence of his 
truthfulness. 


If there is no reasonable ground for denying the Lucan 
VOL. III. Io 


146 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


authorship of the “ we” passages, he is to be regarded also 
as the author of the entire work. The burden of proof 
rests with those who deny this claim, not with those who 
find no reason to question the agreement of the tradition 
with the witness of the book to its author. But this 
latter conclusion is otherwise supported both by the con- 
tents and by the style of the entire work. Against the 
proof based upon similarity of language in the “we” 
passages and other parts of the work (above, pp. 79, 92, 
n. 28), it is argued, either that the redactor of the entire 
work introduced long interpolations in xx. 5—xxviii. 31, 
or that he revised thoroughly the style of the sources 
which he used. Thus it will be seen that this evidence 
is met, not by counter arguments, but by hypotheses. 
The first of. these assumptions can never be positively 
proved, and against the second stands the fact that Luke 
admitted into his work the greatest variety of style 
(above, p. 104). His revision of the style of such narra- 
tives as he took from Mark was due to the clumsiness of 
their language, particularly to their strongly Hebraised 
character. That, however, the account of the journey 
written by one of Paul’s companions would have required 
as much revision as Mark’s Gospel is very unlikely. 

W. K. Hopart (n. 5) has proved to the satisfaction of 
anyone open to conviction, that the author of the: Lucan 
work was familiar with the technical language of Greek 
medicine, and hence was a Greek physician. It is not to 
be judged as a coincidence that Luke alone preserves the 
proverb used by Jesus, “ Physician, heal thyself” (iv. 23), 
that he only of the four evangelists who tell the story of 
the wounding of Malchus’ ear, also related that it was 
healed by Jesus (xxii. 51), and that in the description of 
Jesus’ healing work he sometimes writes more fully than 
does Mark, and with greater vividness, notwithstanding 
the fact that in the sections which he borrows from Mark 
he frequently omits unnecessary details, The friends of 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 147 


the woman stricken with fever consult the physician. 
He approaches the bedside, bends over the patient, and 
rebukes the fever as He does elsewhere the evil spirits 
(iv. 38f.=Mark 1. 30f.). It did not seem natural to a 
physician after the restoration of the maiden to life, that 
Jesus should first have forbidden those present to make 
the fact known, and then have given the medical instruc- 
tions that the child be supplied with something to’ eat 
(Mark v. 43). So he reverses the order (Luke viii. 55 f.). 
Just as in the accounts of cases of healing peculiar to his 
Gospel, Luke often indicates how long the person healed 
had been afflicted (xiii. 11; Acts in. 2, iv. 22, ix. 33, xiv. 8, 
only Luke viii. 43 has parallels in Matthew and Mark), so in 
vii. 27-29 he inserts such a notice in an older account 
(Mark v. 2), with the added remark that the person 
possessed of the evil spirit would not endure clothing 
upon his body, a fact which has been observed by physi- 
cians (Hobart, p. 14). It is Luke alone who accurately 
indicates that it was the right hand which was healed 
(vi. 6), and who notes that healing was accomplished by 
the laying on of hands (iv. 40), where mention of this act 
is not made in Matthew (villi. 16) or in Mark (i. 34), 
Luke alone describes vividly the physical side of Jesus’ 
struggle in prayer*(xxii. 43f.). Out of consideration for 
himself and his fellow practitioners, Luke does not omit 
the humiliating confession that the believing touch of 
Jesus’ garment brought healing where long and expensive 
treatment by physicians had accomplished nothing (Luke 
vill. 43, n. 6). It is even more significant that Luke 
everywhere avoids the inaccurate popular designations 
of diseases and kindred things, and uses the technical 
language of medical writers. It will also be observed 
that Luke often uses, in describing other objects and 
relations, words with which a physician must have been 
familiar in his practice, and which, therefore, occur with 
very great frequency in the writings of the Greek physi- 


148 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


cians (n. 5). The erowning proof of the composition οὗ 
the entire work by the physician Luke is the fact, first, 
that these peculiarities are found in those sections of Luke 
which have parallels in Matthew and Mark ; secondly, that 
they recur in other parts of the entire work, or, at least, 
have their analogies; and thardly, that they consist of 
words and expressions which are to be found in the N.T. 
in no other writings save those of Luke, or occur here 
with greater frequency than in all other N.T. writings. 
These facts cannot, therefore, be explained on the ground 
that one of the sources used by the author of the entire 
work was written by a trained physician, but from the 
fact that the author of the entire work—the person who 
worked over the older narratives of Mark and also of 
other writers who are unknown to us—must himself have 
been an educated physician. 

It would require a complete historical commentary to 
answer fully all the arguments that have been advanced 
against the composition of the Lucan work by a friend of 
Paul’s. While the theologians have persistently charged 
Luke with ignorance of the historical conditions and 
personages with which he deals, historians and. investi- 
gators of antiquity of the first rank, who have gone into 
the matter with great care, declare Acts especially to be 
throughout an important and, in the main, trustworthy 
historical document (n. 7). Whereas all the apocryphal 
literature of the second century (the Gospels of James, 
Thomas, and Peter; Acts of Pilate, Paul [ineluding 
the Acts of Thecla|, Peter, John, etc.) clearly betray 
in the Christian and even more in the non-Christian, 
characters which they introduce, and in their portrayal of 
political conditions in Palestine and in the empire, the 
influence of the N.T., and consist almost entirely of 
fantastic stories, Luke’s account is everywhere confined 
to facets which we are able to verify from other sources, 
On the subject of Jewish history from 4 B.c. to 60 A.D., 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 149 


Luke’s information is independent of Josephus, and for the 
earlier decades of the period, is sometimes more reliable 
(above, pp. 95 ff, 131), for example, with reference to 
the official position of Quirinius and the time when he 
held office (above, p. 96). It is possible that in what 
Luke says about Theudas (Acts v. 36) there is a great 
chronological error (above, p. 132, n. 6), but this cannot 
be proved from the conflieting account by Josephus. In 
any case Luke did not compose the speech in which this 
error is supposed to be found, but took it from some older 
source which he may not have been able to correct in this 
minor point. The case is different when he is dealing 
with subjects that come properly within the scope of 
Christian history, for example, in what he says concerning 
the Fabian policy of the Pharisees toward. Christianity, 
prior to the death of Stephen, as distinguished from the 
attitude of the Sadducees, which alone enables us to 
explain the entrance of Pharisaism into the Christian 
Church (xv. 5), and without which it would be impossible 
historically to explain Paul’s development. Here his 
testimony is historically unimpeachable. Consequently 
progress in our knowledge concerning Jewish parties is to 
be made, not along the lines suggested by Geiger and 
Wellhausen,—by more thorough study of the Talmud or 
of Josephus,—but by a better appreciation of the words 
ἡ οὖσα αἵρεσις τῶν Σαδδουκαίων in Acts v. 17. 

Luke is even better acquainted with conditions and 
persons in the provinces and eities which were the scene 
of Paul’s labours than he is with Jewish conditions. The 
proconsuls Sergius Paulus and Gallio (xii. 7, xvii. 12) 
are historical personages, and, so far as we are able to 
determine the date of their respective terms of office in 
Cyprus and Achaia, there is no contradiction to the prob- 
able chronology of Paul’s life and work (Part XI.). In the 
investigation of Paul’s letters we have frequently found 
the notices of Acts confirmed by inscriptions and writings, 


150 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


for example, with regard to the politarchs in Thessalonica 
and the population of Philippi (vol. 1. 211 ἢ, 532f.). Here 
there is no difference between the “ we” passages and 
other parts of Acts. No success has attended the effort 
to explain the uprising of the silversmiths (Acts xix. 23 ff.) 
by assuming that it is simply a misinterpretation of an 
official title (n. 8). 

It is impossible to determine in separate instances to 
what extent Luke, in recording the longer discourses of 
Peter and of Paul, made use of the liberty often taken 
by the ancient historian freely to reconstruct their form, 
in the light of his knowledge of persons and conditions 
involved. Nor do we know how far these could have been 
taken from the reports of persons who heard them (e.g. 
xvii. 34, xxv. 23, cf. xxiv. 23). But it is only necessary 
to compare the addresses recorded by Luke; with. the 
miserable harangues which Josephus puts into the mouths 
of his heroes, in order to see that Luke was not only much 
better educated than Josephus, but that he regarded much 
more seriously the obligation of historical accuracy. 

The strongest proof of Luke’s thorough acquaintance 
with what he undertook to set forth is the fact that, 
without consultation of Paul’s letters as sources (above, 
p. 118 ff.), Luke’s accounts, in their main outlines and in 
a great many of their details, are in thorough agreement 
with them. In addition to what has been already said 
incidentally in numerous passages of the earlier volumes, 
the following points may be noted here. In Acts the 
progress of Paul’s ministry is marked not only by visions 
and revelations (ix. 3-9, xiii. 2, xvi. 6-10, xvill. 9, xx. 29, 
xxi, 11, xxii. 17-21, xxiii. 11, xxvii. 23), by notable cases 
of healing (xiv. 8-10, xix. 11-17), and similar miracles 
(xiii. 11, xvi. 18, xx. 9, xxviii, 3-6), but also by natural 
phenomena of the most extraordinary character (Xvi. 
26-30). But all this is in accord with Paul’s own testi- 
mony. In addition to the revelation of Christ to which 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 151 


he owed his faith and calling (Gal. 1. 12-16 ; 1.Cor. ix. 1, 
xv. 8), the visions of a later time which he could never 
forget (2 Cor. xii. 1-4; Gal. ii. 1), and his participation 
in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. χιῖν. 18), he 
refers to signs, wonders (τέρατα), and mighty works which 
prove his right to exercise his apostolic calling (2 Cor. 
xu. 11-12; Rom. xy. 19), and which, if need be, will 
again establish his right to punish evil-doers (1 Cor. v. 
3-5; 2 Cor. x. 4, xii. 2-10)... It shows a lack of careful 
thinking when the letters of Paul mentioned above are 
accepted as genuine, but the authorship of the correspond- 
ing narratives in Acts, or the entire book of which these 
narratives are a part, by a friend of Paul’s and by an 
eye-witness of some of these things, is denied, because of 
the miraculous element which it contains. Literary and 
historical criticism have nothing to do with the question 
as to the nature of these events and why it was that they 
influenced so strongly the consciousness of Paul and those 
about him. | 

By the “very chiefest apostles,” in contrast to whom 
Paul speaks of the signs and wonders which were done 
through him (2 Cor. xi. 11 f.); are meant, not the original 
apostles, but the followers of Peter, who were not willing 
to admit that Paul’s apostleship was on a par with that of 
Peter (vol. i. 288f.). The very fact that in making this 
contrast Paul calls these miraculous signs τὰ σημεῖα Tod 
ἀποστόλου, shows that in this respect also he claimed to be 
the equal of the older apostles, especially of Peter (cf. also 
1 Cor. ix. 1-5, xv. 5-11). But this comparison is not 
something new, suggested now for the first time by his 
opposition to the Petrine party. But, according to Gal. ii. 
7-9, at the apostolic council the same comparison was 
made between Peter and Paul, and the fact that God 
owned and blessed Paul’s preaching in exactly the same 
way that He did Peters made a profound impression. 
Even then this was the effect produced by. the stories 


152 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


told in Jerusalem by the missionaries to the Gentiles 
(Gal. ii. 2; Acts xv. 3, 12, σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, cf. xxi. 19). 
There is no occasion, therefore, because of a certain 
parallelism in Acts between the miraculous deeds and 
experiences of Peter and of Paul to question the historicity 
of these accounts (n. 9). If Luke, in choosing from the 
abundance of material at his disposal, brought out this 
relation, he was led to do so only under the influence of 
a Pauline idea, or, as is more probable, by an uplifting 
experience of apostolic Christianity. 

In summarising the main ideas that pervade the entire 
work (above, p. 69 ff.), it has been repeatedly observed 
that the author was influenced by ideas not found in the 
N.T. except in Paul’s writings. The claim that Luke 
represents the attitude of Paul toward legalistic Jewish 
Christianity as one of yielding to it, thereby sacrificing 
historical accuracy and contradicting the fundamental 
principles of Paul, cannot be substantiated. The circum- 
cision of Timothy, which, if it had not actually happened, 
would be, as an invention, in the most glaring contradiction 
to history, is testified to by Paul himself (vol. i. 538, 182). 
The Paul of Acts, who, on the one hand, denies that the 
observing of the law has any saving efficacy, either for 
Jews or Gentiles, attributing this power to faith in Christ 
(xiii. 38f, cf. Luke xv. 1-32, xviii. 9-14, vil. 36-50), 
and who will not suffer the Mosaic law to be forced upon 
the Gentile Christians, but, on the other hand, is eager to 
keep Jewish feasts in Jerusalem (xx. 16, cf. xx. 6, accord- 
ing to 8, also xviii. 21), has no objections to the assump- 
tion of vows by Jewish Christians (xviii. 18), and on one 
occasion himself takes part in such an act (xxi. 26),—this 
Paul is none other than the Paul of the letters. In fact, 
Paul never required Jewish Christians to give up the 
observance of the law. Even in Churches, where there 
were both Jews and Gentiles, the former might retain 
their Judaism as a religious non-essential, in so far as it 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 153 


did not conflict with higher ends (1 Cor. vii. 18£.; Gal.v. 6, 
vi. 15; Rom. xiv. 5f., vol. 1. 422 1.) Consequently he was 
able to deny the false report that he compelled the Jews of 
the diaspora to renounce the law (Acts xxi. 21). He repre- 
sents his own emancipation from the law as being for the 
sake of his calling, a renunciation of rights which were 
legitimate, and of his natural Jewish manner of life (1 Cor. 
ix. 21, ef. Gal. iv. 12). On the other hand, he asserts with 
equal clearness that, notwithstanding his inward freedom 
from the law, he observes it for the sake of the Jews, with 
whom his calling brought him into contact (1 Cor. ix. 20). 

For this reason the so-called apostolic decree cannot 
be regarded as contradictory to Paul’s account in Gal. 1]. 
1-10, nor treated as an invention, made on the basis of 
customs in vogue in the Church at a later time; because, 
by the end of the first century, some of its stipulations 
had become obsolete and after that time were nowhere 
strictly observed (n. 10). The literal fulfilment of all its 
requirements—in some quarters down to the Middle Ages, 
and even to the present time—was due entirely to the 
tendency to observe the letter of this apostolic command. 
The fact that, in his short account in Gal. 11. 1-10, Paul 
does not mention abstinence from the four things men- 
tioned, which were not the only, nor by any means the 
principal, contents of the decree, is no argument against 
its historical character. For, in the first place, this 
requirement had nothing to do with Paul’s relation to the 
original apostles and the mother Church, which is the only 
question under discussion in Galatians. The missionaries 
to the Gentiles were not commissioned to enforce these 
regulations upon the Gentile Christians, but the mother 
Church dealt with them directly through her own am- 
bassadors. In the second place, the resolution did not 
affect intercourse between the Gentile and Jewish Chris- 
tians, concerning which not a single word is said in Acts 
xv. The Jewish Christians who desired to live according 


154 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to the law, could not associate in social life and worship 
even with Gentile Christians who observed the four re- 
strictions, without constantly being made ceremonially 
unclean. In the third place, the decree was no concession 
to the Judaisers; since the recommendation to abstain 
from the four things specified was not intended as a 
substitution of a partial observance of the law for a full 
compliance with its demands. On the contrary, it was 
meant to free the Gentile Christians entirely from. the 
legal yoke, which already had its advocates among the 
rabbis in every city (xv. 19-21, cf. ver. 10). In the 
fourth place, it represented no compromise between the 
missionaries to the Gentiles and the Judaisers. On the 
contrary, while the work of the former was unconditionally 
recognised (ver. 25ff.), that of the latter was unconditionally 
condemned (vv. 10, 19, 24). In the fifth place, it was 
not a new command, observance of which was made a 
condition for the recognition of men as Christians. The 
Christian character of the Gentile Christians is acknow- 
ledged from the outset as unconditionally as that of their 
missionaries (vv. 8-11, 14, 19, 23), and it was not the 
recognition of their Christian character, but their well- 
being as Gentile Christians, which is represented as 
dependent upon their abstinence from, the four things 
specified (ver. 29). Finally, in the svwth place, nothing 
whatever is said about commands and requirements, but 
mention is made only of a communication by letter (ver. 
20, ἐπιστεῖλαι, cf. xxi. 25), which was received joyfully by 
those to whom it was sent, being regarded by them as an 
encouraging word, as were also the oral communications of 
those by whom the message was brought (ver. 31 f. some- 
what in the sense of 1 Pet. v. 12)... For this reason it is 
not to be supposed that the Gentile Christians in Antioch 
had not heretofore abstained from the things mentioned, 
that Paul had not demanded it of them, and that the 
requirement was now laid upon them for the first time as 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 155 


a new burden. If only they continue to abstain from 
these things (ver. 29, διατηροῦντες), it will go well with 
them. The fact that the Council in Jerusalem had reached 
this decision made it natural for the missionaries to at 
once enjoin abstinence in these four particulars upon the 
more recently organised Churches of Lycaonia, but that 
does not in any way affect the fact that the principal 
point in the decree was the recognition of the right of the 
Gentiles to live as they had lived heretofore, unfettered 
by the law, and that the accompanying recommendation 
of abstinence in the four particulars mentioned set the 
Council’s approval upon a Christian custom in process, of 
formation in the Churches of Antioch and Cilicia. This 
custom spread in the missionary Churches among the 
Gentiles. The attitude of the majority in the Corinthian 
Church regarding the question about meats offered to idols, 
as well as the laxity of their opinions concerning un- 
chastity, were opposed to the general Christian practice 
(1 Cor. x. 32, vol. 1. 297, n. 7). Gradually the require- 
ments, which from the beginning were of minor import- 
ance, namely, abstinence from blood and things strangled, 
were no longer observed, with the result that the text of 
the decree as preserved by Luke was misinterpreted and 
modified in many ways (above, p. 33 £.). Luke would not 
have incorporated this document in his work—especially 
in a book intended for Theophilus, who was still outside the 
Church—if already in his time the progress of Christian 
morals had made the stipulations of the decree in some 
respects antiquated, as they were at the time when Revela- 
tion and the Didache were written (n. 10). 

The Lucan work must, therefore, have been written 
somewhat earlier than the close of the first century. This 
we have already seen to be the case, because of the author's 
entire independence of the Pauline letters (above, p. 118 ff.), 
and because he had no knowledge of any Gospel written 
by an apostle, in particular of our Greek Matthew (above, 


156 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


pp. 50, 108 ἢ). Furthermore, if the reasons for the com: 
position of the whole work by Luke have been shown to 
be as strong as the objections to it are weak, and if Luke 
was a member of the Church in Antioch as early as the 
year 40 (above, p. 2), it is not likely that it was written 
later than the year 85; especially if that Lucius of 
Cyrene, who in the years 40-50 is mentioned by name as 
a teacher of the same Church—therefore at that time no 
longer a young man—was still alive when Acts was 
written (above, p. 28, n. 6). On the other hand, it eould 
not well have been written before the year 70. The use of 
Mark, which at the earliest was not written before the 
year 67, brings us almost down to the year 70. Luke’s 
intention to conclude his work in a third book (above, 
p. 56 ff.) presupposes that a period of Christian history of 
considerable length had intervened since the time the 
narrative was broken off in Acts xxviii. 30 ff., 7.e. since 
the spring of 63. Finally, a Christian of the age in which 
Luke lived could not well have the idea that the develop- 
ment of the history of Christianity had reached its con- 
summation before the judgment upon Jerusalem and the 
Temple, prophesied by Jesus, had taken place (above, 
p: 60). This would be especially true in the case of 
Luke, who records more fully than any other evangelist 
very definite prophecies of Jesus regarding these events. 
Besides Luke xii. 34-35, xxi. 6 (Matt. xxii. 36-xxiv. 2; 
Mark xiii. 2, ef. Matt. xxii. 7, xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40; Mark 
xiv. 58; John ii. 19; Acts vi. 14), Luke alone records the 
impressive scenes in xix. 41-44, xxiii. 27-31, the parable 
of xix. 11-27, the meaning of which is unmistakable, the 
pointed application after xx. 18 (Matt. xxi. 44 is spurious), 
and, finally, the discourse in xxi. 20-24. While the latter 
has many words in common with Matt. xxiv. 15-20, Mark 
xiii. 14-18, and has the same relative place in the long 
prophetic discourse as do the corresponding sections of 
Matthew and Mark, its contents are essentially different. 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 157 


According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus did not on this 
occasion speak of the awful destruction of the temple, 
much less of the siege, capture, and destruction of Jeru- 
salem. But their words refer rather to the setting up in 
the temple of an idolatrous abomination prophesied by 
Daniel, by which true worship is to be displaced, the 
temple desecrated, and consequently desolated, and to the 
last and greatest persecution of the Church which will be 
connected with this event, and which will be ended by the 
return of Christ (vol. 11. 570f, vol. i. 226ff., 235 ff.). 
Luke says nothing of these things, and gives instead a 
prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem by hostile armies 
xxi. 20, cf. xix. 43), of the flight of the saints from 
Jerusalem and Judea (xxi. 21 ff.), of the slaughter of part 
of the population of Jerusalem, and the capture and lead- 
ing away into captivity of others, and of the permanent 
conquest of Jerusalem by the Gentiles (xxi. 24, cf, xix. 44, 
xxii. 28f.). Only by gross misinterpretation of the 
prophecy to be found in Matthew and Mark is it possible 
to affirm that Luke merely states with greater clearness 
what is mysteriously hinted at in Matthew and Mark. 
The real question is why Luke replaced the prophecy of 
the desecrating abomination in the holy place, with which 
he was familiar from Mark and from the prophetic teach- 
ing of the Pauline Churches, by a prophecy of totally 
different contents, and why generally in his Gospel he 
inserts with so much greater clearness and so much greater 
variety than do Matthew and Mark the prophecies:of the 
fall of Jerusalem. In answer to the first question, we have 
the fact that his book was intended for a man still outside 
the Church, who would not be able to understand such a 
prophecy. Luke here follows the principles of his own 
teacher (1 Cor. ii. 6-16). The answer to the, second 
question is not dependent upon the question whether it 
was probable or even possible for Jesus to depict the 
events which took place in 70 with greater clearness 


158 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


than in the passages quoted from the other Gospels, for 
example, as clearly as in Luke xix. 43f, xxi. 20-24. 
Aceording to the unanimous tradition, Jesus predicted that 
the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple would occur 
before His own generation passed away. Consequently, it 
is presumptuous to deny that He was able to describe this 
event with the clearness of Luke xix. 43f. as of xxi. 
20-24. The only question is whether in the prophetic 
discourse recorded by all three of the Synoptists in the 
same connection Jesus actually spoke what is found in 
Matt. xxiv. 15-28; Mark xii. 14-23, or what is found in 
Luke xxi. 20-24. If the objections to the historicity of 
what Matthew and Mark say on this point are without 
weight (vol. ii. 570f., 588, n. 2), then it follows that the 
departure from strict historical accuracy is on the side of 
Luke, who wrote later than the others. When it is re- 
called that in the same passage Mark interpreted the 
prophecy preserved in its original form by Matthew, with 
distinct reference to the later understanding of the Church, 
and otherwise recast it (vol. ii. 500), there can be little 
doubt that Luke was led by the destruction of Jerusalem, 
which had now actually taken place, to report the pro- 
phecies of Jesus relative to this event with greater detail 
and fulness than the evangelists writing before 70 had 
done, and in xxi. 20-24 to substitute such a prophecy for 
the one which is found in Mark. The narratives in xix. 
11-27, 41-44, xxiii. 27-31 do not read as if they were 
written after 70, or as if they were the inventions of 
Luke. The fact that Luke brought these narratives out of 
the treasury of tradition is itself only an indication of the 
time when he wrote. On the other hand, the recasting of 
the original prophecy in xxi. 20-24 was the effect of the 
events of the year 70. 

Whether this modification was due to Luke alone, or 
whether it was simply a reflexion of the impressions made 
upon Palestinian Christians who witnessed these events, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 159 


the present writer does not venture to decide. The latter 
supposition is the more probable. It was impossible for 
these persons to watch the approach of the destruction of 
Jerusalem, and see it actually accomplished, without con- 
sidering the events of their time in the light of Jesus’ 
prophecy, and without following their development with 
the deepest interest. It is almost impossible not to 
suppose that the prophecies among these Christians which 
are said to have led to the flight from Jerusalem to Pella 
(vol. ii. 588, n. 3), were based upon the prophecy of Jesus 
preserved in Matt. xxiv. 15-28; Mark xiii. 14-23, and 
consisted of an adaptation of these words to the particular 
circumstances of the time. . Luke, by appropriating this 
modified form of Jesus’ prophecies, and by adopting into 
his narrative a large number of prophecies concerning the 
fall of Jerusalem,—omitting, however, the prophecy of 
the βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως, which was based upon Daniel and 
unintelligible to Theophilus,—was able to make it serve 
his apologetic purpose. If he had written his third book, 
he would certainly have shown definitely how the pro- 
phecies of Jesus concerning Jerusalem were fulfilled forty 
years after they were made. In view of all these con- 
siderations, it may be assumed with practical certainty 
that Luke wrote his work about the year 75 (n. 11). 

According to the present writer's view, it is not pos- 
sible to make any affirmation relative to the place where 
the work was written. A tradition represents Luke as 
writing his work in Greece and dying between his seventy- 
fourth and eighty-fourth year in Beeotia, or Bithynia ; this 
is based upon legends which we must have before us in a 
complete form before it is possible to determine whether 
they contain a germ of historical fact (n. 12). 


1. (P. 142.) MAYERHOFF, Einl. in die petrin. Schriften, 1835, S. 13-30, 
endeavoured to show that Timothy was the author of the travel-document, 
and also of the whole Lucan work. According to the statement of Ulrich, 
ThStKr, 1837, 8. 369 ff., SCHLEIERMACHER, in his lectures, regarded Timothy 
as the author of the travel-doeument, but not of Acts; and in this Bleek 


160 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


and others followed him. The view is not found, however, in the printed 
lectures (cf. his Werke, Zur Theologie, iii. 344-379). _ SCHWANBECK (Ueber 
die Quellen der Schriften des Lucas, 1847) pietured that Silas was the author 
of the itinerary, or rather of the memoirs, incorporated with little change 
in Acts xv. 1-xxviii. 31. He printed these memoirs (S. 265-309), and added 
(S. 309-320) fragments of a life of Barnabas from Acts iv. 36-xv, 4. 
Krenkeb, Paulus der Apostel der Heiden, 1869, S. 214, following others, 
suggested Titus. 

2. (P. 144.) Examples of the mechanical retention by a later writer of 
an “I” or “we,” which was appropriate only in the source of which he 
made use, are given by Schwanbeck, S. 189 ff. (after Stenzel, Geschichte 
Deutschlands unter den fränk. Kaisern, ii. 10 ff.), from the annalistie literature 
of the Middle Ages. Attention was called also to the interchange of the first 
and third persons in Ezra-Nehemiah, to similar phenomena in the book of 
Tobit (König, Alttest. Einl. 276 ff. ; Schürer, iii. 176 [Eng. trans. 11. iii. 407), 
and to a curious “we” at the close of the Diamartyria Jacobi (Lagarde, 
Clementina, p. 6. 1). Jerome occasionally falls into a peculiar style midway 
between thoughtlessness and deception ; ef. Forsch. ii. 88f., 278 f. 

3. (P. 144.) According to Baur, Paulus, i. 17, the author of Acts was 
very willing to be taken for Luke, whose travel-document he adopted, and 
with whom he thus identified himself. According to Zeller, 456, 460, 516, 
with less diffidence he did his utmost to deliberately confuse the reader as 
to his identity by giving the book a title which included the name of Luke, 
and thus made the “we” later on intelligible (see above, p. 80, n. 1). 
Overbeck, xlv., also assumes intentional pseudonymity. 

4. (P. 145.) Protev. Jacobi, chap. xxv. 1, ἐγὼ de Ἰάκωβος 6 γράψας ταύτην 
τὴν ἱστορίαν ; Ev. Thome, chap. i., according to both Greek recensions ; 
Ev. Petri, xiv. 59 f., ἡμεῖς δὲ οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταὶ... ἐγὼ δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος καὶ 
᾿Ανδρέας ὁ ἀδελφός pov. Clem. Hom. i. 1. Cf. GK, ii. 725 (Gospel of the 
Twelve, fragment 2), 772, 775, 856-860 (with regard to Leucius as author of 
apostolic histories). Cf. also the examples from secular literature above, 
p- 86, n. 11. 

5. (Pp. 146, 148.) Hobart (The Medical Lanquage of Luke, Dublin, 1882), 
with remarkable industry, has collected parallels to Luke out of the writings of 
Hippocrates (circa 430 2.0.), Dioscorides (contemporary with Luke), Areteous, 
and Galen (both about 160 A.n.), arranging them topically, and furnishing 
a good index, pp. 299-305. A few only can be selected here, partly to 
amplify and partly to justify what has been said above, p. 146 f.: I. Designa- 
tions of bodily processes, symptoms of disease, cures, and the like, in harmony 
with the usage of medical writers. (1) In those portions of Luke which have 
more or less exact parallels in Matt. and Mark. Let it be observed, to begin 
with, that Luke avoids the following terms for sickness which are not 
customary with the medical men, μαλακία (Matt. LXX., Test. XII. Patr,), 
βάσανος, βασανίζεσθαι (Matt. iv. 24, viii. 6, ridiculed by Lucian, Solace. 6), 
and that of Luke terms for conception, etc., ἔχειν ἐν γαστρί (xxi. 23), 
συλλαμβάνειν with (i. 31, cf, ii, 21) and without ἐν γαστρί (i. 24, 36), ἔγκυος, 
στεῖρα, ἄτεκνος, Which, with σπαργανοῦν also, are all current with the physi- 
cians, only the first is found in Matt. (i, 18, xxiv. 19) and Mark (xiii. 17). 
Terms of a specifically medical character which are not found in the parallel 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 161 


passages are, for example; papay. . . μηδὲν βχλάψαν, iv. 35 (ef. Mark xvi. 18) ; 
συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ, iv. 38 (cf. muperois καὶ δυσεντερίῳ συνεχόμενον, 
Acts xxviii. 8). This last-named verb, occurring 6 times in Luke (of a 
constrained state of mind in viii. 37 and xii. 50), 3:times in Acts, and 
once in iv. 24 with βασάνοις (see above), belongs, like the distinction between 
“great” and little fever and the plural ruperoi to the technical phraseology 
of medicine. Even the combination of πυρετὸς καὶ δύσεντερία is quite usual 
(Hobart, 3f., 52f.). Luke, however, preferred the common form δυσεντέριον 
(Lobeck, ad Phryn. ὅ18). Instead of παραλυτικός (Matt. and. Mark each 5 
times), Luke always uses παραλελυμένος, as do these four medical authorities 
—Luke v. 18, 24 (variant readings) ; Acts viii. 7, ix. 33. Instead of the 
poetical expression of Mark v. 29, Luke viii. 44 has ἔστη i ῥύσις τοῦ aiparos, 
which is strictly medical throughout. For the accompanying παραχρῆμα (10 
times in Luke, 6 or 7 in Acts, elsewhere only in Matt. xxi. 19 f.) as a designa- 
tion of immediate curative or’ destructive action, Hobart, p. 971. adduces 16 
examples from a single work οὗ Hippocrates, 27 from Galen, and 7 from 
Dioscorides.. Similarly ἐξαίφνης, Luke ix: 39 (cf. ii, 135 Acts ix. 3, xxii 6; 
elsewhere only in Mark xiii. 36), ἐπίβλεψαι ἐπὶ τὸν υἱόν pov, Luke ix. 38 
(Galen, ἐπιβλέπειν τι or eis τι), and ἀποχωρεῖ (of the abating of disease), also 
find support in medical usage. (2) In the sections peculiar to Luke there 
occur the following words, appearing rarely, or not at all, elsewhere in the 
N.T., but employed: in accord with medical usage : x. 30-35, ἡμιθανής (in an 
entirely similar connection in Galen, ed. Kühn, vi. 850, vii. 602), karadeeıv, 
τραῦμα (τραυματίζειν, Luke xx. 12; Acts xix. 16; Rev. xiii. 12, 14,.on the 
other hand, has πληγή, which in Luke x..30, xii. 48, Acts xvi. 23, 33 denotes 
blows), ἐπ᾿ μελεῖσθαι (of. ἐπιμελείας τυχεῖν; Acts xxvii. 3; in 1 Tim, iii, 5 quite 
differently expressed), ἐπιχέειν ἔλαιον καὶ οἶνον. Luke xvi. 20-25, ἕλκος (Rev. 
xvi. 2 also), ἑλκοῦσθαι, ὀδυνᾶσθαι (Luke ii. 48; Acts xx: 38 of mental suffer- 
ing); Luke xxii. 44, ἀγωνία, ἱδρώς, θρόμβοι αἵματος, καταβαίνειν. Further, 
ὀχλεῖν, ἐνοχλεῖν, παρενοχλεῖν, Luke vi. 18; Acts v. 16, xv. 19 ; avarnpos 
(or dvareıpos), Luke xiv. 13, 21, and its opposite, ὁχοκληρία, Acts iii. 16; 
ἀποψύχειν, ἐκψύχειν, καταψύχειν, ἀνάψυξις, Luke xvi. 24, xxi. 26 ; Acts iii. 20, 
v. 5, 10; xii. 23; von, Acts xvii. 25, cf. ii. 2; ἐμπνέειν, Acts ix. 1; ἐκπνέειν, 
Luke xxiii. 46 (this also in Mark xv. 37, 39); ζωογονεῖν, Luke xvii. 33 ; Acts 
Vii. 19; ἀπέπεσαν . . . λεπίδες, Acts ix. 18 (Hobart, 39f.) ; ἔκστασις, Acts x. 10, 
xi. 5, xxii. 17 (in Luke v. 26 ; Acts iii. 10, on the other hand, as in Mark v. 42, 
xvi. 8, in the sense of astonishment) ; εἰς μανίαν περιτρέπειν, Acts xxvi. 24 
(the medical writers use τρέπειν, but also περιτροπή) ; κραιπάλη, Luke xxi. 34 ; 
χρώς, Acts xix. 12 in the wider sense (Ionic, according to Galen, but used by 
all the medical men) ; προσδοκᾶν (6 times in Luke, 5 in Acts, and elsewhere 
only in two parallels in Matt.,and 3 times in 2 Pet. iii. 12-14 ; also προσδοκία, 
only in Luke xxi. 26; Acts xii. 11) is used in Acts xxviii. 6 quite in Galen’s 
manner, and close to a specifically medical μηδὲν ἄτοπον (Hobart, 162, 289) ; 
cf. also οὐδὲν ἄτοπον, Luke xxiii. 41; τὶ ἄτοπον, Acts xxv. 5 (ἄτοπος in any use 
is found elsewhere only in 2 Thess. iii. 2). Also πιμπρᾶσθαι, καταπίπτειν, 
θηρίον -- ἔχιδνα, Acts xxviii. 3-6; ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι, Acts xix. 12 (with νόσοι as 
subject) ; καταφερόμενος ὕπνω βαθεῖ, Acts xx. 9, are medical phrases. Finally, 
ef. ἄσιτοι διατελεῖτε, Acts xxvii. 33, with Galen, ἄσιτος διετέλεσεν, ἄδιψοι 
VOL. III. ΕἸ 


ı62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


διατελοῦσιν, and in Hippocrates as here a διατελεῖν for fourteen days, Hobart, 
278. . Cf. Madan, JThS, 1904, Oct. p. 116, who understands ἄσιτος in this 
passage to mean loss of appetite, resulting from sea-sickness.. II. Note- 
worthy also is the application to other subjects of words common in 
medicine. If the needle used for surgical purposes is regularly ‘called 
βελόνη, not pais, and the eye of it isıcommonly spoken of by the doctors 
as τρῆμα, ποῦ τρύπημα or τρυμαλία, and if we read in Galen τοῦ κατὰ τὴν 
βελόνην τρήματος or τοῦ διατρήματος τῆς βελόνης (Hobart, 60f.), the wording 
of Luke xviii. 25 as compared with Matt. xix. 24, Mark x. 25 (following 
Tischendorf’s text in all three passages), indicates that the writer ‚was'a 
physician. If Galen expressly comments on the customary use of ἀρχαί, 
by himself.as previously by Hippocrates, to denote the ends (πέρατα) of a 
bandage (οἱ ἐπίδεσμοι, and often ὀθόνια and ὀθόνη), it is clear that Acts x. 11, 
xi. 5 were written by a physician. Among the numerous peculiar words 
and phrases used by Luke to which Hobart further adduces parallels, are : 
ἀναδιδόναι ἐπιστολήν, Acts Xxili. 33, and οὐκ ἄσημος πόλις, Acts xxi. 39 (both 
in Hippoerates); ἄσιτος, ἀσιτία, τὰ σιτία, Acts vii. 12, from Gen. xlii. 2 (LXX 
σῖτος) ; ἀτενίζειν, ἰκμάς, κατακλείειν, Luke iii. 20; Acts xxvi. 10 (Galen with 
ἐν εἱρκτῇ also); πλήμμυρα, ῥῆγμα, προσρήγνυμι, συμπίπτειν (Luke: vi. 48 f., 
words which occur neither in Matt. vii. 25-27 nor elsewhere in the N.T.), 
συκάμινος With συκομορέα, Luke xvii. 6, xix. 4, often interchanged in ordinary 
usage, according to Dioscorides. Of course, such words and turns of phrase, 
found elsewhere only in the medical books (cf. also above, p. 82, n. 5; 
p- 129 f., n. 1), have no weight in and of themselves, but only in connectiom 
with the examples previously given. 

6. (P. 147.) That the account, not very flattering to doctors, in Mark v. 26 
was toned down by Luke as a physician, viii. 43 (according to Tischendorf’s 
text, at least), is an unworthy insinuation. Mark himself does not say that 
the condition of the sick woman grew continually worse in consequence of 
the medical treatment, but in spite of it. .This in a case continuing for 
twelve years is as natural as the other statement to the effect that the in- 
effectual treatment by constantly changing physicians was a serious burden. 
Here, as elsewhere (cf, above, p, 105), Luke simply avoided Mark’s diffuse- 
ness. The case is the same if one omits ἰατροῖς--- βίον, Luke viii. en with rg 
Ss Sah. Arm. ; for, of course, “no one” here means “no physician,’ 

7.(P. 148.) Rank, Meltgesch.! iii. 1.170-193, who follows Acts in his narra- 
tive, speaks, with reference to chap. xxi. (187), of the “simple account of the 
documents”—and in coneluding (191) refers to the entire book as a narrative 
which “combines trustworthiness with simplicity of presentation.” E.Currrus, 
Griechische Gesch. i. 50, A. 18, was not indeed, as Maass holds, in Orpheus, 1895, 
S, 8, the first to disclose the meaning of Acts xvii., but blundered in trans- 
ferring the scene from Mars Hill to the market-place. Still it is of some 
significance when one, who knows Athens as Curtius does, declares (8. 925): 
that in Acts xvii. “a well-informed witness is giving a faithful account of 
the occurrence. In the sixteen verses of the text there is such an abundance 
of historical material, everything is so pregnant and original, so characteristic) 
and full of life, there is such a lack of anything formal and stereotyped, as 
must be the case if one were relating a fictitious story. It is impossible to 
show a single trait which might render deliberate invention im any way 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 163 


probable. One must be familiar with Athens in order to understand the 
account properly.” The altar inscription (xvii. 23), which some who could 
not boast this familiarity have criticised, was cited without hesitation by 
Clement, a native Athenian (Forsch. iii. 162), Strom. v. 83, and by Origen, 
who had seen the city, tom. x. 5 in Jo. At the time of Didymus (Mai, Nova 
p. Bibl. iv. 2. 139) such an inscription was no longer to be found, but only 
certain forms similar to it with a plural dedication. If one compares with 
this reference Jerome, ad Tit. (Vall. vii. 707), it will at once be seen that 
Jerome is copying from his teacher Didymus, on the one hand, and, on the 
other, from some other Greek who had given the wording of the inscription, 
in all probability Origen (ef. Forsch. 11. 88 £., 275 ff., GK, i. 426 ff.). But that 
Jerome, through his blending of information from two sources, contaminated 
the text, appears from a comparison with Oecumenius (Migne, cxviii. 237). 
The latter derived from the same source as Jerome, presumably, therefore, 
from Origen, the text: θεοῖς ᾿Ασίας καὶ Εὐρώπης καὶ Λιβύης, θεῷ ἀγνώστῳ 
καὶ ξένῳ, which Jerome, under the influence of Didymus’ remark, altered to 
diis ignotis et peregrims. The inscription, which might still be seen at 
Athens in the time of Clement and Origen, had disappeared before the time 
of Didymus (+ 395) and Jerome, perhaps during the reaction under Julian; 
οἵ. Lucian, Philopatris, 8. Among the eminent archeologists who. appre- 
ciate the great historical value of Acts should also be mentioned first of all 
W. M. Ramsay, in the works so frequently cited. TH. Mommsrn is an un- 
fortunate exception ; vol. i. 67£., n. 15, 392 f. ; above, 138, n. 20; NKZ, 1893, 
S. 648 ; 1904, S. 23 ff, 190 ff. 

8. (P. 150.) Hicks (Expos. 1890, p. 401 ff.) identified a Demetrius who 
seems to be reckoned with the νεωποιήσαντες or νεωποιοί (the letter N is all 
that remains of the title) in an Ephesian ineription (Ancient Greek Inscriptions 
of the British Musewm, No. 578, line 6), with the Δημήτριος ἀργυροκόπος, ποιῶν 
ναοὺς ἀργυροῦς ᾿Αρτέμιδος, Acts xix. 24, and thereupon charges the author of 
Acts with having misunderstood the former title, and so made a silversmith 
of a temple-oflicer, and invented the manufacture of silver representations 
of the temple of Diana. Ramsay’s refutation, Church in the Rom. Emp. 
p- 112 ff., seems to the present writer to be sufficient. 

9, (Ὁ. 152.) The following come under consideration as parallelisms 
between Peter and Paul: The healing of the lame man, iii. 1-10=xiv. 8-10; 
in some measure also iii, 12, x. 26=xiv. 11-18, xxviii. 6; the marvellous 
cure of multitudes, v. 15 f.=xix, 11 f.; the sorcerers, viii, 18-24=xiii. 8-11; 
the effect of the laying on of hands, viii. 17-19=xix. 6 ; the raising of the 
dead, ix. 36-41=xx. 7-12; the miraculous release, from prison, xii. 3-12 
(v. 18-21)=xvi. 23-40. One hardly knows whether to admire more the 
art shown in the symmetry of construction or the skill that devises scenes 
ever new and radically different, unless all this is rather a faithful reprodue- 
tion of reminiscence and tradition, 

10, (P. 153, 155.) Even in Rey, ii. 14, 20, out of the four divisions of the 
apostolic decree, we find only φαγεῖν. εἰδωλύθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι referred to, 
and when Christ assures the faithful portion of the Church in, Thyatira 
(ii. 24 f.) that He lays upon them no further burden, but simply charges them 
to hold fast what they have, we ean understand by ἄλλο βάρος, according to 
usage and context, not censure or punishment, but only burdensome obliga- 


{64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tions ; and by that which faithful Christians have hitherto had and held we 
must understand primarily their abstinence in the two points named. These 
are contrasted, however, with broader obligations of a kindred sort, of course ; 
for it goes without saying that Christ also requires men to abstain from lying, 
theft, murder, and similar sins. The author thus meets the apprehension, 
probably fostered by the Nicolaitans,—the preachers of an immoral liberty— 
(2 Pet. ii. 19, cf. vol. ii. 281 f.), that further limitations and constraints were 
to be laid upon the Gentile Christians. The requirements laid down pre- 
suppose the apostolic decree, and the express setting aside of further restric- 
tions with regard to external conduct presupposes that even before the time 
of Revelation the two remaining items of the decree were no longer observed 
in the Asiatic Churches. In the Didache, chap. vi., there is a still more 
explicit reference to other apostolic commands to the Gentiles concerning 
foods, besides the prohibition of meat from idol sacrifices ; these others were 
known to the author from Acts, but their observance was no longer insisted 
upon; ef. GK, ii. 9334. As a further result of the fact that the prohibition 
of blood and of things strangled was no longer enforceable and had actually 
ceased to be observed, arose the modified interpretations and alterations ef 
the text, see above, p. 8 ff. The present writer must not enter here into 
an exhaustive discussion of the decree. It is sufficient to say that μηδὲν 
πλέον βάρος, Acts xv. 28, like οὐκ ἄλλο βάρος, Rev. ii. 24, can only mean “no 
further burden beyond the obligation which you already bear, and this 
accepted willingly, so that it is in fact no burden.” ‘The πλήν in both 
passages does not, like ἢ after πλέον, introduce an exception to the negative 
statement, which would imply that the following requirement was in fact 
an ἐπιβάλλειν βάρος (Rev. ii. 24), an ἐπιθεῖναι ζυγόν (Acts xv. 10), a παρενοχλεῖν 
(Acts xv. 19); on the contrary, πλήν, as usual, introduces a matter only more 
remotely connected with the contrasted subject of discussion, a matter which 
is not to be excluded by what precedes. This is equally true whether it is 
an independent sentence (Matt. xviii. 7; Luke xxii. 21, 42; Phil. iv. 14; 
Rev. ii. 25— yet,” “ however”), or a dependent clause (Acts xx. 23), or a 
single substantive (Acts xxvii. 22—the ship is not ἃ ψυχή) that follows. 

11. (P. 159.) The words αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος, Acts viii. 26, are of no service 
in determining the time, though Hug, Einl.? i. 23, mistakenly assuming that 
this was a parenthetic remark of the author—whereas it belongs to the 
address of the angel-—and also that it referred to the city of Gaza, besides 
tacitly inserting a νῦν, claimed to find in it a reference to the destruction of 
Gaza by the Jews, a.p. 66 (Jos. Bell. ii. 18. 1). If the second supposition 
were correct, the phrase would more properly point to the time before the 
rebuilding of Gaza, 62 B.c., recalling Strabo, p. 759 (μένουσα ἔρημος, on which 
see Schürer, ii. 87 [Eng. trans. τι. i. 70f.]). Plainly, however, the reference 
is not to the city which had no interest for Philip, but to the road between 
Jerusalem and Gaza, which he was to take, and on which he was to meet 
the eunuch as he travelled alone. Not in the sense, however, that of several 
roads leading from Jerusalem to Gaza that is intended, which runs through 
a sparsely inhabited district (as Robinson, Palostine, ii. 644, 748 ; Overbeck, 
Kom. über d. Apostelges. on Acts viii. 26)—a linguistic impossibility. The 
remark is expressly made of the one main road—probably that by way of 
Eleutheropolis—in order to indicate to Philip that he is not ‘to proceed this 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 165 


time as a missionary from city to city, preaching to the people, but that he is 
to be prepared for a meeting on the lonely road with something that he does 
not expect. Hofmann’s opinion (ix. 265) that the author would not speak in 
the present of the loneliness ofthis road at a time when all Palestine had 
been desolated ıby the Jewish war, would not be in point even if Luke 
were to be regarded as the speaker, and not rather. the angel ; for it is not to 
be imagined that all Palestine after 70 was an uninhabited waste. Nor is it 
obvious that after 70, because so, long subsequent to the death of Agrippa 1. 
(+ 44), Luke (iii. 1) would have had no further occasion to mention Lysanias 
of Abilene (Hofmann, ix. 261). Agrippa IL, during whose reign (circa 
50-100) Luke certainly wrote, received this Gerrit in 53 (Jos. Ant. xx. 
7.1; Bell. ii. 12..8), and not only does Josephus, but Ptolemyyalso (v. 15. 22), 
ἌΧΟΣ to the distriet by the name of its former possessor. 

12. (P. 159.) For the opinions of the ancients concerning the place of 
composition see above, p. 7f., n. 7. Until the most recent times, it has 
been argued in favour of Rome: that unimportant places in its neighbourhood, 
like Forum Appw and [res Taberne, Acts xxviii. 15, are assumed to be known. 
It would be a sufficient explanation if Theophilus had at some time made 
a journey to Rome. Troas, Samothrace, Neapolis, Cenchrez, Assos, Mitylene, 
Chios, Samos, Trogyllium (or Trogylia, Cod. D), Cos, Patara, Myra, Adramyt- 
tium, Cnidus, Salmone (Acts xvi. 11, xviii. 18, xx. 13-15, xxi. 1, xxvii. 2- 7), 
are introduced in the reports of Pauls j journeys in just the same way as the 
noted cities of Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome, or 
these unimportant tions on the Anpiam Way. It cannot be shown that 
there is a uniform procedure in this regard. The Palestinian cities Nazareth, 
Juda (Jutta ἢ), Bethlehem, Capernaum, Nain, Arimathea, and their situa: 
tions, are introduced as en (Luke i. 26, 39, ii. 4, iv. 31, vii. 11, 
xxiü, 51), the location of the Gadarene country (Lake viil. 26), the distance 
of the Mount of Oliyes and the village of Emmaus from J erusalem, and of 
Lydda from Joppa (Luke xxiv. 13; Wats i. 12, ix. 38) are given, while 
Jericho (Luke xviii. 35), Gaza, Kshdod) Lydda, Joppa, Antipatris, Caesarea, 
Ptolemais, Tyre, Damascus (Acts viii, 26, 40, ix. 2, 32,38, 40, xx..3, 7, 
xxiii. 31), are introduced as familiarly as Jerusalem and Antioch, At ER: 

same time one may infer from those more detailed references that Theophilus 
did not live in Palestine, and from Acts xvi. 12, xvii. 19, 21,—remarks 
which are important for the understanding of the events,—that Luke did not 
assume in Theophilus’ case the same knowledge of conditions in Macedonia 
and Greece that he himself possessed. Köstlin, Urspr. der synopt: Evv. S. 
294 ff., and, Oyerbeck, 8. Ixviii. fl, have argued for the composition’ of the 
work in Ephesus, or at least Asia Minor. 


§ 63. RETROSPECT AND FORECAST. 


Of the three historical works investigated up to this 
point, the first is preserved to us only in translation, 
whichis for the most part» faithful, but ποῦ alwayis 
felicitous. ‘The second was not completed ; and the third, 


166 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which was planned to occupy three books, was not 
continued beyond the second. , The condition of the 
Church between the years 60 and 80, and the practical 
needs which the three authors of this period desired’ te 
meet by their writings, were not such as tended to. the 
production of finished literary works. Nor could they 
lead to the production of works which meet our need 
for historical information. Even Luke, who.in nationality, 
training, and insight is closer than the other evangelists 
to the modern and Western mind, could not have said 
with reference to his, work: τοῦ συγγραφέως ἔργον Ev: ὡς 
ἐπράχθη εἰπεῖν (Lucian, Hist. conser. 39). 

All three of the gospel writers had in view religious 
instruction and religious impression. The character of 
these books was correctly described by the post-apostolic 
Church, when the word εὐαγγέλιον, εὐαγγέλια was applied 
to them. The description was more correct in the case 
of the first three Gospels than of the Fourth. For, while 
the last is addressed to Christian Churches already long 
existant, the first three, each in its own way, are connected 
with the missionary preaching, which was originally called 
\ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, Matthew concerns himself almost more with. 
unbelieving Jews than with his fellow-believers; Luke 
endeavours to win over altogether to the faith and the 
Church a Gentile favourably inclined, toward Christianity. 
Even Mark in his writing does not deny that he was a 
missionary helper; he has in view primarily new converts 
(vol. τ. 482 ff). And so all three of the Synoptists follow 
closely the main outlines of the history as given in the 
missionary preaching, which covered the activity of Jesus 
after the arrest of the Baptist—from this point onwards 
giving an uninterrupted and progressive account of His 
public ministry up to the time of His death and resurrec- 
tion. As is so often the case in the popular treatment 
of complex historical development, intermediate steps are 
omitted and the whole progress of events so set forth that 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 167 


the movement which began in Galilee ends in Judea 
(Acts x. 37-42, xiii. 23-31, cf. 1 21 £5 see vol. ἢ. 869 ἢ, 
377, bp. 1, 379, 3883 f n. 5, 459 8} This» does: not 
mean that the individual writers did not, each in accord- 
ance with his own special point of view, make departures 
from this scheme. For different) reasons Matthew and 
Luke did this in their ‘histories of the childhood.” "This 
was omitted by Mark, because it did not fall in with his 
proposed plan. But all three of the evangelists made this 
scheme the basis of their accounts, and generally confined 
themselves within its bounds... From this it is .certainly 
not to be inferred that their knowledge was limited to 
this outline—an idea which would mean that the con- 
clusions heretofore reached regarding the authorship and 
origin of the synoptic Gospels are only so many’ errors. 
The correctness of this negative conclusion would’ seem 
all the more certain to one convinced of the’genuineness 
and trustworthiness of the Fourth Gospel (n. 1). But it 
has) already been observed more than once (vol. ii. 372 f., 
441 f.,.556f., 605} that the premise upon which this 
conclusion rests, namely, that the information of Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke was limited to the material found in 
their respective Gospels, is false. 

As is well known, the principal difference between the 
Fourth Gospel and the other three—a difference which 
has been made use of in the criticism both of John and of 
the ‘‘ Synoptists” ever since the second century—is their 
different representation of Jesus’ relation to Jerusalem! 
In the synoptic Gospels He appears here only once during 
the last days of His life, whereas in John there are no less 
than five visits to Jerusalem (ii.'13, v. 1, viv 14, x. 22, 
xii, 12). He is also represented as working for some time 
in Judea (11. 22-iv. 3), and His ministry covers at least 
three Passovers after His baptism (ii. 13, vi'4, xii, Pff.). 
The opinion that Jesus’ teaching covered only one year— 
which is based upon the synoptic account, and often 


168 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


supported by an appeal to Luke iv. 19, and which was 
frequently maintained in the ancient Church, notwith- 
standing acquaintance with and acceptance of the Fourth 
Gospel—cannot be maintained even when the Fourth 
Gospel is left out of account. No one of the Synoptists 
gives a chronological statement with regard to Jesus’ first 
appearance which can possibly justify this limitation of 
His: ministry. § Moreover, according to Matt. xi. 1; 
Mark ii. 23; Luke vi. 1, Jesus witnessed the beginning 
of a harvest while He was in the midst of His Galilean 
ministry, and long before His crucifixion. It is not 
possible to suppose that authors like Matthew, and’ Mark, 
and, also Luke,—authors who nowhere betray evidence of 
stupid ignorance, and who, on the other hand, show them- 
selves to be thoroughly acquainted with Jewish customs 
and with the natural features of Palestine,—thought of 
this scene as taking place inthe autumn or winter. They 
knew that the beginning of the harvest was coterminous 
with the Passover season, consequently that between this 
time and the Passover, when Jesus was crucified, at least 
one full) year elapsed. Moreover, Luke understood the 
tradition, which he reproduces with the phrase σαββάτῳ 
δευτεροπρώτῳ, to mean that it was the second Sabbath 
reckoned from the first Sabbath of the Jewish “ ecclesi- 
astical” year—which always fell between the 8th and 
14th of Nisan—on which this event took place, 1.6. it 
was just before the Passover. This is not the: place in 
which to prove that this Passover is identical with the 
one mentioned in John vi. 4, The language which Luke 
uses in iii. 23 must also be considered very strange, if he 
was not aware that a! number of years elapsed between 
the baptism and death of Jesus. No intelligent writer 
would say of a man who ceased to work at the end of the 
same year in which his work began, “he was when he 
began about thirty years old.” Moreover, if Luke under- 
stood the discourses of Jesus’ which he incorporated in 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 169 


his Gospel, he must have learned from them—if he did 
not know it from other sources—that the year of grace 
foreseen by the prophet in which salvation was to be 
offered to Israel (iv. 19) in its fulfilment covered a number 
of years. Hven at the risk of being charged with old- 
fashioned. exegesis, the present writer is bound to maintain 
that, according to Luke xiii. 6-9, Jesus, at a time con- 
siderably remote from His crucifixion,—probably during 
the last summer or autumn of His life,—looked back ovér 
a period of three years, during which God had looked in 
vain for fruit from the preaching of the gospel begun by 
the, Baptist and continued by, Himself—primarily in 
Jerusalem, the unfruitful fig-tree in the vineyard of Israel 
(n. 2). Nor is it possible to interpret the word in Luke 
ΧΙ. 34, which closely follows Luke xii, 6~9—a word 
preserved also in Matt. xxiii. 37—in any other sense than 
that Jesus Himself had often striven in vain through His 
testimony, which was always rejected, to save the people 
of Jerusalem from their threatened doom (n. 3). That the 
public appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem, described only by 
the “Synoptists,” was not the only but the last attempt, 
is evidenced by the word which He spoke over the city as 
He rode down from the Mount of Olives (Luke xix. 42), 
“If thou hadst known (as do the Galilean disciples) in this 
day (the last opportunity given to thee) even thou, the 
things which belong unto peace!” Unless there were earlier 
visits to Jerusalem, not altogether temporary in character, 
the words of Jesus in Matt. xxvi. 55, Mark xiv. 49 
(καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, cf. John xviii. 20) would sound strange, and 
one:is at a loss to account for the close personal relations 
between Jesus and several persons in and about Jerusalem, 
which are presupposed ‚in Matt. xxi. 8, 17, xxvi. 6, 18, 
xxvu. 57; Mark xi. 3,11, xiv. 3, 13.ff; 51 (vol. ii. 491 £.), 
xv. 43; Luke xix. 31, xxiii. 50f. 

Luke shows most clearly that he is entirely free from 
the conception of the ministry of Jesus; which is supposed 


170 INTRODUCTION TO ΤῊΝ NEW TESTAMENT 


to be based upon the accounts of all three of the 
“Synoptists.” It has been already seen (above, p. 106 f.) 
that) Luke avoids giving the impression, to which support 
is given by the accounts of Matthew and Mark, that all 
Jesus’ activity in Galilee followed the arrest of the Baptist, 
and why this is so. He separates the journey from Judea 
tooGalilee, which marks the beginning of this and of ‘all 
Jesus’) public work, from its association with the con- 
clusion of John’s work, and connects this journey directly 
with the baptism and temptation of Jesus (Luke iii. 22, 
iv. 1, 14; John i. 29-11. 11). He says expressly in one 
of the earlier passages of his book (iv. 48 f.) that Jesus 
preached, not only in Galilee, but in the synagooues of 
all Palestine (above, pp. 64, 88, n. 18). ‘In x. 38-42 he 
tells of the sojourn of Jesus in the house of the sisters of 
Bethany, near Jerusalem, a sojourn which cannot belong 
to the closing days of His life. 

But why; is 10 Luke alone who relates these facts, and 
why do Matthew and Mark fail to relate formally and in 
detail what evidently they knew? Anyone not satisfied 
with the answer afforded by the ‘particular purpose which 
each of these evangelists had in view, and by their 
common dependence upon the main’ outlines of the 
missionary preaching, is at liberty to ‘supply ἃ better 
answer. But let him also explain why Matthew and 
Luke tell us nothing of the great and numerous miracles 
which were done in Chorazin and Bethsaida, and which 
are mentioned in Matt. xi.''21, Luke x. 13, before the 
deeds in Capernaum, and why they say nothing about the 
appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter (Luke xxiv. 34), 
and of the earlier relations of the four fishermen in 
Capernaum to Jesus, without which it is impossible 
historitally to understand the account in Matt. iv. 18-22; 
Mark i. 16-20. 

The facts here suggested are certainly not satisfactorily 
explained by any one of the constructions of the history 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 17 


of the Gospels hitherto brought to light—constructions 
that contradict the internal testimony of the Gospels and 
the first century. tradition regarding their origin, and 
which at the same time leave this tradition and internal 
testimony entirely unexplained. Only when it is shown 
to be probable that the men whose identity is concealed 
by the names Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote after the 
eye-witnesses of the gospel history had passed away, and 
that the investigations to which one of these authors refers 
(Luke i. 3) were limited to the reading of two or three 
earlier writings, can the present writer admit that the 
passing over by the Synoptists of important events, to 
which they make clear reference, is to be explained by 
their dependence upon sources now lost. Even this. does 
not solve the problem; it simply pushes it back. The 
question recurs, “Why did these earlier authors, whose 
writings we no longer possess, make such limited use of 
their abundant knowledge ?” 

It remains to be seen whether the investigation of 
the Fourth Gospel confirms or contradicts the conclusions 
heretofore reached. 


1. (P. 167.) P. Ewald, who considers the one-sided choice of material 
by the Synoptists “the chief problem of the Gospels,” assembles on 8. 52 f. 
of his work (Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage, 1890) all that has 
hitherto been pointed out of Johannine material in the synoptic Gospels, 
and adds to it, particularly by his reference to Luke xxii. 24 ff., 35 ff, as 
compared with John xiii. ff. 

2. (P. 169.) Rightly conceived in substance, though not in detail, as 
early as by Ephrem, Lv. Conc, Expos. pp. 166 f., 183 f., 213; Opp., ed. Rom. 
i, 562 (cf. Forsch. i. 68, 261); Bengel, Gnomon ad Le, xiii. 7; Wieseler 
(Chron, Synopse, 202 ; Beiträge, 165). In opposition to his own instructor in 
exegesis, J, Stockmeyer, Erklärung ausgewählter Gleichnisse (ed. C. Stockmeyer, 
1897), S. 251-260, and Hofmann, N.T. viii. 351 ff., who reject this interpre- 
tation, the present writer must remark that: (1) The tree is planted in the 
vineyard, the vineyard is expressly spoken of as belonging to the owner of 
the tree, and the gardener is particularly called an ἀμπελουργός, although 
in the parable he has to do only with the fig-tree. It cannot possibly be 
that all this expresses merely the thought that the tree stood on well pre- 
pared soil and in a sheltered position (as Stockmeyer, S. 254). The vine- 
yard, which is so significantly prominent in the parable, is an established 


ı72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


figure for the Jewish people (Isa. v. 1-7, xxvii. 2-6 ; Matt. xxi. 33+46;, Luke) 
xx. 9-16). The fig-tree within it, therefore, cannot mean Israel again, but 
only Jerusalem. (2) This is confirmed by the story in Matt. xxi. 18-22; 
Mark xis 12-14, 19-24, which, in the historical connection, can be ‘applied 
only to Jerusalem... It cannot be mere chance that Luke does not have this 
story, but has this parable as if to take its place ; cf. above, p. 102. (3) That 
Luke himself had Jerusalem in mind is shown by his attaching the parable 
to xiii. 15a passage that refers to two calamities in this city which were 
admonitory to repentance. As there is no note of time im xiii, 6, the 
connection must have been occasioned by the thought relationship between 
the! passages. Jerusalem is again mentioned directly afterwards in xiii. 22, 
33-35. (4) As the owner of the) vineyard stands for God, and the vine- 
dresser puts in a good word for the tree at the end of the three years, one, 
might be inclined to take the three years as denoting the centuries during 
which God had often visited His people seeking fruit (Luke xx. 10ff.). 
But, in the first‘ place, Jerusalem and not Israel is under discussion, Even 
if this city was peculiarly to blame for the ill-success of, these prophetic 
visitations (Luke xiii. 33f.), still the visitations concerned not Jerusalem 
but the whole’ people. - In the second place, Luke represents Jesus as 
speaking immediately afterwards (xiii. 34, n. 3) of His own repeated) efforts 
in behalf of Jerusalem. In the third, place, the precise period of three 
years seems strangely chosen, and the explanation from Lev. xix. 23 ff. ; 
Judg) ax. 27; Jos. Ant. iv. 8.19 (Hofmann, ‘viii. 352) is unsatisfactory: 
On the other hand, one cannot identify offhand, the three years of the 
passage with the three years of Jesus’ public ministry, or even find an 
allusion in them to the three visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, separated each 
from the other by a year’s interval. The latter finds no support in ver 7, 
for the owner says simply that three years have now passed since he began 
looking—who knows how often ?—to see if the tree would not at last bear 
fruit. (Here, too, we must remember that the fig-tree bears at very different 
seasons, ef. Winer, Realw. i. 367). The former would lead us to reckon the 
three years from the Passover of John ii. 13, and with a correct under- 
standing of the Fourth Gospel they would end with the Passover of John 
xii.’ 1 ff. We should then be transferred by the parable to a point im- 
mediately before the last Passover, about the time of Luke xviii. 31-xix. 28, 
or xix. 41-44, or John xi. 55. But from the surroundings in which Luke 
has placed the parable (ef. also xiii. 31-33) the reader must rather infer that 
a considerable time was yet to elapsé before the end. That the fourth year, 
which, from the analogy of the three years, should be in this case a plain 
statement of actual time, should answer in reality to the period of some 
forty yeurs until the execution of judgment upon Jerusalem, is inconceivable, 
Jesus did not announce that this judgment would come in the following 
year, but simply that it would be within the experience of His con- 
temporaries. We must, therefore, seek another starting-point in the count 
of years, namely, that‘ indicated in Luke iii, 1-6. According to Luke 
himself, Jesus representéd the appearance of John the Baptist as the 
beginning of the new epoch of revelation (xvi. 16, cf. ili, 18, vii. 27-35, 
xx. 3-7; Acts i. 5,22). Through John, too, God had sought for fruit, and 
had threatened the destruction of the barren trees (iii. 8 f.), but without any 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 173 


effect upon the leaders of the people (vii. 30, xx. 4-7; Matt. xxi. 24-32), 
whose chief seat was at Jerusalem. The rulers there rejected the double 
testimony of the Baptist and of Jesus (John 111. 11, v. 33-36). To give 
John’s testimony a peculiar reference to Jerusalem was all the more 
warranted, as he had never worked in Galilee, but always in the neighbour- 
hood of the city (Matt. iii. 1,5; Mark i. 5; Luke iii. 3; John i. 28, iii. 23- 
iv. 1, x. 40). John appeared several months at least, and perhaps a whole 
year, before Jesus’ first visit at the feast in Jerusalem (John ii. 13). Jesus, 
therefore, can have spoken this parable about the time of the Passover next 
before His last—the one He did not attend (John vi. 4)—or, as the present 
writer considers more, probable, about the time ‚of the following Feast of 
Tabernacles, when He had already fixed His eye upon a later festival as the 
time of decision (John vii. 8). Not all hope has disappeared as yet ; Jesus 
begs a further respite for Jerusalem--may God still have patience with the 
unfruitful fig-tree in this fourth year, now beginning or already begun. 
When this year also is spent, Jesus speaks and acts quite differently (Luke 
xix. 41-44; Mark xi. 12-14). 

3. (P. 169.) While Strauss, Leben Jesu krit. bearb. (1835) i. 444, ef. Leb. 
Jesu für das Volk, S. 247. was unprejudiced enough to. recognise that 
Matt. xxiii. 37 (=Luke xiii. 34) presupposed repeated efforts by Jesus in 
Jerusalem, Steinmeyer, Apologet. Beitr. iv. 219, sought to refer the ποσάκις 
to the many summons to repentance which “the grace of God” had addressed 
to Jerusalem through the prophets and finally through Jesus as well. But 
the speaker is not “the grace of God,” nor, as others have dreamed, “the 
wisdom of God,” but Jesus Himself and no other. Still more impossible is 
the favourite application of the words to the attempts so far made to convert 
the Jewish people at large, for (1) the children (sons, daughters, daughter) 
of Jerusalem or Zion in Isa. i. 8, iii. 16, iv. 4, xxxvii. 22; Zech. ix. 9; 
Ps. clxix.2; Luke xix. 44, xxiii. 28; Matt. xxi. 5; John xii. 15, are the 
inhabitants of that city ; so that to put upon Jesus’ lips the theological phrase, 
based on an extended allegory, which Paul uses in Gal. iv. 25, is the more 
inadmissible because the context in Luke xiii. 31-35 distinguishes definitely 
between Jerusalem and other sections of the Holy Land. In Matt. xxiii. 37 
also the city is first addressed. twice by name and in the singular, and not 
until her children have been mentioned do we come, with ἠθελήσατε, to the 
plural address. Just as plainly as the “thou” is identical with the “ye,” 
is Jerusalem (and the Jewish people is never called by that name) identical 
with her children, that is, the city with its inhabitants. But (2), and most 
important, ποσάκις does not mean “how long” or “for how many months 
or years,” but “ how often.” 


X. 
THE WRITINGS OF JOHN. 


$ 64. THE TRADITION. 


ΟΝῈ who has extricated himself from a labyrinth is wont 
to breathe a sigh of relief and set out with increased 
courage upon the way which he has farther to pursue. 
That is the natural feeling which the investigator has in 
passing from his study of the oldest historical literature 
of the apostolic age to the latest writings of the N.T. 
which bear the name of John, in particular to the Gospel 
of John, which follows the other three Gospels and is 
known as the Fourth. In the case of the others the 
inexperienced observer is confused by a mass of material 
practically identical in contents and language, the 
similarities of which are as difficult to explain as the 
corresponding differences, In the Fourth Gospel, on the 
other hand, we have an entirely distinct work, which 
never gives the impression made by the earlier Gospels, 
of being only another variation of the common primitive 
form. 

Because John is an independent work, it follows at 
once that traces of its existence and influence in the 
Church are much clearer than in the case of the Synopties 
(n. 1) When the reader finds, for example, in Clement 
of Rome, or Polycarp, a saying of Jesus which is to be 
found in similar form in Matthew, and also in Mark or 
Luke, he is unable to determine from which one of these 


sources it is taken, or whether it may not possibly be 
174 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 175 


derived from a lost Gospel, or even from the oral tradition. 
That which bears the Johannine stamp cannot be mis- 
taken for or confused with anything else. It must: also 
be remembered that the tradition concerning the origin 
of John’s writings goes back much nearer to the time 
and place of their origin than does the tradition con- 
cerning the origin of the other historical books. We 
have no: tradition concerning Matthew and Luke which 
can be proved to have originated in the place where these 
books were written and among the disciples of the men 
who wrote them. In fact we are compelled to conjecture 
the place where these books originated from their contents 
alone, or from traditions of a comparatively late date. 
The situation with regard to Mark is not much more 
favourable as regards this point. The Johannine writings, 
on the other hand, originatediin the province of Asia, 
and for this information we are not) dependent »upon 
tradition alone. It is unmistakably affirmed in Revelation, 
and the tradition is entirely confirmed in this point by 
the contents of the Gospel and the Epistles. In this same 
province also we find living until far on in) the second 
century personal disciples of the John οἵ Ephesus, to 
whom these writings are ascribed: Some of these are 
bishops, as Papias in Hierapolis and Polycarp in Smyrna ; 
others ‘are not mentioned by name, but associated by 
Irenzeus, the) personal disciple of Polycarp, with. Papias 
and Polycarp, and called “the elders” (οἱ πρεσβύτεροί, 
seniores). The fact that John lived to ,an extreme age 
and was still alive at the beginning of Trajan’s reign 
(98-117), dying, therefore, about the year 100, and, the 
fact that Polycarp died im the year 155 (Feb. 23) at a 
very great ave,—-86 years after his baptism, which must 
have taken place, therefore, in the year 69,—gives us an 
unbroken tradition from Jesus to Irenzeus, 1.6. from 30 to 
180, with only two links between them, namely, John of 
Ephesus and Polycarp of Smyrna. | Naturally there were 


176 INTRODUCTION ΠΟ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


numerous other lines of connection between Irenseus and 
his contemporaries and the representatives of the apostolie 
generation in Asia Minor (Philip in Hierapolis, Aristion, 
see vol. ii, 436 f.), and doubtless in most cases there were 
more links in the chain than in the case of this one of 
four links, which we are able to establish biographically 
(n./ 2). 
The first clear traces of the influence of the Fourth 
Gospel upon the thought and language of the Church 
are found in the Epistles of Ignatius (about the year 110) 
How unmistakable these traces are may be inferred from 
the fact that not infrequently this dependence of Ignatius 
upon John has been used as an argument against the 
genuineness and antiquity of the Ignatian letters. [Ὁ is 
possible, if one is disposed’ to do so, to assume that the 
resemblance of passages in Clement of Rome (circa 94), 
in the Shepherd of Hermas (circa 100), in the Didache 
(circa 110), in the so-called Second Epistle of Clement 
(circa 120), in the Epistle of Barnabas (curew 130), in 
the Protevangelium of James, and the fragments οἵ 
Basilides, to passages in the Fourth Gospel presupposes 
no more than the pre-existence of Johannine ideas and 
expressions, but in the majority of these cases the more 
natural explanation is acquaintanceship with the Fourth 
Gospel (GK, 1. 767, 906-912, 915). On the other hand, 
it is certainly proved that Valentinus, who must have 
developed his system before the year 140, outlined his 
list of veons under the dominating influence of) the 
Johannine prologue (G‘K, i. 736-739), and that the 
entire school of Valentinus valued the Fourth Gospel 
highly, and regarded it as the work of an apostle. | One 
of the leaders of this school, Heracleon, wrote a com- 
mentary on this Gospel in the year 160, important 
fraements of which are preserved to us by Origen (GA, i. 
732-739, ii. 956-960). The whole of John xii, 4—xv. 34, 
xy. 19, possibly also portions of John vi. 88 fl., were 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 177 


found in Marcion’s Gospel, and it cannot be proved that 
these passages were incorporated into this Gospel by his 
disciples and not by Marcion himself, about 145, with 
whose ideas they agreed perfectly (GK, i. 663 ff., 675- 
680). Not a few passages were appropriated from the 
Fourth Gospel by others, who prepared new Gospels and 
apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, e.g. the unknown author 
of the Gospel of Peter (about 150), and Leucius, the 
alleged disciple of John, in the Acts of John and of Peter 
(between 160 and 170). Among other things, Leucius 
represents Peter as developing his ideas concerning the 
limited value of the written Gospel on the basis of John 
xxi. 25 and 1 John i.-iv. (Forsch. vi. 195£.). Justin, 
who wrote the works, which have come down to us, 
between 150 and 160, knew the Fourth Gospel as the 
composition of apostles and their disciples, which was also 
im use in religious services in his time (GK, i. 516-533). 
Since Justin lived in Ephesus between 130 and 135, and 
became a Christian there, his knowledge concerning the 
Gospels and their use in the Church was derived from 
this period and region. 

From the beginning of the controversy about the 
time of the Easter celebration, which broke out in the 
province of Asia between 160 and 170 a.p., the equal 
authority of the Fourth Gospel with the other three was 
presupposed. It is impossible to understand the Mon- 
tanistie movement which started in the year 157 (or 156), 
except in the light of the Johannine discourses about the 
Paraclete. When (170 a.p.), in opposition to Montanism, 
a party, to which Epiphanius foolishly gave the name 
Alogi, declared the Johannine writings to be the work 
of the heretic Cerinthus, they stated their opinion of them 
in the sentence, “They are not worthy to be in the 
Church” (Epiph. Her. li. 3). They made no effort to 
prove that these writings did not make their appearance 
in the Church until after the death of John, but, in 


VOL. ΠῚ. 12 


178 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


aseribing their composition to a contemporary of John’s, 
they admitted that they had been “ in the Church” since 
the close of the first century. The Asiatic “elders” of 
Irenzeus appeal to the Johannine sayings of Jesus, as 
well as to the synoptie sayings (Iren. v. 36. 2; GK, 
i. 782). The appendix to the Gospel of Mark, which at 
latest was probably added about the year 150, is based, 
among other passages, upon John xx., and also upon the 
work of Papias (see vol. ii. 471-476). The fragments of 
the latter work also show some traces of familiarity with 
the Fourth Gospel (n. 3). Ina fragment preserved only in 
Latin, the genuineness of which there is no other reason 
to suspect, Papias expressly says that John gave his 
Gospel to the Church during his lifetime (n. 4). The 
fact that Eusebius has not preserved for us this testimony 
of Papias is easily explained by its manifest  triviality. 
As a matter of fact the sense of the fragment is excellent ; 
since, when superficially considered, the appendix, and 
especially John xxi. 24f., might make it appear as if the 
Fourth Gospel were an opus posthumum, edited by the 
friends of the author. 

There are two ancient accounts of the origin of the 
Fourth Gospel. One of these was found by Eusebius in 
Clement of Alexandria, and is preserved to us only in 
indirect discourse, and apparently in a very much 
abbreviated form. It is referred by Clement himself 
to his teachers (of πρεσβύτεροι), as are the similar state- 
ments concerning Mark (n. 5). According to this 
account, John, who was the last of the evangelists, 
considering that the human and external side (of the 
gospel history) had been set forth in the (already existing) 
Gospels, at the suggestion of his friends, and under the 
influence of the Spirit of God, prepared a spiritual Gospel. 
The other account, manifestly also abbreviated and more 
of the character of a legend, is found in the Muratorian 
Canon (n. 6). According to this account, John replies to 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 179 


his fellow disciples and the bishops, who exhort him to 
write a Gospel, with the suggestion that they fast with 
him for three days and await a revelation. On the very 
next night it is revealed to the apostle Andrew that John 
shall write all down in his own name, but that all the 
others (disciples present) shall revise his writing... If, as 
is probably the case, this account was derived from 
Leucius’ Acts of John, which were written in Asia Minor 
between 160 and 170 a.D. (n. 6), it is possible that many 
similar but more extravagant things which are reported 
by later writers concerning the origin of John were 
largely derived from this same book of Leucius, which, 
notwithstanding its Gnostic character, was much read. 
Most of these accounts agree in representing the bishops 
of Asia as sent by their Churches to urge John to write, 
and in representing the prevailing heresies as creating a 
feeling that a new Gospel was needed. By some no 
specific heresies are mentioned (Cat. in Jo., n. 4); others 
mention Cerinthus and Ebion (Epiph. Her. li. 2. 12; 
Jerome, Vir. Ill. ix.). Quite anachronistically mention 
is made also of Valentinus (Victorinus on Rev. xi. 1), or 
in lieu of all others, Marcion (Argum. in Jo., seen. 4). 
But even Irenzeus, who elsewhere shows no traces of this 
legendary story, is confident that John wrote his Gospel 
im conscious opposition to his contemporary Cerinthus, 
and the still earlier Gnostic teaching of Nieolaüs (n. 7). 
All tradition which is ancient and in general worthy 
of notice agrees in representing John as writing after 
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, at a great age, and during 
his residence in the province of Asia, or more speci- 
fically in Ephesus (n. 8). As already noticed, this 
is frequently combined with the tradition held by the 
teachers of Clement, according to which John wrote his 
Gospel with the other three in view (n. 8 end). This is 
confirmed by the fact that the John of Ephesus, to whom 
the Gospel is attributed, did actually express his views 


180 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with regard to the Gospel of Mark, and by the fact that, 
during his lifetime and in the region where he lived, the 
original of the Gospel of Matthew was orally interpreted 
in religious services, and finally replaced by a written 
translation (see vol. ii. 433-444, 509-517). 

The tradition of the Church is also unanimous in 
representing the evangelist John as at the same time the 
author of Revelation and the Johannine Epistles—and as 
none other than the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. 
John the evangelist is called a disciple of the Lord both 
by teachers of the Church and by heretical writers, and 
by these same persons he is sometimes called an apostle 
(n. 9). The first designation is the more natural, since 
the writing of a Gospel is not of itself the function of an 
apostle, and since the significance and trustworthiness of 
a Gospel depend very much upon its author’s having been 
an eye-witness of the facts he records, but not at all upon 
his apostleship. Furthermore, there was no need fre- 
quently to describe John as one of the twelve apostles, 
since John, surnamed Mark, was known in the Gentile 
Christian Church only by the latter name, and since down 
to the time of Dionysius of Alexandria the Church was 
acquainted with only one distinguished John of the 
apostolic age, namely, the son of Zebedee, the disciple 
and apostle, the guardian of the Asiatic Churches during 
the last decades of the first century, the teacher of 
Polycarp and of Papias (see vol. ii. 433 f.). 

Until after the death of Origen, all the Johannine 
writings in the N.T. were assigned by all the Fathers of 
the Church to the same author without question or 
explanation. When, as is occasionally the case, attention 
is called to the identity of the author of some one of the 
Johannine writings, it is done either for the purpose of 
recalling the various gifts for which the Church was 
indebted to this one John, or for the purpose of honour- 
ing him, or in order to indicate special relations existing 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 181 


between the Gospel and Revelation, or between the 
Gospel and the Epistles. It is never done in order to 
establish the identity of the author, as if this were not 
self-evident (n. 10). This was the point of view even of 
the Alogi. They simply rejected “the books of John” 
(n. 11). Naturally their polemie was directed mainly, if 
not entirely, against the two principal Johannine works, 
—the Gospel and Revelation,—since the Montanists, in 
opposition to whom their opinion was developed, based 
their views upon the Paraclete passages in the Fourth 
Gospel and upon the visions of Revelation. | Conse- 
quently Hippolytus writes, in opposition to the Alogi, 
his apology “for the Gospel according to John and for 
Revelation.” But it must not be forgotten that the 
criticism of the Alogi applied to all the Johannine writings, 
and that they regarded the John, whose mask Cerinthus 
assumed, as an apostle. It was not until much later that 
the attempt was made, on the basis of one accepted work 
of the apostle John, to deny his authorship of another 
writing bearing his name, and to assign it to another 
John. This was impossible in the year 170, because at 
that time only one John who belonged to the apostolic 
age was known. And even as late as 210, when Caius 
of Rome accepted the negative conclusions of the Alogi 
with reference to Revelation, but rejected them in the 
case of the Gospel, he did not distinguish between an 
apostle John who wrote the Gospel and another John who 
was the author of Revelation, but maintained the opinion 
that it was not John but Cerinthus, under the mask of 
“a great apostle,” who wrote Revelation (n. 11 end), 
The history of the criticism of Revelation, and later of 
the shorter letters, isan important chapter in the history 
of the Canon, but does not concern directly the investi- 
gation of the tradition relative to these books: for the 
reason that from the'very outset this criticism is a con- 
scious denial of every tradition. But even this is an 


ı82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


indirect witness to the one existing tradition regarding 
the Johannine authorship of these books. 

Justin, who; as we have already seen, became ὃ 
Christian in Ephesus between 130 and 135 A.D., says 
that, like Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the author of Genesis and 
the Psalter, the Christian John, the apostle of Christ; 
received a revelation and prophesied the millennial reign 
of Christ and the Christians and the general resurrection 
that is to follow (m..12). The elders of Ivenzus, “‘ who 
had seen John face to face,” endeavoured: to find out the 
meaning of the number 666 in Rev. xiii, 18, interpreted 
other passages of the book; and thereby fixed their own 
eschatological views (n. 13). According to the testimony 
of those who saw his work, Papias, a disciple of John of 
Ephesus, affirmed the “trustworthiness” (τὸ ἀξιόπιστον) 
of Revelation, made explanatory comments on some 
passages of the book, and, most significantly of all, 
derived his belief in the millennium from this source. 
Mark, the Valentinian, who lived in Asia Minor about 
the year 150, fed upon the mysteries of Revelation, 
Melito of Sardis wrote a book on Revelation about‘ the 
year 170. In short, we have an unusually large number 
of witnesses to the fact that between the years 100 and 
180 Revelation was highly esteemed in the Churches of 
Asia, to which it was originally directed (Rev. i. 4, 11), 
and that it was regarded as the work of John of Ephesus, 
who, at the very latest, from 130 onwards, was generally 
held to be one of the twelve apostles. Between 170) and 
220 we find Revelation circulated and accepted in) all 
parts of the Greek and Latin Church as the work of the 
apostle and evangelist John. td 

It is a noteworthy fact, however, that the circulation 
of Revelation outside of the province’ of Asia cannot be 
traced back as far as the circulation of the Gospel. With 
the exception of Papias, the only writer before Justin who 
shows familiarity with Revelation is the author of the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 183 


Epistle of Barnabas, who wrote about the year 130 (GK, 
i. 954 £.). The absence of clear reminiscences of Revelation 
in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the author of 
the sermon bearing the name of Clement (2 Cor.), might 
be explained as an accident. But when no reference is 
made to it in a great apocalypse like the Shepherd of 
Hermas (cirew 100), and by the author of the Dridache 
(probably ewrea 110), in an extended teaching concerning 
the end of the world (chap. xvi.), it is strong proof) that 
Revelation was not yetin circulation in the regions where 
these works were written, 1.6. in Rome and (probably) 
Alexandria, or at least it had not yet won its place in 
these large Churches. This agrees with the tradition 
concerning the time when Revelation was written. Ina 
context in which he appeals constantly to the authority 
of the Asiatic elders, the disciples of John (v. 5. 1, 30. 1, 
33. 8, 4, 36..1-3), Ivenzeus says positively that the vision 
of Revelation “ was seen” shortly before he was born, 
near the close of the reign of Domitian (died September 
96) (m. 14). A date so definite as this, and one that 
could, not be derived by exegesis from Revelation itself, 
would be significant, even if found in a later writer, and 
even if Irenzeus did not testify that this was the common 
view among the personal disciples of the author of Revela- 
tion. It is confirmed, not only by the indications of the 
date of its own composition to be found in Revelation, but 
by the above mentioned fact that outside of Asia Minor 
there is as yet no trace of the influence of Revelation upon 
the Church in the literature dating from between 90 and 
120 A.D. ‚lt is not until later that traces of it are found. 
The, correctness of the date is also confirmed by all those 
traditions which refer the exile of John upon Patmos to 
his,extreme old age, or which describe Revelation as the 
latest, or one of the latest, writings in the N.T. On the 
other hand, all the differing views, as to the date of the 
composition of Revelation to be found in the literature of 


184 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the Church are so late and so manifestly confused, that 
they do not deserve the name of tradition (nn. 8, 10, 14). 

There are three Epistles which in the tradition bear 
the name of John. The longest of these is without any 
greeting, and there is nothing in the course of the letter 
which definitely identifies the author. In the place 
usually oceupied by the name of the writer, the author 
of the two shorter Epistles calls himself ὁ πρεσβύτερος----ἃ, 
title which is used as a proper name—instead of by his 
own name. Nevertheless, except by the Alogi, who denied 
the Johannine authorship of these Epistles, and ascribed 
them to Cerinthus (above, 181, and n. 11), no one of these 
Epistles was ever attributed to an author of another name 
than John. It follows, therefore, that this tradition mast 
have originated in the same circle in which the letters 
originated, from which also they were circulated in the 
Church. According to Eusebius, Papias, the disciple of 
“the presbyter whose name was John” (vol. 11. 451 ff.), 
quoted, or adopted, passages from 1 John. In the case 
of his companion Polycarp, we ourselves can prove as 
much (n. 15). Both the disciples of John show traces of 
their famiharity with the shorter Epistles. Naturally, 
these shortest writings in our N.T. are seldom quoted. 
Their history is also not a little obscured through a 
widespread custom of early writers, by which they were 
accustomed to speak of the Epistle of John or of Peter, 
or of the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians or to the 
Thessalonians, even when there was more than one letter 
by the same author or to the same readers (n. 16). 
Because of their brevity, 2 and 3 John would never have 
circulated beyond the first readers and have come down to 
us, if from the first they had not been connected with 
1 John, and if they had not had the support of this more 
extended writing, which was full of important teachings. 
Without such connection with a longer writing, or a place 
ina collection of writings, or an insertion in an historical 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 185 


work, such fragments are apt to be scattered to the winds. 
As a matter of fact we meet 2 and 3 John in Alexandria, 
Rome, and Gaul at the beginning of the second century. 
At that time, and for a long time afterwards, it was only 
their relation to the Canon that was uncertain. The 
Syrian Church, which at first had none of the catholic 
Epistles in its N.T., afterwards, when the redaction of the 
Peshito was made, accepted only the three longest, James, 
1 Peter, and 1 John. It was not until much later that 
the four shorter Epistles were accepted. At the time when 
the Muratorian fragment was written, 2 and 3 John and 
Jude were found “in the Catholic Church” in Rome, 1.6. 
in the N.T. of the Roman Church, which was still in 
Greek. But there was no such clear witness in them of 
their Johannine origin as in 1 John, the relation of which 
to the Gospel is assumed in 1 John 1. 1-4. Perhaps it 
was not known in Rome that ὁ πρεσβύτερος was a name 
given to the apostle John (n. 17). This uncertainty may 
explain why 2 and 3 John were probably not found in the 
oldest Latin Bible, and why, as late as the middle of the 
fourth century, the effort to introduce these letters in 
the Latin Church met with opposition in Africa. Not very 
long after this there appeared also in Alexandria, where 
Clement had commented upon 2 John, without suggesting 
any doubts as to its Johannine origin, and probably also 
on 3 John, the same questioning which had appeared in 
Rome, or it seemed best to take account of the omission 
of the shorter Epistles from the canon of other Churches. 
“Not all regard 2 and 3 John as genuine,” says Origen, 
but without attaching any great weight to the objection. 
The result was, however, that Origen and Dionysius of 
Alexandria described only 1 John as a catholic Epistle, 
and that Eusebius reckoned 2 and 3 John among the 
antilegomena. It is worth noting that Dionysius in his 
efforts to discover a second John of the apostolic age, to 
whom the authorship of Revelation might be assigned, did 


186 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


not think of ascribing to the same author the. shorter 
Epistles about which questions had been raised. Likewise 
Eusebius, who thought that the desired author needed by 
his hypothesis was to be found in the presbyter John of 
Papias, commended this discovery only to those who could 
not ascribe Revelation to the apostle John. In the case 
of 2 and, 3 John, he contents himself with the suggestion 
that they may have been written by some John other than 
the evangelist. It is not until Jerome that we meet with 
the definite statement that many regarded the presbyter 
John, who was to be distinguished from the apostle as the 
author of 2 and 8 John. But in both the chapters where 
this statement is made Jerome simply copies Eusebius 
without scruple (n. 18). 

There is no tradition concerning the occasion of the 
Johannine Epistles and the time of their composition. The 
assumption that 1 John: was written after the Gospel was 
simply the result of a very questionable interpretation of 
1 John i. 1-4 and of the making of this passage refer to 
the Gospel. In the same way the statements which we 
meet incidentally, that 1 John was written after Revela- 
tion, or that Revelation was written after the Gospel, or 
vice versa (nn. 8, 11), have not the value of traditions 
regarding the chronology of these books. The only things 
which do have this value are (1) the report that John 
wrote Revelation on the island of Patmos between the, 
years 93 and 96, and (2) that John wrote his Gospel in 
Ephesus at an advanced age. 

The reports regarding the person of the apostle and 
author John may be divided into four classes: (1) The 
express statements of the N.T. regarding the apostle John ; 
(2) those statements of the. N.'T. which are to be referred 
to the same John, on the presupposition that he is the 
author of the writings attributed to him; (3) the reports 
concerning the John of Ephesus which originated among 
the apostle’s disciples in Asia; (4) the legendary accounts. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 187 


Since John is regularly mentioned second, when he is 
associated with his brother James, we may. assume that 
he was the younger of the two sons of Zebedee. The 
tradition that he was the youngest of all the apostles: is 
to be constantly met, and is probably much older than 
the sources enable us to prove (n. 19). The family: in 
Capernaum was not poor. ‘The father carried on a 
fishing business with the aid of his sons and a number 
of hired servants (Mark i. 20). Whereas the name of the 
father occurs frequently only because the sons are called 
the sons of Zebedee, in order to distinguish them from 
numerous other persons bearing these very common 
names, the mother is very prominent. We learn that 
her name was Salome only by a comparison of Matt. 
xxvil. 56 with Mark xv. 40 (ef. xvi. 1). She was one of 
the women who accompanied Jesus and the apostles on 
their preaching journeys and on the last journey to 
Jerusalem, and who used their own means to defray 
the expenses of the support of the large company of 
travellers (Mark xv. 41; Luke viii. 3). She is also 
mentioned among the women who purchased spices to 
embalm the body of Jesus after it was laid in the grave 
(Mark xvi. 1; ef. Luke xxin. 55-xxiv. 1). All this goes 
to show that, as regards its prosperity and social position, 
the family of Zebedee is to be compared with that of Chuza 
(Luke viii. 3), the financial officer of Herod, or even of 
Joseph of Arimathea, rather than with that of Joseph and 
Mary (Luke ii. 24; ef. ii. 7). But these two families were 
closely related. Since it is extremely unlikely that two 
sisters would have each been called Mary, we may assume 
that four, not three, women are mentioned in John xix. 25. 
It is also very natural to identify these four women with 
the women mentioned in Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40f. 
and the unnamed sister of the mother of Jesus, mentioned 
in John, with Salome (n. 20). The sons of Zebedee were, 
therefore, own cousins of Jesus, and if Mary and Salome 


188 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


were relatives of Elizabeth, who was a priest’s daughteı 
(Luke i. 36), were, like Jesus, relatives of John the 
Baptist. While the brothers of Jesus continued to main- 
tain at least a neutral attitude towards Him (John vii. 3), 
after the arrest of the Baptist Jesus’ cousins became per- 
manently His disciples (Mark i. 19 ; Matt. iv. 21; Luke 
v. 9), and after they were chosen among the Twelve they 
with Peter are repeatedly distinguished by Jesus as His 
most intimate disciples (Mark v. 37, ix. 2, xiv. 33; Matt 
xvil. 1, xxvi. 87; Luke vii. 51, ix. 28). Occasionally a 
special commission is given John and Peter alone (Luke 
xxii. 8). Weare not told what it was that led Jesus to 
give the brothers the name, “Sons of thunder” (Mark 
ii. 17, vol. 1. 16), but what is said of them in Mark ix. 
38-40, Luke ix. 49-55 (above, p. 89, n. 19), shows. that 
they had intense zeal for their Master's honour, and were 
possessed by burning anger whenever any insult was 
offered Him. But this was accompanied by the over- 
weening ambition which led them and their mother to 
ask for the place nearest to the throne of the Son of David 
in His glorious kingdom (n. 21). For both these exhibi- 
tions of unsanctified zeal they were earnestly rebuked by 
Jesus ; but He does not for this reason cease to trust them, 
nor is their loyalty and that of their mother to. Him 
thereby shaken. Jesus’ prophecy that they must suffer 
like Himself (Mark x. 38 f.; Matt. xx. 22 f.) was fulfilled 
in James’ case at Easter 44 (Acts xii, 2). His execution 
by Herod Agrippa 1. is the only thing which is recorded of 
him in Acts. On the other hand, John is represented as 
being from the first along with Peter one of the leaders in 
the Palestinian Church (Acts iii. 1-iv. 23, viii, 15-25). But 
always when they appear together Peter is the speaker 
(Acts iii. 4, 12, iv. 8, v. 29, viii. 20), and frequently, 
without mention of John, Peter is represented as the 
undisputed leader of the early Church. The fact, how- 
ever, that after the death of his brother and the assumption 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 189 


of the leadership of the mother Church by James, the 
brother of Jesus, John, together with Peter and James, 
occupied a distinguished place in the Jewish Church is 
evidenced by Gal. u. 9. 

The picture of John which we get from these definite 
statements is essentially enlarged by what is said in the 
writings attributed to him—provided the interpretation of 
their testimony to their author, which is given below, 
proves to be correct. This explains at once why the sons 
of Zebedee, after the arrest of the Baptist, in response, to 
the brief command of Jesus that they give up their 
business and attach themselves to Him with a view to 
becoming His future helpers in His calling, were willing to 
obey at once and unconditionally (Mark i. 20; Matt. iv. 
22; Luke v. 11). Both were disciples of their relative 
John, and at the suggestion of their former master attached 
themselves to Jesus, when He returned again to the place 
of baptism not long after His own baptism, forming with 
Peter and Andrew, Philip and Nathanael (Bartholomew), 
the first group of Jesus’ disciples. This enables us to 
understand why, in all four of the lists of the apostles in 
the N.T., the first five, and, with the exception of Acts i. 
13, where the name of Thomas is inserted between Philip 
and Bartholomew, all six occupy the foremost places. 
From the moment when they attached themselves to Jesus 
they were constantly associated with Him, both in their 
native city Capernaum, where Jesus settled with His 
family (John ii. 12), and upon a journey to Jerusalem to 
attend a feast, as well as during a somewhat. protracted 
residence in Judea (John ü. 13-iv. 2). When sub- 
sequently Jesus, because of the continued activity of the 
Baptist, abandoned His work in Judea and withdrew into 
Galilee and the quietness of private life, determined to 
await the further development of events (John iv. 1-3, 
43 ff.), His disciples went with Him and in all probability 
resumed for a time their usual occupations, until Jesus 


190 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


recognised the imprisonment of the Baptist (cf. John v. 
35) as the signal for the resumption of His work, and sum- 
moned His disciples to share it. If the unnamed disciple 
in John xiii. 23-26 (xviii. 15f.), xix.' 26, 27, 35, xx) 24105 
xxi. 7, 20-25 is the apostle John, this confirms at once 
the statement of the other Gospels, that he was one of the 
apostles who were most intimate with Jesus. The state- 
ment that he had relations with the high priest Caiaphas, 
and that he was known to the servants in the high 
priest’s house, is new and surprising, if John xvii. 15 ἢ 
refers to him and not to his brother James (see below, § 65) ; 
but in either case is less surprising when we remember 
that Zebedee’s wife was a priest’s daughter, and that the 
family, while not one of the highest social standing and 
broadest culture (Acts iv. 13), did belong to the prosperous 
middle class. The statement in Acts iv. 13 also proves 
that John, like Peter, had been known by sight to some of 
the high priestly circle even before Jesus’ death. The 
statement that John, with his mother Salome, ventured to 
approach near to the cross during the last moments of 
Jesus’ life (John xix. 25 ff., 35), is neither confirmed nor 
contradicted by Matt. xxvii. 55f.; Mark xv. 40f.; Luke 
xxiii. 49. But it will be observed that Mark mentions 
Salome among the women who at this time watched the 
cross from afar, and that Luke mentions, besides the 
women, also the men who were friends of Jesus. If John 
was a near relative of Jesus, and if more than this his 
family was in comparatively good circumstances, it is easy 
to understand why Jesus entrusted His mother to John’s 
care, and why he took her into his family (xix. 26 f.). 
The contributions made to the history of John’s life by 
John xxi. will be discussed later (§ 66). 

The three Epistles show that when they were written 
John was a teacher and occupied a position of leadership 
in a group of Christian Churches, the main constituency of 
which did not owe their conversion to his preaching, and 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 191 


that they were Gentile Christian Churches. From 
Revelation we learn that he occupied this position in the 
Churches of the province of Asia. 

The traditions current among the disciples of John in 
Asia concerning the last period of his life, so far as they 
relate to the origin of his writings, have already been 
established (above, p. 174 ff.). There is, however, some 
further matter of importance for the criticism of these 
writings. According to the testimony of Irenzeus, his 
disciple Polycarp, who became a Christian in the year 69 
(1.6. was baptized in that year), was “made a disciple by 
apostles,” which means that he was not a small child when 
he was baptized, but was converted sometime during his 
boyhood by apostles and afterwards baptized (n. 22), 
Inenzeus repeatedly mentions a number of apostles and 
also other personal disciples of Jesus with whom Polycarp 
was in constant intercourse during his youth. Evidently 
men like Philip and Aristion are meant (see vol. ii, 452 £.). 
But again and again Irenzeus mentions John as the prin- 
cipal teacher of Polycarp, and of Papias and of the other 
Asiatic elders. Consequently at the latest he must have 
taken up his residence in the province of Asia in the year 
69. Inthe year 66, when 2 Tim. was written, he evi- 
dently was not working in these regions. It is conceivable 
that after the death of Paul and Peter, men who remained 
at their posts in Palestine until the breaking out of the 
Jewish war (cf. Matt. x. 23; see vol. ii. 572) now recog- 
nised that the time had come when their calling, which 
had always been wider than Israel, should now be more 
extensively exercised—just as Peter had attempted to do 
not long before (vol. 11. 158 f.). It is also conceivable that 
they should choose as the scene of their apostolic labours 
(1.6. their labours as missionaries and leaders in Churches 
that were already organised), the Churches of the province 
of Asia, which, to judge from conditions in the second 
century, were especially numerous and strong—especially 


ı92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


since in these Churches the wheat and the tares grew to- 
gether luxuriantly, as is evidenced by the last letters of 
Paul. The tradition that it was after the death of James 
and shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish war that the 
apostles left Palestine and the mother Church in Jerusalem, 
also favours the dating of the settlement of apostles and 
other disciples of Jesus in Asia between 66 and 69 
(n. 23). 

Since, according to Irenzeus, John wrote his Gospel in 
opposition to Cerinthus, and since the Alogi declared 
Cerinthus to be the author of the Johannine writings 
(above, p. 177), it is significant that Irenzsus is able to 
cite witnesses who heard from Polycarp’s lips the well- 
known story of the meeting of John and Cerinthus in a 
publie bath in Ephesus (n. 24). In this John of Ephesus 
one easily recognises the young Boanerges and the 
author of the Epistles. Judging from the context in 
Irenzeus, it appears that Polycarp related this anecdote in 
Rome on the occasion of his visit there at Easter 154. 
It was on this same occasion also that Polycarp, speaking 
with reference to the differences in ecclesiastical custom 
between his native Church and the Roman Church, said 
that he himself, with John and the other apostles, had 
always celebrated the Christian Passover as it was then 
celebrated in Asia, not as it was celebrated in Rome—in 
other words, that a fast had preceded the Passover, which 
was really a special yearly celebration of the Lord’s Supper 
(n. 25). No mention is as yet made in the intercourse 
between Polycarp and Anicetus in Rome in the year 154 
about another difference which led to a vigorous contest 
within the Asiatic Church between the years 165 and 170, 
and which about the year 190 created a dissension between 
the Asiatic and Roman Church that was still more danger- 
ous and which finally implicated the entire Church. Since 
in these later controversies most of the Asiatic bishops 
appealed to the authority of John of Ephesus, Philip of 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 193 


Hierapolis, and also of Polycarp and all the prominent 
bishops of the past in defence of their practice in observ- 
ing the Passover on the 14th of Nisan, there can be no 
doubt that John and the other members of the apostolie 
circle who came from Palestine to Asia Minor after the 
year 66 were quartodecimans, that is to say, they  cele- 
brated the Christian Passover in the manner mentioned 
above every year at the time of the Jewish Passover, on 
the 14th of Nisan, no matter on what day of the week 
it fell. 

It is more difficult to determine how much trustwor- 
thiness attaches to the other traditions concerning John. 
Some of them sound as if they were genuine history (n. 26), 
and it would be foolish to reject as pure inventions all the 
accounts concerning John peculiar to Leucius Charinus, 
who wrote in Asia from 160-170. In this work Leucius 
must have followed existing tradition much more closely 
than was done in the Acts of Peter, which was also 
probably written by him. The scene of the latter was the 
distant city of Rome, and the death of Peter had taken 
place some thirty or forty years earlier than that of John. 
Whereas in the case of John, Leucius wrote a few years 
after the death of the last of his disciples. Of special 
importance to us is his description of the death of John. 
According to ancient and genuine tradition, John of 
Ephesus died a natural death in that city in his extreme 
old age, at the beginning of the reign of Trajan (1.6. about 
100), and was buried there (n. 27). If there had been 
anything remarkable about this death except John’s 
extreme age, it is impossible to understand the silence of 
Ireneus and the other prose witnesses concerning’ it. 
Nor is Leucius’ representation of it essentially different 
from this tradition (n. 28). Ona Sunday after religious 
services, John went outside the gates of the city, accom- 
panied by a few trusted disciples, had a deep grave dug, 


laid aside his outer garments which were to serve him as 
FOL. ΠΙ. 13 


194 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


a bed, prayed once more, stepped down into the graye, 
greeted the brethren who were present, and gave up 
the ghost. According to this writing he does not die 
of weakness, as one might expect to be the case from 
the genuine traditions concerning the old man who. had 
finally grown decrepit ; but he does actually die and rests 
in his; grave in Ephesus, just as truly as Philip and his 
daughters rest in theirs at Hierapolis, and just as truly as 
do the other “ great heavenly lights of Asia, who will rise 
on the day of the Lord’s return” (Polycrates of Ephesus 
[circa 190] in: Hus. v. 24. 2-5). , It was not until the fourth 
century that popular superstition, taking up the suggestion 
of John xxi. 23, began to disturb his rest in the grave 
and to relate miracles about. the immortal disciple and his 
grave, which grew constantly more and more fantastic 
(n. 28). vl 


1. (P. 174.) With regard to the external evidence for the Fourth Gospel, 
cf. E. LUTHARDT, Der joh. Ursprung des 4 Ev. 1874 ; E. Asporr, The Author- 
ship of the Fourth Gospel. External Evidences, 1880 ; J. DRUMMoND, An 
Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1903, pp, 
72-351 ; GK, i. 17 £., 150-192, 220-262, 516-534, 675-680, 732-739, 767, 778, 
780, 784 ff., 901-915, 934, ii. 32-52, 733, 850f., 909 ἢ, 956-961, 9674973 ; 
Forsch. vi. 105, 127, 181-190, 201-203. As to the use of John’s Gospel in 
the Gospel of Peter, cf. the writer’s work, Evang. des Petrus, 1893, S. 49 f. 

2. (P. 176.) Concerning Apostles and the disciples of Apostles in the 
province of Asia, ef. Forsch. vi. 1-224, where also the biography of Irenmus, 
the chronology of Justin, and other relevant facts and questions are con- 
sidered. More recently, E, SCHWARTZ (“ Uber den Tod der Söhne Zebedäi, 
ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Johannesev.” 1904, Abh. der gött. Ges. ἃ. Wiss. 
philol.-hist. KL, N. F. vii. No. 5) has once again made an attempt, surpassing 
in audacity all earlier ones, to prove that the entire tradition concerning the 
long-lived Apostle John is,a myth. Starting from a remark of Wellhausen 
(Ev. Murci, 90), made without much consideration of the matter, ‘Schwartz 
infers from Mark x. 35-40=(Matt. xx. 20-23) that the apostles John and 
James died violent deaths and at the same time ; therefore, according to 
Acts xii, 2, about 44 a.pv. This inference naturally does not depend, like the 
old myths of the martyrdom by oil, and of the poisoned cup related in ¢on- 
nection with John, upon the presupposition that every prophecy of Jesus 
must have been literally fulfilled. (Cf. the writer’s Acta Jo, exvii. ff., Forsch. 
vi. 103, 147 ff.). Schwartz (8. 4) considers it self-evident, and not at all 
needful of proof, that the saying of Jesus is not authentic, but a vatiomniwn 
ex eventu attributed to Jesus. In that case certainly before the first record. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 195 


ing of the apparently prophetic words there must have taken place the event 
which Schwartz asserts is implied in that saying. This assertion is made 
with the naivete of the philologist, which has become proverbial, and again 
without any attempt at proof. If Mark x. 38f, might be understood to 
mean that James and John would die in the same way as Jesus (cf. John 
xiii. 36, xxi. 19), it would be necessary also to postulate that they were 
crucified, a fate which neither of them experienced, The drinking of the 
cup and the being baptized to which Jesus refers as the ‚experience which is 
to come to Himself and His disciples, have the much more usual meaning of 
the suffering preceding the glorification, and thus understood form, as so 
often, the contrast to the reigning of Jesus, and the reigning with Him, 
which are to follow (cf. Luke xxiv. 26 ; Acts xiv. 22; Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. 
ii. 11f.). In itself this saying stands on a level with the demands which 
Jesus made upon all true disciples and His announcements concerning their 
future (Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24f.; John xii, 25 f., χν. 20 1., xvi. 2)... Not until 
James was beheaded by Herod Agrippa (Acts xii. 2) could one be tempted 
to aecept the supposition that this announcement to John was to be fulfilled, 
as in the case of his brother, by a martyr’s death. It was possible that Mark 
and Matthew entertained such an expectation when they wrote down that 
conversation ; for both of them wrote some twenty years after the death of 
James the son of Zebedee, and some thirty years before the death of 
John. The conclusion of Wellhausen, that this prophecy of martyrdom 
would hardly have stood in the Gospel if it had been only half fulfilled, 
would have a faint appearance of plausibility only if John had already died 
a peaceful death at the time when Mark and Matt. were written. As long 
as he lived, his death as a martyr could be expected daily. Does not the 
Gospel contain many prophesies of Jesus which had not been fulfilled when 
the evangelists wrote, and are not yet fulfilled? Entirely without any 
support in the text is the improbable assertion of Schwartz, that Mark 
x. 88 f. prophesies a simultaneous martyrdom of both apostles, or rather that 
on the basis of this fact the prophecy was fabricated. Here again. the eritic 
makes what he would prove the presupposition of his exegesis, What 
further violent efforts are necessary to save this thesis from. absolute 
absurdity ? The author of Acts, “for the sake of the later tradition,” 
omitted the name of John in xii, 2 ; 1.6., to favour the myth that identified 
the long-lived John of Ephesus with the son of Zebedee, he falsified the 
history handed down to him, The John who, according to Gal. ii, 9, at the 
time of the Apostolic council was, together with Peter and; James, the Lord’s 
brother, one of the pillars pf the mother Church, is held to,be not the apostle 
of this name, who, according to Acts iii.-viii,, stood second to Peter, but the 
John Mark of Acts xii. 12, whom the author of Acts through his umhistorieal 
statements (xii. 25, xiii, 5, 13, xv. 37f.) made a helper of Paul and Barnabas 
in their preaching, and who is not to be identified with the Mark of Col. iy. 
10; Philem, 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11. From these criticisms of the Gospels and 
Acts it is easy to imagine how the fragmentary and in part obscure) state- 
ments of the post-apostolic literature were handled W. Sanday, The 
Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 32, has correctly characterised the tone of 
this treatise; and O. Benndorf (Forschungen im Ephesos, i. 107, published by 
the Austrian Archwological Institute, 1905) is probably not the only non- 


196 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


theological historical investigator who turns away from its method and 
conclusions unsatisfied. 

3. (P. 178.) Concerning traces of the Fourth Gospel in Papias’ work, ef. 
GK, i. 902. In connection with this is what Conybeare communicates to us 
in the Guardian of July 18, 1894, from the Solutiones in IV. evv. of the 
Armenian Vardan Vardapet (XII. Cent.), according to the MS. at S. Lazzaro, 
No. 51, fol. 3: “ And as the doors were shut, He appeared to the Eleven and 
the others who were with them” (ef. Luke xxiv. 33 ; John xx. 19; a con- 
nection with the following is not clear). But the aloes, which they 
brought (John xix. 39), was a mixture, so to speak, half of oil, half of honey. 
It is certain, however, that aloes is a sort of incense, as we are told by the 
Geographer and by Papias, who say there are fifteen kinds of aloes in India, 
four of which are costly—namely, Nikré (1 Ingré), Andrataratz (? Sangra- 
taratz), Jerravor, Dzakethén. Accordingly, what Joseph and Nicodemus used 
for the burial was (ἢ of these four costly kinds) ; for they were rich (John 
xix. 38f., cf. Matt. xxvii. 57, πλούσιος). The “ Geographer” is Moses of 
Khorene, in whose work, chap. xli., we can read of the four kinds of aloes. 
So this did not come from Papias. Just as little is he the originator of the 
popular misunderstanding of aloes as a mixture of oil and honey, because the 
Geographer and Papias are cited directly in opposition to this idea. There 
remains the assertion of Papias that aloes is a kind of incense. Conse- 
quently he has made John xix. 38f. the subject of one of his ἐξηγήσεις. In 
this connection it is to be noted that the acquaintance of the Armenians 
with the work of Papias is also otherwise assured ; ef. Forsch. vi. 128- 
130, 155. 

4. (P. 178.) According to Cardinal Thomasius (Opp., ed. Vezzosi, i. 344) and 
Pitra (A nalecta, ii. 160), the following argument for the Gospel of John is found 
in a Latin Bible of the ninth century, in the Codex Regina 14 in the Vatican : 
“Evangelium Johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab Johanne 
adhue in corpore constituto, sicut Papias nomine Hierapolitanus, diseipulus 
Johannis carus, in exotericis id est in extremis quinque libris retulit. De- 
seripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte. Verum Marcion hereticus, 
cum ab eo fuisset improbatus eo quod contraria sentiebat, abjectus est a 
Johanne. Is vero scripta vel epistolas ad eum pertulerat a fratribus, qui in 
Ponto fuerunt.” This same text is found in bad orthography in a Codex 
Toletanus of the tenth century as the conclusion of a long prologue, which in 
the preceding sentences agrees essentially with Jerome, Vir. Ill. ix. This 
codex is printed in Wordsworth-White, N.T. Lat. i. 490; ef. also Burkitt, 
Two Lectures on the Gospels, 1901, pp. 90-94, in addition GK, i. 898 ff. Only 
as far as constituto have we the right to refer this statement to Papias. 
Whether the author of the argwmentum borrowed directly from Papias, or, as 
the present writer assumes, from a work in which he found Papias cited, 
may not here be discussed. There is no doubt that a Greek source lies at 
the basis, and that in exolericis=év τοῖς ἐξωτερικοῖς κτλ. is an error of the 
copyist for ἐν τοῖς ἐξηγητικοῖς ; ef. Clem. Strom. iv. 83, Βασιλείδης ἐν τῷ 
εἰκοστῷ τρίτῳ τῶν ἐξηγητικῶν. Enough has been said (Forsch. vi. 127, A.1) 
against a very superficial criticism of what Papias reported concerning the 
publishing of the Fourth Gospel by the John who was still living, and also 
in @K, i. 900, concerning “the justness of the theological criticism,” which 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 197 


passes over this testimony of Papias in silence, and contents itself with the 
rejection of the “myths” connected with his words. The words which 
immediately follow retulit, connected by a vero, are also extant in Greek in 
the Proemium of the Catena in Jo., ed. Corderius, 1630, and in the Acta Jo. 
of Prochorus are assigned to this disciple of the Apostle (cf. the writer’s 
Acta Jo. p. 154 ff.), Also the subdictante of the Codex Toletanus in place of 
the dictante of the Regino-Vatic. points to a Greek source ; it is a literal 
translation of ümayopevovros Ἰωάννου. Although it is not possible to name 
an authority for this account, there is no reason for treating it as a senseless 
myth. It is almost self-evident that John, like Paul, dictated extended 
portions of Greek writings to an amanuensis; and Papias, the friend of 
Polycarp, and a companion of the same age, can just as well as he have been 
twenty-five or more years of age when the Fourth Gospel was written. The 
notice concerning Marcion, introduced by a verwm and in the Codex Tole- 
tanus written as a new section, the source of which we are less able to dis- 
cover than that of the statement concerning Papias as secretary, is chrono- 
logically unbelievable in the form in which it appears, but excepting the 
name of John does not sound senseless. Marcion came from Pontus, and 
Polycarp seems to have come to know him in Asia before he met him again 
in Rome ; cf. Iren. iii. 3.4. Evidently there is a misunderstanding of the 
source like the apud Johannem, Jerome, Vir. Ill. vii.; ef. NKZ, 1898, S. 
216, A. 1. 

5. (P. 178.) Clem. Alex. in Eus. H, E. vi. 14. 7 (after the words cited, 
vol. ii. 400, n. 9, and 448, n. 9, and governed by the ἔλεγον, sc. of πρεσ- 
βύτεροι) : τὸν μέντοι Ἰωάννην ἔσχατον συνιδόντα, ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς 
εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται, προταπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων, πενύματι θεοφορηθέντα, 
πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον. 

6. (Ρ. 178.) Can. Mur. lines 9-16; GK, ii. 5, 32-40 ; Acta Jo. pp. exxvi- 
exxxi, The origin of this narrative in the Acta Jo. by Leucius (GK, ii. 38) 
has become still more probable, since it has been proved that the Can. Mur. 
stands also in close relation to the Acta Petri written by the same author 
(GK, ii. 844). In GK, ii, 37 f., are given also the noteworthy patristic state- 
ments in this connection (cf., further, GK, i. 898 f., and the previous notes 
4,5). As to the relation of the narratives of Leucius and Clement, cf. Forsch. 
vi. 201-204. 

7. (P. 179). Tren. iii, 11. 1: “ Hane fidem annuntians Joannes, domini 
discipulus, volens per evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a Cerintho 
inseminatus erat hominibus, errorem et multo prius ab his qui dicuntur 
Nicolaite, qui sunt vulsio eius, que falso cognominatur scientia, ut con- 
funderet eos... sic inchoavit in ea, que, est secundum evangelium doc- 
trina: ‘In principio erat verbum,’” ete. Cf. vol. i. 515, n. 4 

8. (P. 179.) That John was the last of the evangelists to write, cf. vol. ii. 
392 f., 397-400. This supposition involves the admission that he wrote in 
old age. After a life spent only in preaching, he came at its close to make 
use of the written word (Eus. H. E. 111: 24,7). Epiph. Her. li. 12 expresses 
himself most definitely : διὸ ὕστερον ἀναγκάζει τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τὸν Ἰωάννην, 
παραιτούμενον εὐαγγελίσασθαι δι’ εὐλάβειαν καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνην, ἐπὶ τῇ γηραλέᾳ 
αὐτοῦ ἡλικίᾳ μετὰ ἔτη ἐνενήκοντα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ζωῆς, μετὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου 
ἐπάνοδον, τὴν. ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου γενομένην Καίσαρος καὶ μετὰ ἱκανὰ ἔτη τοῦ διατρῖψαι 


# 


198 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


αὐτὸν ἐπὶ (Dindorf, ἀπὸ) τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἀναγκάζεται ἐκθέσθαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Οἱ 
li. 2,6 ἅγιος Ἰωάννης μεθ᾽ ἡλικίαν γηραλέαν ἐπιτρέπεται κτλ. As to the 
determination of the date of the exile on Patmos, cf. below, n. 14; and with 
reference to the strange statements contained in Her. li. 33, cf. Forsch. v. 
35-43. Not one of the Church Fathers (Ireneus, Clement, Origen, Eusebius) 
says that John wrote his Gospel after his return from Patmos, and therefore 
after the completion of Revelation. At the same time, with the exception of 
Epiphanius, there is a whole line of witnesses for this statement : (a) A 
speech delivered at Ephesus under the name of Chrysostom (Montfaueon, 
viii. 2.131), which Suidas (ef. sub voco, Ἰωάννης [ed. Bernhardy, i. 2. 1023]) 
had looked upon and copied as a genuine work of Chrysostom ; (b) many 
Lat. prologues to John’s Gospel (N.T. Lat., ed. Wordsworth, i. 486, 490) ; 
(c) two treatises ascribed to Augustine (Mai, Nova patr. Bibl, i. 1. 381 ; Aug. 
Opp., ed. Bass. iv. 382); (d) indirectly, the “ History of John,” which was 
preserved in the Syriac (Wright, Apocr. Acts, 1. 60-64), in so far as it states 
that John wrote his Gospel in Ephesus after an exile, the place of which it 
does not give; and (e) Prochorus in’ his History of the Apostle John in so far 
as it tells us that John dictated to him his Gospel in two days and six hours 
at the end of his exile, while he was still on Patmos ; however, after he had 
left behind for the churches of the island a copy which was also written by 
Prochorus, but on’ parchment, he brought with him to Ephesus the original, 
which was on paper (cf. the present writer’s edition of the Acta Jo. pp. 154- 
158, xliii-]). As ‘has been more explicitly shown in. ‘the above reference, 
there must have come a confusion into the tradition, at the time when.and in 
the circles where the Johannine origin of ‚Rev.--this reeord of the exile on 
Patmos—was denied, and the book itself was far from being given a place in 
the N.T. Canon. Prochorus puts the Gospel in» the place of Rev. whieh was 
written on Patmos; and ‘only through! an evident interpolation is there 
brought into his book a supplementary narrative of the Patmos origin of 
Rev. (op. cit. 184). It/is. an echo of the original narrative of Prochorus, when 
min. 145 (Tischend. ΝΟ, i. 967, ef. another min. by Matthei, Evang. Jo. 
1786, p. 356) and the Synopsis of “ Athanasius ” (Athan., ed. Montf. ii. 202) 
admit that John wrote or dictated the Gospel on Patmos, but published it in 
Ephesus, and also when the Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, i. 11 and 411, idly talks 
of the ἰδιόχειρον of the Johannine Gospel, which was alleged to be still 
preserved in Ephesus (Acta Jo. p. lix). But the souree of the tradition that 
the Gospel of John was written in Ephesus after the return from Patmos can 
scarcely be any other than the legend of Leucius (Acta Jo. p. exxvi fl). It 
does not deserve any particular credence, because Trenaus, who offers very 
definite statements in regard to the time of the writing of Matt., of Mark 
(iii. 1. 1), and of Rev. (v.80. 3), would not. have contented himself with the 
nore indefinite statements as to the Fourth Gospel—e.g. that John may have 
written it later than Matt., Mark, and Luke, and that he may have written 
it during his stay αὖ Ephesus (iii. 1. 1)~if the word of Papias or the oral 
tradition of the elders of Asia had furnished him with more exact informa- 
tion, "Not only Leucius, if the present writer’s opinion in regard to him as 
above etated ie correct, and the Syriac history of John, but the general 
tradition agree with Irenius, that Ephesus is: the birthplace of the Gospel 
(as to the Syrians, ef. the writer's Acta Jo, piexxviii; Forschs i. δά f.). Also 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 199 


where only Asia is spoken of, Ephesus is meant. The fables of that Syriac 
legend and of the Acta Timothei need no further discussion (CK, i. 943, ii. 38 ; 
Acta Jo. p. exxxviii). Yet it is to be noted that these apocryphal statements, 
in so far as they allow that John in the writing of his Gospel had at hand 
and took into account all three of the synoptic Gospels, rely upon a very old 
tradition—a tradition going back to the teachers of Clement (above, n. 5) 
and repeated by well informed people such as Eusebius (H. E. iii. 24. 7-13) 
and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Comm. in N.T., ed. Fritzsche, p. 19 f.). 

9. (P. 180.) We lack the definite testimony of Marcion and Justin that 
they ascribed the Fourth Gospel to the apostle John (cf., however, vol. ii. 
389 ἔν and with regard to Justin as a witness for the apostolic title of the 
Christian writer John, below, note 12. The Valentinian Ptolemäus calls the 
evangelist now Ἰωάννης ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου (Iren. 1. 8. 5), now ἀπόστολος 
(Ep. ad Floram in Epiph. Her. xxxiii. 35 ef. GK, i. 132 ἢν, 11. 956 ff.), The 
Valentinian Heracleon (Orig. tom. vi. 2 in Jo.) designates him at first as 
ὁ μαθητής, in order to distinguish him from the Baptist, and classes “him 
directly afterwards among the oi ἀπόστολοι. This view of Heracleon’s state- 
ment is based on the more probable limiting of. the fragment by Brooke 
(Texts and Studies, i. 4.55), which Preuschen, p. 109. 15 ff., ascribes to Origen. 
Also the Oriental Valentinians (Clem. Al. Epit. δ. Theodoto, §§ 7, 41) call the 
writer of the prologue apostle. The Alogi certify that this was the prevailing 
view up to that time (see n. 11). Ireneus regularly uses “disciple of the 
Lord” where he speaks of John as author of the Gospel (Im. i. 1, xi. 1. 3, 
end), and also at other times; vw. 33. 3, ii. 22. 5 (here, however, immediately 
follows non solwm Joannem, sed et alios apostolos viderunt), iii. 3.'4.fat first’ pad. 
τ. kupiou, then including him of ἀπόστολοι] ; Epist. ad Victorem in Eus. v. 24. 16, 
“John the disciple of the Lord and the other apostles”—Can. Mur. line 9, 
quarti (read quartum) evangeliorum Johannis ex discipulis:. Weare then told 
of the consultation which John held with his condiseipuli and episcopi about 
the writing of a Gospel (above, note 6), and that within this eirele—evidently 
from among the condiscipuli of John— Andreas ex apostolis was specially noted. 
In other words, John too is an apostle as well as Andrew. In fact, the only 
Christian of the apostolic age, by the name of John, of whom the author of 
the fragment knows (cf. lines 27, 49, 57, 69, 71), has already, before Paul’s 
time, been a holder of the apostolic office (line 48); cf: GK, i. 154 f., ii. 32:ff, 
48f., 88f.; in general, cf. Forsch. vi. 72-78, 

10. (Ρ. 181.) Irenwus, Clement, Tertullian, Can. Mur., Hippolytus, 
Origen statedly cite the Gospel, the Epistles (particularly 1 John), and Rey. 
as the works of the one person, John, without finding it necessary. to 
characterise him more definitely (GX, i. 202 ff.).. It is only for the purpose 
of explaining the statements of one writing by means of the others or of 
specially honouring John that now and then mention is made of the identity 
of the author of these different writings. Thus Irenzus, iii. 16. 5, in con- 
nection with a citation from John xx. 31, says: propter quod et in epistola' sua 
sie testificatus est nobis; following whieh is 1 John ii. 18 ff. «So Can. Mur. 
(lines 26-34) brings to the discussion of the Fourth Gospel the evidence of his 
Epistles, 7.c..of 1 John i. 1-4—in fact, it:presents it as a writing later than 
the Gospel. Hippolytus (Contra Noet:\15) explains the name Logos, Jolin 
11,14, from Rev. xix. 11-13, as a later statenient of the same John (ὑποβὰς ἐν 


200 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


τῇ ἀποκαλύψει ἔφη). Without expressing this idea of the chronological 
sequence of the books, Orig. (tom. 11. ὅ im Jo.) makes a similar statement as 
to the identity of these writers (ὁ αὐτὸς de ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψεξ. κτλ.). 
Tert. De Fuga, 9; Scorpiace, xii., takes it for granted that Rev. was written 
before 1 John (ef. GK, i. 207). Frequently titles are given to John, appro- 
priate to his different writings ; 6.0. Hippol. De Antichr. 36 addresses the Seer 
in Rev.: ὦ μακάριε Ἰωάννη, ἀπόστολε Kat μαθητὰ τοῦ κυρίου Clem. Ped. ii. 
119, with reference to Rev. xxi., uses φωνὴ ἀποστόλικη. In his Quis Dives, 
xlii., he calls the exile of Patmos 'Isavvns 6 ἀπόστολος ; in Strom. iii. 106) he 
speaks of the writer of Rev. as ὁ προφήτης ; Orig. tom. ii. 5 in Jo. refers to 
him as 6 ἀπόστολος καὶ ὁ εὐαγγελιστής, ἤδη δὲ Kai διὰ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως καὶ 
προφήτης. For other examples, cf. GK, i. 206 A. 2; Forsch. vi. 210 A. 2. 

11. (P. 181.) With regard to the Alogi and the further related eritical 
attempts of Caius of, Rome, cf. @K, i, 220-262, ii. 967-991; PRE, i. 386. 
Before Epiphanius gave the Alogi their name they were called ἡ αἵρεσις, 
ἡ ἀποβάλλουσα ᾿Ιωάννου tas βίβλους (Epiph. Her. li. 8). Inasmuch as these 
and similar designations by Epiphanius occur repeatedly (ed. Dindorf, ii. 
452. 9, 19-21, 453. 6, 501. 30), and Epiphanius himself, reflecting upon the 
meaning of the expression, confesses that he does not’ know exactly whether 
only the Gospel and Rev. or also the Epistles are to be understood by it (raya 
δὲ καὶ ras ἐπιστολάς, § 34; cf. $ 35), we may, therefore, be sure that this 
expression had been used by Hippolytus, whose writing against the two-and- 
thirty heresies was a source for both Epiphanius and Philaster (Her. xxx.). 
But since Hippolytus, to judge from those who depended upon him for their 
information, and from the title of his writing ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγελίου 
καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως, discussed. only the critical. arguments of the Alogi directed 
against these two principal works of John, it is likely that he did not originate 
the expression “the books of John,” but found it in his opponents’ writings. 
The Alogi themselves stated: “the books of John are not by John, but by 
Cerinthus, and are not worthy to be in the Church” (Dindorf, pp. 452. 9, 20 F.), 
and further declared that “his books do not agree with the other apostles” 
(p. 453. 6). | By the latter expression they testify that the John around whose 
books the discussion gathers was an apostle. | Epiphanius (p. 451. 16) observes 
quite truly that “they know that he—the alleged John—belonged to the 
number of the apostles.’ They indicate the books individually with sufficient 
exactness : τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ eis ὄνομα Ἰωάννου ψεύδεται (p. 474, 18) ; Or λέγουσι 
τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγέλιον ἀδιάθετον εἶναι (p. 475. 7), also ὁ Ἰωάννης (2.4. the 
author of the Fourth Gospel, who passed himself off as, John), ψεύδεται 
(p. 479. 6) 5 τί pe ὠφελεῖ ἡ ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου (p. 499. 7), That, in rejecting 
the “ books of John,” they could not ignore his Epistles, is evident from the 
fact that they were known in the country and in the time of the Alogi under 
the name of John (below, note 15). This is verified also in the Can. Mur. line 
26 ff.; for in the passage after the harmony of the four Gospels is maintained 
in the face of the assertion of the Alogi that the Fourth Gospel is inconsistent 
with the other three, the positive testimony to its author in 1 John i, 1-4 is 
defended as one well warranted and! by no means! surprising. The Alogi 
urged, as Dionysius did later in regard to Rev. (Eus. H. E. vii. 25. 6-11), that 
this strong self-attestation was a ground of suspicion against the genuineness 
of 1 John (GK, ii 45-52, 136). Caius in Eus. H. E. iii. 28.2 says\of the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 201 


author of Rev.: Knpıvdos, ὁ δι ἀποκαλύψεων ὡς ὑπὸ ἀποστόλου, μεγάλου 
γεγραμμένων τερατολογίας ; ἡμῖν ὡς δι᾿ ἀγγέλων αὐτῷ δεδειγμένας ψευδόμενος κτλ. 
12. (P. 182.) Just. Dial. Ixxxi. : καὶ ἐπειδὴ (so. codd. read ἔτι δή, al. ἔτι 
δέ, al. ἔπειτα) καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀνήρ. τις, ᾧ ὄνομα ᾿Ιωάννης, eis τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ 
Χριστοῦ, ἐν ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ αὐτῷ χίλια ἔτη ποιήσειν ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ τοὺς τῷ 
ἡμετέρῳ Χριστῷ πιστεύσαντας προεφήτευσε, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τὴν καθολικὴν καὶ 
συνελόντι φάναι αἰωνίαν ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἅμα πάντων ἀνάστασιν γενήσεσθαι καὶ 
κρίσιν. Of. Rev. xx. 4-15; GK. 1. 560f. ᾿ 
13. (P. 182.) The Asiatic Elders of Iren. iv. 30. 4, ν. 30.1, 36.1. In 
regard to the number of the antichrist, v. 30. 1, ef: Z/KW, 1885, S. 561 ff.; 
as to the older witnesses for Rev, in general, cf. GK, i. 201-208 (Epvst. Lugd. 
in Eus. H. E.v.1; Irenzeus, Can. Mur., Hippolytus, Acta mart. Sccllit., Passio 
Perpetue, Tertullian, Clement and the Church of Alexandria, Theophilus of 
Antioch, the Montanists, Melito of Sardis), 560-562 (Justin; cf. above, note 
12), 759-761 (the Valentinians), 794 f. (the Elders of Ireneeus, Szbyll., circa 
150), 950-957 (Papias and Andreas in Ap. [ed. Sylburg, p. 2, 52], and Eus. 
iii, 39. 12: Barnabas), With reference to Leucius, cf. Forsch. vi. 197-201. 
14. (P. 183.) Iren. v. 30.3. (The Greek is rather free, rendered by Eus. 
Η. E. v. 8.6. There are added here in brackets the variants of the Lat. 
version : ἡμεῖς οὖν (pevodv) οὐκ ἀποκινδυνεύομεν περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ 
᾿Αντιχρίστου. ἀποφαινόμενοι βεβαιωτικῶς (ἀποκινδυνεύσομεν ἐν τούτῳ, οὐδὲ 
βεβαιωτικῶς ἀποφανούμεθα, ὅτι τοῦτο ἕξει τὸ ὄνομα). εἰ γὰρ ἔδει (εἰδότες ὅτι εἰ 
ἔδει) ἀναφανδὸν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ κηρύττεσθαι τοὔνομα αὐτοῦ, δι᾿ ἐκείνου ἂν ἐρρέθη τοῦ 
καὶ τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν ἑωρακότος. οὐδὲ γὰρ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου ἑωράθη (Lat. visum 
est), ἀλλὰ σχεδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας γενεᾶς, πρὸς τῷ τέλει τῆς Δομετιανοῦ ἀρχῆς. 
In accordance with Wettstein (NT, ii. 746), whose interpretation E. Böhmer, 
Über Vf und Abfassungszeit der Ap, 1855, S. 31, has appropriated, Iren®us is 
held to have said, that John was to be seen on earth or was alive towards the 
end of Domitian’s reign. According to Iren. ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4, however, 
John had lived in Ephesus, not until toward the end of Domitian’s reign, but 
until the times of Trajan. There is also no proof needed to show that ἑωράθη 
is to be understood in any other way than as €wpaxéros. According to, his 
commentary on Rey., Dionysius Barsalibi, who had at hand writings of 
Hippolytus not possessed by us, this author was of the same mind as Irenaus 
with reference to the time of the writing of Rev. ; cf. J. Gwynn, Hermathena, 
vii. (1889) p. 146. The extant writings of Hippolytus, however, offer no 
confirmation of this view. He simply says (De Antichr. 36) that Rome, that 
is to say, the emperor, had brought about the banishment of John to Patmos. 
Also Orig. tom. xvi: 6 im Mt, does not dare to name a definite emperor, 
because in Rey.i: 9 none is named. Cf. Forsch. vi. 199f. In the legend of 
the young man saved by John (Clem, Quis Dives, xlii.), no emperor, indeed, 
is named, though Doniitian certainly is meant ; for, in the first place, John 
is represented as a very old man; and, secondly, the return from the exile is 
closely connected; with the death of the tyrant (1.6. of the emperor, who had 
banished him). This presupposes the change in affairs at the passing of the 
rule from, Domitian to Nerva, Cf. Dio Cass, Ixviii. 1f. ; Victorinus on Rev. 
x. 11 (οἵ. what immediately follows); Lact. De Mort. Persec. 3; Hus, H. E. 
iii. 20,10... The exile on Patmos and the writing of Rev, are assigned expressly 
to the time of Domitian by Victorinus tm, Apoc.,(Migne, v. col, 333); Eus, 


202 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


H. E. iii, 18. 1 £., 20. 11, 23.1; Chron. ad a. Abrah. 2109 and 2113 (catitious 
only in regard to Rev., whose genuineness he doubted); Jerome, Vir. Tl. 
ix.; contra Jovin. i. 26; psendo-Chrys. in the discourse (Montfaucon, ‘viii. 
2.131) referred to above, p. 198. Victorinus of Pettau, circa 300, remarked 
(loc. cit.) in Apoe. x. 11: “ Hoc dicit propterea quod, quando heec Joannes vidit, 
erat in insula Pathmos in metallo damnatus a Domitiano Cesare. Ibi ergo 
vidit apocalypsin. ἘΠῚ cum jam senior putaret, se per passionem accepturum 
receptionem, interfecto Domitiano judicia eius soluta sunt, et Joannes de 
metallo dimissus sie postea tradidit hane eandem, quam aceeperat a ‘deo, 
apocalypsin.” The publication of Rev. after the return from Patmos is 
referred to in the statement of the renewed prophecy given in Rev. x. 11. 
Clearly Victorinus follows here an older narrative. In comparison with this, 
Epiphanius appears entirely innocent of the old tradition and lacking sound 
intelligence when (Her. li. 12, 33) he places the exile, the writing of Rev., 
and the return from Patmos in the reign of Claudius (41-54), and at the same 
time (li. 12) makes John at ninety years of age write his Gospel “after the 
return from Patmos.” To be sure, he seeks in some degree to adjust the 
contradiction between this statement of John’s age and the name of the 
emperor under whom ‘he is said to have lived out his exile and returned, 
since he introduces, or seems to introduce, a considerable number of years of 
residence in Ephesus between the return from Patmos and the writing of the 
Gospel (above, p. 197, n. 8). The’ contradiction, however, is but poorly 
veiled, for no sensible man will use the words “after the return from Patmos, 
which occurred» under Claudius,” to fix chronologically an event which, 
according to the statement of John’s age, and according to the old tradition, 
happened about forty years after the death of Claudius. Of still less value is 
the opinion of Can. Mur. line 48—an opinion only incidentally expressed and 
as self-evident—that John, who, in comparison with Paul, was the’ older 
Apostle (Gal. i. 17), also wrote the messages to the seven Churches of Asia 
before Paul wrote his letters to the seven Churches. Cf. @K, ii. 70. The 
oft-mentioned Syriae History of John, which knows nothing of Rev. and does 
not name Patmos, represents John as banished by Nero and again'set free by 
him (Wright, i. 60#.). Prochorus transfers’ the exile on Patmos to the time 
of Trajan or, according to another ‘reading, of Hadrian (cf. the writer's 
Acta Jo. pp. 45, 46, 178, xxii, exxv). ‘To the emperor under whom John 
again received his freedom, he gives no name at all (p. 151). An indirect 
witness for the tradition supported by Irenaeus is furnished by the opinion 
which repeatedly crops out, that Rev. is the last, or one of the last, writings 
of John and of the N.T) This is the'view of Hippolytus, when he'eonceives 
of Rey. as written later than the Gospel (above, p. 197, n. 10). Furthermore, 
the employment of Rev. xxii. 18 f to express the thought that it is sacrilege 
to add anything to the holy reeord of the N.T. revelation as of equal worth, 
seems t6 presuppose that Rev. is the last apostolic writing. Cf. Anonym. 
Contra Montan. in Bus. H. E. v. 16. 3; Tren. iv. 33. 8, v. 30. 1; Tert. Contra 
Hermog. xxii. ; GK, i. 112 ff. 

15. (P. 184.) According ‘to Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 16, Papias is witness for 
1 John (ef. vol. ii. 185 f,,n. 1). Tt is very significant that the Syriao trans- 
lation of Eusebiné (cf. ThDb, 1893, col. 472), already known to Ephrem, and 
consequently originating at the latest about 360, freely renders this passage ; 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 202 


“This writer makes use of Papias as witness (for portions) of the letters οἱ 
John and of Peter.” By this there would not perhaps be meant several 
letters of John and of Peter; but the Syrian, who knew or recognised only 
the one letter of John and the one of Peter, included these both in one 
plural. The designation of Christ as αὐτὴ ἡ ἀλήθεια in the preface of Papias 
(Kus. H. #. iii. 39. 3, ef. ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια in Orig. tom. vi. 3 in Jo.) reminds one 
very strongly of 3 John 12. Polycarp’s statement (ad Phil. vii.: mas γὰρ ὃς 
ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν) has a 
much clearer connection with 2 John 7 than with 1 John iv, 2f. On this 
point, as well as in regard to the similarity of Barnabas to the Epistles of 
John, ef. GK, i. 905 f. 

16. (P. 184). Concerning the method of citation mentioned on p. 184 f., 
above, ef. the examples given in @K, i. 210f. «Even by such a learned man 
as Origen there is nothing more common than this carelessness. For new 
examples, cf. tom. i. 23 in Jo., κατὰ τὸν Παῦλον... ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ; just 
the same i. 31; further, 11: 7, ἐν τῇ πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς. So also i. 33, ἐν τῇ 
Ἰωάννου ἐπιστολῇ (=1 John ii. 1), besides i. 22, ἐν τῇ καθολικῇ ἐπιστολῇ ὁ 
Ἰωάννης ; Ambros. in Ps. xxxvi. (ed. Bened. i. 777); Jerome, ad Eph. vi. 5, 
Vall. vii. 667. 

17. (P. 185.) With reference to the Johannine Epistles in the Can. Mur. 
lines 28-34, 68, ef. @K, ii. 48-52, 88-95; on the other evidences for the 
Epistles, ef. i. 209-220, 374f., 739, 759, 905 f. 

18. (P. 186.) In’the matter of Origen’s witness to 2 and 3 John as given 
in Eus. H. E. vi. 25. 10, cf. GK, i. 211. . For the testimony of Dionysius, ef. 
H. E. vii. 25.11. And for the testimony of Eusebius himself, cf. H. E. iii. 
24. 117, 25. 3. In the latter passage, at the end of the Antilegomena, he 
mentions 7 ὀνομαζομένη δευτέρα καὶ τρίτη Ἰωάννου, εἴτε τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ τυγχά- 
νουσαι εἴτε καὶ ἑτέρου ὁμωνύμου ἐκείνῳ: Here Eusebius evidently has in mind 
John the presbyter who was discovered by him. So.is he understood by a 
later writer who quotes from him (TU, v. 2. 170). But in the passage where 
Eusebius communicates his discovery of the presbyter John (iii. 39. 5-6), he 
makes use of him only in reference to Rev., just as the double tomb of John 
at Ephesus is employed by him and before him by Dionysius (Eus. vii. 
25. 16) only for the hypothesis of a second John as the author of Rev., not as 
the author of the shorter Epistles. Jerome (Vir. Ill: ix.) has nothing to say 
about the very clearly stated hypothesis of Eusebius regarding the presbyter 
John as the author of Rev. ; in fact.he turns against it the material offered 
him through Eusebius and the mere hints which Eus. gives (iii. 25. 3) as to 
the boastful assertions respecting the Epistles (Vir. Ill. ix. after the dis- 
cussion of 1 John: “relique autem duo. . . . Johannis presbyteriasseruntur, 
enius et hodie alterum sepulcrum apud Ephesum ostenditur; et nonnulli 
putant, duas memorias eiusdem Johannis evangeliste esse,” etc. Later (Vir. 
Jil. xviii.) he infers as does Eus. (H. E. iii. 39. 4-6) from the preface of 
Papias, that a presbyter John—a different person from the apostle—had been 
the teacher of Papias, and continues : “Hoc autem dicimus propter superiorem 
opinionem (i.e. Vir. Ill. ix.), qua a plerisque rettulimus traditum, duas 
posteriores epistulas Johannis non apostoli esse, sed presbyteri,” Jerome 
does not even know how to quote himself accurately. Cf. ν, Sychowski, 
Hieron. als Läterarhist. 8. 91, 107. 


204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


19. (P. 187.) James stands before his brother John three times in Matt., 
nine times in Mark, three times in Luke. John precedes James only in Luke 
viii. 51, ix. 28; Acts i.18.. The use of οἱ (υἱοί or τοῦ) Ζεβεδαίου without the 
proper name is found only in Matt. xx. 20, xxvi. 37, xxvü. 56; John xxi. 2; 
beside the names of the sons, Matt. ἵν. 21, x. 2; Mark 1: 19, ili. 17, x. 35; 
Luke v.10, In regard to John as the youngest of all the apostles, cf. the 
writer’s Acta Jo. p. exxxivf.; im addition to this, ef. Theod. Mops. Comm. in 
Jo. (Syriac ed. Chabot, p. 3. 16). 

20. (P. 187.) Cf. the discussion regarding the brothers and the cousins of 
Jesus, Forsch. vis 225-363, especially 338-341. ᾿ 

21. (P. 188.) Mark x. 35 represents the sons of Zebedee as themselves 
presenting the request. At theisame time the statement (Matt. xx. 20) that 
their mother came before Jesus with them and was herself the spokesman 
sounds most» credible. Mark and still more Luke, who gives no account of 
this incident, leads the reader, who knows the story through the sequence of 
the narratives in Mark ix. 33-40, Luke ix. 46-55, to suppose that the brothers 
were very actively concerned in the dispute for position. According to Luke 
xxii, 24-34, ef. John xiii, 4-17, the dispute was renewed at the time of the 
Last Supper, and Peter also appears to have had a part in it. ‘iv ol 

22. (P. 191.) Iren. iii. 8..4. In regard to this passage and the entire 
testimony of Irenzeus as to the relation of Polycarp to John, cf. Forsch. iv. 
259 £., vi. 72-78, 96-109. 

23. (P: 199.) Ἐπ5. H. E. iii. 5. 2f.; Demonstr, ev. vi. 18.14; Epiph. De 
Mens: xvi; Her. xxix. 7, xxx. 2 (cf. vol. ii. 588f,, n. 3), οἵ. Theod. Mops., 
ed. Swete, i. 115 f. 

24. (P. 192.) /Iren. iii, 3, 4 (as given in Greek in Eus; ivi 14.6): καὶ εἰσὶν 
οἱ ἀκηκούτες αὐτοῦ (i.e. of Polycarp), ὅτι Ἰωάννης, ὁ τοῦ κυρίου μαθητής, ἐν τῇ 
᾿Εφέσῳ πορευθεὶς λούσασθαι καὶ ἰδὼν ἔσω Κήρινθον, ἐξήλατο τοῦ βαλανείου. μὴ 
λουσάμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειπών : “ φύγωμεν; μὴ καὶ τὸ βαλανεῖον συμπέσῃ ἔνδον ὄντος 
Κηρίνθου τοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθροῦ." No suspicion can be attached to this 
narrative of Polycarp’s, traced back so definitely to ear-witnesses, who were 
still. living in the time of Irenzus, through the very similar narratives of 
Epiph. Her. xxx. 24, in which Ebion takes the place of Cerinthus (GK, ii. 
757). If, in all probability, the latter account goes back to Leucius, who 
wrote earlier than Irenzeus; then it is ἃ significant confirmation of the 
historicity of Polycarp’s narrative. « Leucius, who was at least connected with 
the school of Valentinus (vol, ii. 73, n.'7), and therefore not so greatly out of 
sympathy with the teaching of Cerinthus, although he was anti-J udaistic, has 
substituted the name of Ebion for Cerinthus, which he has probably retained 
beside it as “ Merinthus” ; ef. the writer’s Acta Jo. p. exxxviii, Theanecdote 
is of itself not possible of invention. What inventor of legends would ze- 
present an apostle as frequenting a public bathing-place. In Epiph. (op. ett.) 
one can read how offensive this story from a secular source was to the pious 
taste, But it could not even have been invented fifty or sixty years after the 
death of John, if the fact was not established that Cerinthus im the lifetime 
of John had been prominent im Ephesus as a heretic. rig 

25. (P. 19%) »Polycarp’s position im the question of the Passover we know 
through Iren: Dp: ad Viet, im Bus, H. ον. 24. 16 (Forsch. iv. 283-303, where 
the present writer believes he has contradicted old errors, and has made clear 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 205 


for the first time the real facts in the case) ; cf., further, Polye. Ep. ad Vict. in 
Eus. H. E. v. 24. 1-8. 

26. (P. 193.) Of the narratives regarding John which cannot be traced 
nearer to their sources, the one that claims special confidence is in Clement 
(Quis Div, xlii.), beginning with the words, ἄκουσον μῦθον, οὐ μῦθον ἀλλὰ ὄντα 
λόγον περὶ Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἀποστόλου παραδεδομένον καὶ μνήμῃ πεφυλαγμένον, not 
poorly rendered by Herder in the legend, “Der gerettete Jüngling,” ef. Acta 
Jo. p. exl ff. ; Forsch. vi. 16-18, 199. Further seems genuine what Jerome 
on Gal. vi. 10 (Vall. vii. 528f., at all events according to one of the Greeks 
named on p. 370, probably according to Origen) related of the decrepit J ohn, 
who, brought by his disciples into the assembly, could utter nothing but the 
ever repeated word Filiolt, diligite alterutrum. So the story of John playing 
with the partridge, though originating with Leucius, has nothing made up 
about it (Acta Jo. pp. exxxvi, 190), The resurrection of a dead man at 
Ephesus through the agency of John, which is testified to by Apollonius (in 
Eus. v. 18. 14) in the year 197, is perhaps identical with the interesting 
account Acta Jo. pp. 188. 33-190. 2, and also p. exxxvi. 

27. (P. 193.) The expression concerning the death of John at Ephesus, 
παρέμεινε αὐτοῖς μέχρι τῶν Tpaiavod χρόνων, twice used by Irenzeus (ii. 22. 5, iii. 
3. 4), particularly in comparison with the similar assertion in regard to Poly- 
carp (also in iii. 3. 4), allows of no other conception than that of a natural 
death. When at this same time Polycrates (Eus. iii. 31. 3, v. 24. 3) writes, 
ἔτι δὲ καὶ Ιωάννης ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ κυρίου ἀναπεσών, bs ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ 
πέταλον πεφορεκὼς καὶ μάρτυς καὶ διδάσκαλος, οὗτος ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ κεκοίμηται, he 
characterises John, in the first place, according to John xiii. 25, as the 
Evangelist ; secondly, as the high priest (as Epiph. Her. xxix. 4, Ixxviii. 14, 
characterises the Lord’s brother James, an idea which probably arose in con- 
nection with the priestly origin of Mary and Salome ; ef. above, p. 87) ; thirdly, 
as a witness and teacher, both of which he was in all the writings that bear 
his name, as well as in his preaching (John i. 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24; 1 John 
i. 1-4, iv. 14; Rev. i. 2 ; ef. Forsch. vi. 208-214). That Polyerates could have 
thought of μάρτυς in the sense of martyr, as he directly afterwards uses it of 
Polycarp and Thraseas, is improbable also, because, as in the case of these two, 
he would have placed the paprus as designating the manner of John’s death 
directly after the other titles. Otherwise he must have seen a martyrdom 
perhaps in the banishment to Patmos, Rev. i. 9. That prophecy regarding 
the sons of Zebedee, which is given in Mark x. 38f., Matt. xx. 22 f., and 
which was fulfilled literally only in the case of James, gave early oppor- 
tunity for explanatory interpretations, providing a Lat. fragment under Poly- 
carp’s name were genuine (Patr. Ap. ii, 171, with the necessary emendation 
Acta Jo. p. exix). At all events, such interpretations were forthcoming from 
Origen and many later than he. On the other hand, this prophecy also gave 
rise to the invention of the legend regarding the immersion of John in boil- 
ing oil and his drinking a cup of poison (Acta Jo. pp. exvi-exxii). "All this; 
and especially the silence of Irenzeus, who had in his possession the work of 
Papias, would be incomprehensible or rather impossible, if, as has been often 
maintained, Papias had stated that the apostle John had been killed by the 
Jews. In one passage of the Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos, about 860, 
where, according to all other manuscripts, he testifies to the peaceful death of 


206 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


John (ἐν εἰρήνῃ ἀνεπαύσατο), a single MS. has the direct contrary, μαρτυρίου 
κατηξίωται, and adds to this further that Papias says of John, in the second 
book of his work, ὅτι ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθη, by which the prophecy of Mark 
x. 39 was fulfilled in regard to him as well as in regard to his brother James 
(Georg. Hamart., ed. Muralt, p. 336, pref. xvii. f.; Nolte, ThQSc, 1862, S. 
466 f.). De Boor, TU, v. 2. 170, has published from a collection of extracts, 
essentially the same thing in this form ; Παπίας ev τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ λέγει ὅτι 
Ἰωάννης ὁ θεολόγος Kai Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀνῃρέθησαν:. 
That this MS. of Georgios is interpolated at this place, is just as certain as 
that in the second book of Papias there must have been something which 
served as a basis for the two extracts (cf. De Boor, 177 ff.). We do not possess 
the text. Just after this place the interpolator of Georgios has reproduced a 
passage from Orig. tom, xvi. 6 wm Mt. most inexactly and with absolute in- 
correctness. The second excerptor shows by ὁ θεολόγος that he is not quoting 
the words of Papias. That which is common to both, namely, Ἰωάννης ὑπὸ 
Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθη, will remain as the expression of Papias. But who is the 
John of whom Papias speaks? Certainly not his teacher, the presbyter John 
of Ephesus, or an apostle John, to be distinguished from him, who possibly 
might have been a martyr in Palestine and never have come to, Ephesus. 
For, in the first place, Papias knew only one John of the apostolic generation 
(vol. ii. 435 f.) ; and, secondly, in both of these cases the silence of Ireneeus and 
all the testimony of those witnesses, among whom Irenzwus is merely the 
clearest, would be incomprehensible. The question must, then, deal with 
another John, who can be no other than the Baptist : Commodianus, Apol. 
222 (Judai), Johannem decollant, jugulant Zachariam ad aras : Pseudo-Cypr. 
Adv. Jud. 2, Tohannem interimebant Christum demonstrantem. Still more 
mistakenly and yet just as certainly does Theop. (Lat. ed.) Jn Evv. (Forsch. 
ii. 56, Text and Anm.) say the same thing in regard to the Baptist, Whoever 
thinks it improbable that Byzantine excerptors have transferred to the 
Apostle an expression of Papias concerning the Baptist, let him read the 
communication of Conybeare in the Guardian of July 18, 1894.. The above 
mentioned Vardapet (above, p. 196, n. 3) calls Polycarp a “disciple of the 
Baptist,” referring to the much older Ananias Sharkuni, who had rightly 
called him a “disciple of the evangelist John.” Cf., besides, Acta Jo. exviii, 
and more in detail Forsch. vi. 147-151. 

28. (P. 193.) The last chapter of Leucius’ Acts of John is preseryed for us 
in what the Syriac version and the Armenian version, which is attributed to 
the fifth century, have in common with the Greek texts, and is confirmed not 
only by the silence of those who possessed the book, but incidentally also by 
their positive statements, e.g. Epiph. Her. Ixxix. 5, ef. Acta Jo. pp. xeiv-exii, 
238-250, also p. 235; Acta Ap. Apoor,, ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii, part i. 215. 
Augustine is the oldest witness for the superstition that John still breathes in 
his grave and thereby lifts the surface of the earth ; cf. the writer’s Acta Jo. 
pp. 205, xeviii, eviii. In the same work, ef. pp. eliv-elxxii in regard to the 
various places where people later believed him to be buried, and the buildings 
connected with them, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 207 


8 65. THE TESTIMONY OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL TO 
ITS AUTHOR. 


John, whom we may venture to call the author of the 
Johannine writings, did not, like Matthew and Mark, pre- 
fix a title to his Gospel. Nor did he, like Luke, write a 
preface, or a dedication taking the place of a preface, in 
which the author, addressing the first reader or readers of 
his book, discussed the presuppositions and purpose of his 
literary work ; since what is called the prologue to John 
(John i. 1-18) is an introduction of an entirely different 
sort. But in two later passages of his book (xix. 35, xx. 
31), addressing his readers, John does speak concerning 
the reasons why he wrote, and in the first of these of his 
own, the narrator’s, relation to the facts which he recorded. 
The oceurrence of a “ you” addressed to the readers in the 
midst of a narrative in which there is nothing else to 
indicate that it is of the nature of a communication, and to 
which no dedication is prefixed giving it a certain resem- 
blance to a letter, is something unheard of in literature 
(n. 1). It is the language of the preacher addressing his 
congregation. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact 
that in both passages the purpose of the written narrative 
is declared to be the upbuilding of the religious life of the 
readers. The narrative is a means used for the accom- 
plishment of the preacher’s'end. [Ὁ is, therefore, a sermon 
addressed to a definite group of hearers, or rather, since it 
is in written form, a definite group of readers. From this it 
follows at once that the readers for whom John wrote his 
book were Christians, with whom he was acquainted and 
who knew him. That they belonged to the Church is in 
no way rendered doubtful by the fact that Christian faith 
is declared to be the goal to which the readers are to be led 
by the testimony of John. For it is a peculiarity of the 
Fourth Gospel frequently to speak of a relative unbelief, 
and of a beginning of belief in those who in a general sense 


208 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


have already become and are believers (n. 2). . Further- 
more, the language of the Gospel, especially xx. 31, shows 
very clearly that the reference is not to a first beginning 
of belief, but to the strengthening of already existing faith, 
and to the increase of the blessedness that accompanies liv- 
ing faith. The entire character of the book is against the 
assumption that it is intended to be a written sermon for 
the conversion of persons not yet believers. To address as 
“you” the indefinite and unknown “ public” into whose 
hands the book might fall, especially a Gentile or Jewish 
public of this character, would show a lack of good taste 
quite unparalleled. With the help of the tradition (above, 
pp. 179 ἢ, 194 δ) we may define the first impression of 
xix. 35, xx. 31 as follows: In imagination John sees the 
Church of Ephesus, or all the Christians of Asia, gathered 
about him, and in important passages of his book he 
addresses ‘them directly. Under ordinary circumstances 
in written, as in oral, discourse the “ you” which is twice 
used would correspond to an “ I” representing the speaker. 
This is not only wanting in xix. 35, xx. 31, but throughout 
the entire book, and the question arises what substitute for 
it was chosen by the author who was known to the readers. 

Omitting for the present the consideration of the 
supplement (chap. xxi. $ 66), we observe that, while “I” 
does not occur in the prologue, “ we,” which includes the 
author, is used three times (1. 14, 16). When John com- 
pares the existence of the Logos, who became flesh upon 
earth, with the visible appearance of the glory of Yahweh 
during the flight out of Egypt and its descent upon and into 
the tabernacle, he immediately represents himself as one of 
the group of men among whom the Logos dwelt in the flesh 
as inatent. Consequently he was also one of the men who 
beheld the glory of the Logos shining through the veil of 
the flesh when He dwelt among men ; and, finally, he’ was 
one of those, all of whom had received from the fulness 
which this one personality held within itself grace upon 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 209 


grace (n. 3). The use of the aorist three times in these 
statements, the subject of the last verb and the object of 
the first, make the writer's meaning perfectly clear. John 
does not regard himself as simply one of the contemporaries 
and fellow-countrymen of Jesus who saw Him occasionally 
and heard Him speak, but reckons himself, just as clearly 
as is done in 1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14, among “the eye- 
witnesses from the beginning ”—the disciples who believed 
on Jesus and were in constant fellowship with Him : since 
Jesus had revealed His glory, not to those who had seen 
some of His wonderful deeds, or who had only heard of 
Him (11: 23 ff., vi. 2, 14, 26, 36, xii. 37 ff., xv. 24), but’ to 
the disciples who believed on Him (ii. 11; ef. i. 51, xi. 40). 
To this circle the author belonged. 

When first mentioned, the two disciples of John, who 
were the first to attach themselves to Jesus shortly after 
His baptism (i. 35-39), appear without names, It is not 
until later, and then in a very circumstantial way,—when 
something is to be narrated about Peter,—that we learn 
that one of these was Andrew, Peter’s brother (ver. 40 f.). 
The thoughtful reader asks, “Who is the other of these 
first two disciples of Jesus?” One would naturally sup- 
pose that this particular evangelist, who is the only one to 
relate how a group of disciples was first gathered about 
Jesus, and who gives details about more disciples than do 
the other evangelists (n. 4), must have regarded these first 
two disciples as of equal importance. Our wonder js 
increased when we read ver. 41. According to the correct 
reading, which is to be accepted more because of its 
originality than because of strong external testimony, it is 
stated with marked emphasis that Andrew, the first of the 
two disciples, finds his own brother, which implies that 
after Andrew the other of the two disciples, whose name is 
not mentioned, also finds his brother, whose name is like- 
wise unmentioned (n. 5). To everyone who can read 


Greek it is perfectly clear between the lines that, in 
VOL. 111. 14 


210 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


addition to the two brothers Andrew and Peter, there must 
have been two other brothers who left John and, became 
disciples of Jesus. \. The more peculiar this suppression of 
the names of the second pair of brothers and the, mere 
suggestion of an event which clearly was of importance to 
the author seem, the more imperative is it that we ask the 
reason for the peculiarity. Inall four lists of the apostles 
the two brothers whom John mentions, Andrew and Peter, 
are associated with two other brothers, John and James, 
and the names of these four always stand at the head, of 
the lists. [015 more than, conjecture to suppose that, the 
two brothers associated with Peter and Andrew in John’s 
account of the call of the disciples are the same as those 
who in the lists of the apostles without exception sustain 
the same relation to them. This enables us also to explain 
why these four, names always come first, .They were, the 
first of the apostles who became disciples of Jesus, . This 
conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in all four of the 
lists Philip occupies the fifth place, as in John, and 
Nathanael, who is sixth in John’s account—if he be identical 
with Bartholomew—oceupies this same position in the lists 
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, being seventh only in, Acts i, 
13 (n. 6). 

For the present we may conclude our proof of the 
identity of the unnamed brothers in John i. 35-41 with 
James and John by ealling attention to the further faet 
that these two apostles, who, according to the testimony of 
all the other tradition, together with Peter stood closest to 
Jesus, and who are distinguished by the place given them in 
the lists of the apostles and by the röle which they played 
in Acts (above, p. 187 f.), are never mentioned by name in 
the Fourth Gospel. Nor, is their father, Zebedee, men- 
tioned except in the supplementary chapter xxi. (ver. 2); 
and, as we have already seen (above, p. 187), even their 
mother, Salome, is designated as the sister of Jesus’ mother 
without mention of her name. How are we to explain the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 211 


fact that no mention is made of the names of this family, all 
the members of which were so close to Jesus, and the fact 
that in this Gospel, in which the personal characteristics 
of the members of the apostolic circle are more strongly 
brought out than in any other, there is complete. silence 
concerning two apostles of the first rank? It is even less 
possible to think of the omission of the names of the two 
brothers in John i. 35-41 without connecting this fact 
with the entire silence of the Gospel concerning James and 
John, than it is to think of the unnamed brothers, among 
the first four disciples without connecting this fact with 
the occurrence of the names of James and John among the 
first four apostles in all the’ lists. Unless we are willing 
to assume a multitude of peculiar accidents and to admit 
that the facts to which attention has been called are a 
meaningless puzzle, we must admit, as the result of a 
purely exegetical study, that one of the two. disciples 
whose name is not mentioned in i. 35 ff. was either James 
or John, and that the brother whose name is likewise 
unmentioned, whom one of these found and. brought. to 
Jesus as Andrew did Peter, was either John or James. 
But the only credible reason for the absence of the 
names of James and John and of the entire family in the 
Fourth Gospel, is the aversion of the author of this book 
to introducing himself by the use of “I,” or by the use of 
his name, into the history, which to him and his readers 
was sacred—an aversion which is manifested in different 
ways by the other evangelists and the author of Acts 
(n. 7). It is the author of the book who introduces him- 
self and his brother without mention of their names. The 
author is, or means to represent himself as being, either the 
unnamed companion of Andrew in 1. 35-39, or the brother 
of this unnamed person not expressly mentioned, of the 
finding of whom we read between the lines in ver, 41. 
Which of these two it was is determined by the character 
of the narrative in vy. 35-39, While there is no account 


15 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of the finding of the brother by the companion of Andrew, 
in vv. 35-39, it is either the account of something the 
author experienced, or a skilful imitation of such an ex- 
perience (n. 8). The unnamed person is, therefore, the 
narrator, who with Andrew followed Jesus at the sug- 
gestion of his former teacher, and who after hours of 
conversation with Jesus became convinced that He was 
the Messiah, and who, like Andrew, but somewhat later, 
brought his own brother to the newly-found teacher. It 
is easier still to determine whether the narrator was John 
or James. Not only does tradition unanimously make 
John the author, but it is impossible that James, who was 
put to death in the year 44 (Acts x1. 2), should have been 
the ‘author of this Gospel, which was certainly written 
much later. Nor is it conceivable that a writer of a later 
time should have identified himself with this James who 
died at such an early date, and who was so little prominent 
after the death of Jesus, and that this identification should 
have been entirely without result. ‘The author was, there- 
fore, John, the son of Zebedee. 

Sitice the six men, whose first contact with Jesus is 
narrated in i. 35-51, accompanied Him on His journey 
to Gulilee (i. 43), and are represented as being among the 
witnesses of His wonderful deeds (i. 50 f.), it is self-evident 
that wherever in the further course of the Gospel the 
disciples of Jesus are mentioned (ii. 2, 11, 12, 17, 22, il. 
22, iv. 2, 8, 27-38) these disciples are meant, or at least 
ineluded, This name is also applied to ‘all’ those who, 
throuch their faith in" Jesus and at least a temporary 
attachment to Him, are distinguished from the multitudes 
who eome and go (iv. 1, vi. 60-66, vii. 8, Vili. 31, 1x 27 Ef, 
xix. 38). But where “ the diseiples are spoken of as the 
travellin® companions of Jesus, or His reoular followers, 
or His companions at table, it is made clear im various 
ways that those are meant whom Jesus had appointed at 
the beginning to share His work, whom He had attached 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 213 


to Himself, and twelve of whom He had chosen to be 
apostles at a time not definitely indicated by John (m 9). 
Where individuals belonging to this circle are mentioned 
by name they are always those who, from the other sources 
we know, belonged to the circle of the Twelve, namely, 
Andrew (vi. 8, xii. 22), Peter (vi. 8, 68, xiii. 6-9, 24, 
36-38, xviii. 10, 11, 15-18, 25-27, xx. 2-7), Philip (vi. 
5-7, xii. 22, xiv. 8), Thomas (xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24-29), 
Judas the traitor (vi. 71, xii. 4, xu. 2, 11-26-30, xviii. 
2-9), and the other Judas (xiv. 22). When Philip and 
Peter reappear in the narrative, it is assumed that they 
are already known from chap. 1. On the other hand, 
Thomas and Judas are introduced as if heretofore unknown. 
While Andrew is introduced in vi. 8 as a new figure, it is 
done in such a way that the reader recalls 1. 40, just as he 
recalls i. 44 in connection with the third mention of Philip 
in xu. 21. Attention is never again called to 1. 35-39, 41, 
and the two unnamed brothers. It is not until xiii. 23-25 
that an unnamed person belonging to the inner circle of 
the disciples is once more brought into prominence, and 
then again in xix. 26-35 and xx. 2-10, with unmistakable 
reference to xi. 23. One of the disciples reclining with 
Jesus at the table occupied the place at His. right, which 
is explained by the remark that Jesus had a special fondness 
for him. The confidence which was a natural result of this 
fondness is evidenced by the fact that the disciple arose 
from his place, which was lower down and removed some- 
what from the Lord, and, leaning on Jesus’ breast, quietly 
whispered to Him the question about the identity of the 
traitor. Who is this disciple for whom Jesus showed: a 
special love, which was distinguished from His love to all 
men, and especially to: His disciples (xiii. 1, xv. 9, 18), not 
so much by its greatness or its strength as by His special 
fondness for the particular personality of \this disciple 
(n. 10)? The answer of the early Church: always. was; 
“ This unnamed disciple is the evangelist who is identical 


214 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with the apostle John” (n. 11). And it is difficult te 
understand how, if we accept the identity of the evangelist 
with the diseiple who leaned on Jesus’ breast, the identity 
of the same with the apostle John can be denied. Accord- 
ing to Matt. xxvi. 20; Mark xiv, 17, 20; Luke xxi. 14, 
30, no one except the twelve apostles took part in Jesus’ 
last meal, and John itself makes it clear that it was the 
apostles whom Jesus had chosen for a special service, and 
particularly for the service of preaching, who sat with Him 
on the last evening at table, and that the only person 
among those at the table not really belonging to the circle 
was the apostle Judas, not some admirer of Jesus who 
belonged to the larger group of His disciples (n. 9). In 
view of the entire agreement of the evangelists as to this 
point, every statement to the effect that others were 
present at the table is to be regarded as ὦ prior? false, and 
every attempt to derive from the Fourth Gospel itself a 
conception in contradiction to the more explicit testimony: 
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is to be regarded as making 
mockery of the text (n. 12). 

The fact that the disciple who leaned on Jesus’ breast, 
like the companion of Andrew ini. 35 ff., is unnamed, is to 
be explained, as it is in i. 35 ff., by the fact that the author 
is speaking of himself; and what in the latter instance was 
inferred from the apparent identity of the two pairs of 
brothers who were the first disciples, with the two pairs of 
brothers who are mentioned first in all the lists of the 
apostles, namely, that the narrator was, like his brother, 
an apostle, follows directly from the situation in xiii.—xvii. 
In i. 35 ff. the only question was as to whether John or 
James was the narrator, which, in view of the time prior 
to which the Fourth Gospel could not have been written 
and the unanimous tradition, was decided in favour of 
John; and both these arguments apply in case of the 
unnamed narrator in xiii. 23ff. The fact is also to be 
taken into consideration, that in the nature of the case the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 215 


apostle upon whom Jesus bestowed His special friendship 
must have been one of the three most intimate disciples of 
Jesus (above, p. 187). If for reasons already mentioned 
James is out of the question, and if Peter is excluded 
because in John xii. 24 and frequently also in other 
passages he is associated with the unnamed disciple, there 
remains only the apostle John. This conclusion that the 
unnamed apostle in xii. 23 ff. was John is confirmed by 
the fact that in John xii. 23 ff., xx. 2-10, and, as will be 
shown, in xxi. 1-7, 20-25 also—possibly also in xviii. 
15-18—this unnamed disciple is associated with Peter, 
just as was the apostle John, according to other tradition 
(Luke xxi. 8; Acts m. Lff., iv. 13 ff, villi. 14 ff; ef. Gal. 
ii. 9), even. before the death of James, the son of Zebedee, 
who was the third among the intimate apostles of Jesus. 
In xix. 26, xx. 2, the unmistakable reference to xili. 23 
makes it certain that the apostle John was among the 
disciples who stood near the cross and hastened to the 
grave ; but in xviii. 15, according to the reading supported 
by the strongest evidence (ἄλλος μαθητής, without the 
article), a disciple is introduced in association with Peter, 
who for the time being is left unidentified. While formally 
it is possible to assume that here some person other than 
the apostle John is meant, the analogy of xiii. 23, where 
in the same manner, without regard to his earlier reference 
to himself ini. 35 ff, the apostle is introduced as merely 
one of the disciples, and, afterwards characterised by his 
special relation to Jesus, shows that this assumption, while 
possible, is not’necessary. Certainly the unnamed person 
in ‘xvill. 15 was one of the apostles, since, together with 
Peter, he follows Jesus from the place where Jesus was 
taken prisoner to the palace of the high priest. But’ in 
Gethsemane, as at the Last Supper, . only apostles were 
present; and of these Peter, John, and James were 
especially near to Jesus. When it is further borne in 
mind that the names of personages so little prominent in 


216 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the narrative as Malchus (xviii. 10), Mary the wife οἱ 
Clopas (xix. 25), and Joseph of Arimathea (xix. 38) are 
mentioned by name in John, and that nowhere save in the 
passages in which we have discovered the author himself 
is an apostle introduced as speaking or acting without 
being mentioned by name, there can be no doubt that the 
anonymity of the other disciple and apostle (xviii. 15) is 
to be judged by the analogy of similar passages already 
discussed. The other disciple is one of the two apostles 
whom the author, from principle and without exception, 
introduces only anonymously, ee. either John or James. 
But the reasons which in all the other cases were decisive 
for John and against James are not applicable here. There 
is nothing in the experience related in xvii. 15-16 to 
indicate that it was that of the author. The apostle John 
could have learned this simple incident from his brother 
James, or from Peter. Nor have we, as in the case of 
zii. 23 (xix. 26, xx. 2), a very ancient tradition—found 
as early as John xxi. 24—that the unnamed person in 
xviii, 15 is identical, with the author. Consequently the 
unnamed person in xviii. 15 could have been some person 
other than the author, namely, the apostle James, the son 
of Zebedee ; and if anyone prefers this assumption, and 
thinks that it explains the noticeable absence in xvii. 15 
of a reference to xiii. 23, which is taken up again in x1x. 26, 
xx. 2, there is no decided objection to this view. Not 
even the consideration that the apostle, who alone had the 
courage to press his way up to the cross, namely, the 
evangelist and. apostle John, was probably the same 
disciple who ventured into the palace of the high priest, 
is decisive (n. 13)... But hesitancy in this one instance 
about deciding which of the two sons of Zebedee is meant 
does not affect in any way the definiteness of the conclusion 
based on the other passages, namely, that the author is, 
or intends to represent himself as, the apostle John. 

If the apostle John was not the author, then the author 


THE WRITINGS, OF JOHN 217 


certainly expresses in the strongest possible way his inten- 
tion of being taken for John, particularly in the one 
passage (xix. 35) in the narrative where he imagines 
himself among his readers, and addresses them. The 
account of Jesus’ death on the cross is concluded by the 
mention of two incidents connected with it—the fact that 
the soldiers, when they say that Jesus was already dead, 
did not, as in the case of those crucified with Him, break 
His legs; and that one of them pierced Jesus’ side with a 
spear, and that blood and water flowed from the wound. 
That the last-mentioned fact, important as it may be in 
itself, is incidental in this connection, is proved by the 
fact that the two quotations, designed to prove that these 
things took place in fulfilment of prophetic utterances in 
Scripture (ver. 36f.), refer only to the fact that the legs 
were not broken, and that Jesus was pierced with a spear, 
but not at all to the issue of blood and of water from His 
side. Nevertheless, the remark which the author inserts 
between the narrative and the reference to the prophecies 
which it fulfilled, καὶ 6 ἑωρακὼς μεμαρτύρηκεν KTA., refers to 
the entire contents of vv. 32-34. Since it is not stated 
that some eye-witness of the event narrated it to others, 
but as the subject is “he, who saw it,” .e. the specific 
eye-witness who has been already mentioned and is known, 
and since, for grammatical reasons, and because of the 
contents, the women in ver. 25, and especially the soldiers 
in yer. 32, are excluded, the only person that can be 
referred to is the one man who remained loyal to Jesus, 
who, according to ver. 26 ἢ, stood near the cross during 
the last moments of Jesus’ life. —the disciple whom Jesus 
particularly loved, the) apostle who in xii. 23 and in 
xix, 26 is characterised in the same way. The readers 
here addressed would have recognised the. well-known 
author (above, p. 207) as they did in i. 35 ff., xiii, 23 f. 
(xvii. 15 f.); they certainly did not ascertain for the first 
time in xix. 35 who the author was. On the other hand, 


INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ae modern reader, farther removed from the author, 
fearns for the first time clearly in xix. 35 what can’ be 
ascertained from the earlier ‘passages only by ‘inference, 
namely, that the narrator of the story of the cross and the 
author of the Gospel are identical with the apostle whom 
Jesus especially loved. For the μεμαρτύρηκεν relates to the 
testimony given in the written account that precedes. It 
is possible that the eye-witness testified to these things 
orally more than once before he embodied his testimony 
in a narrative, and that inthis passage his thought em- 
braces both the oral and written testimony. But it is 
impossible to interpret the words as referring to any oral 
testimony whatsoever without regard to whom it was 
addressed. The perfect does not exclude the possibility 
of its reference, primarily or even exclusively, to the 
written testimony that immediately precedes (ef. i. 34, 
iv. 18, vi. 65, xiv. 29, xv. 15, xx. 31); while the presents 
which follow (ἐστίν, λέγει), and the statement that this 
testimony and word in question are designed to influence 
the readers addressed to believe (cf. xx. 31), prove that 
the reference is to the testimony which has just been laid 
before the readers of the book in the preceding account. 
As has been already remarked, the author did not write 
xix. 35 with the purpose in view which it may ineidentally 
serve in our case, namely, to enable his readers here toward 
the end of the book to discover his identity—something 
which could have been done much earlier and much more 
simply. He wrote it rather to make his readers feel that 
it was an eye-witness who reported the facts which imme- 
diately preceded. 

This conclusion is confirmed by the second and third 
statements which follow, each of which is connected with 
what precedes by καί, According to the regular usage of 
ἀληθινός in John—the retaining of which here is all the 
more reasonable because ἀληθής is used in the same con- 
text—the second clause means that the testimony of the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 219 


narrator is worthy of the name ; it is testimony in the 
full sense of the word. In the broad sense any statement 
which corresponds to the facts may be called a testimony, 
but the full and original sense of the word is preserved 
only when one testifies to what he has seen, heard, and 
in general experienced (n. 14). The third clause goes 
farther, and says that the witness here testifying speaks 
the truth, which would by no means necessarily follow 
from his having been present when the events in question 
took place, and that he records this truthful account only 
in order that the readers, like the author, may attain to 
faith. This is not stated directly with the words, καὶ 
ἀληθῆ λέγει «Tr, but is introduced by the very much 
disputed phrase κἀκεῖνος οἶδεν ὅτε a. >. Even if the inter- 
pretation of the preceding clauses just given be incorrect, 
it is nonsensical to claim that here in one breath the 
evangelist claims that‘ his account is that of an eye- 
witness, and at the same time distinguishes himself, the 
writer, from the eye-witness who is absent and no longer 
living (n. 15). At all events, it is a fact that the author, 
instead of using an “I” or a “ we,” that would include 
himself (i. 14; 1 John i. 1 ff; Acts xvi. 10 ff.),—which 
formally would be in better keeping with the “ you” of 
the address,—follows the same course as in the preceding 
narrative, and speaks of himself in the third person (λέγει, 
n. 7). Theoretically this makes it possible for him to use 
ἐκεῖνος Of himself, the writer, or of “the writer of these 
things,” as he might use οὗτος, or αὐτός, or ὁ τοιοῦτος, 
which in a discourse where the speaker uses the first 
person of himself would imply strong emphasis upon the 
“LI” (ix. 87, ef. iv. 26; 2 Cor. xii. 3). But if the subject 
of οἶδα is the same as the subject of μεμαρτύρηκεν and Akyeı, 
there is no reason why it should be emphasised by the 
use of a demonstrative, and thereby be given a certain 
contrastive force. The idea, however, that the author 
himself was conscious of the entire truth of his account, 


220 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


or of his statement about being an eye-witness, would not 
be expressed in this way, but by αὐτὸς οἶδεν or (αὐτὸς) 
ἑαυτῷ σύνοιδεν. Nor is it possible to understand what 
value this appeal to the author's own conscience would 
have for the readers. In v. 31 f., vii. 13-18, ef, x. 25, 
37 f., xiv. 11, they had read how the most guileless of 
men had acknowledged the insufficiency of His own. testi- 
mony to Himself. Consequently they would not have 
understood, nor could they have allowed the exaltation, of 
the disciple above his master and the proud appeal to 
his own consciousness as the decisive proof of the truth of 
his statement. Therefore it follows, both from the con- 
tents of the passage and from the language used, that: the 
ἐκεῖνος to whom the author appeals is another and a higher 
one than himself. But it would be only an empty phrase, 
if the one to whom he appeals to bear witness to the truth 
of his statement were some person already dead, who can 
neither affirm nor deny what he says. Nor can God be 
meant, the only natural expression for which would be 
ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν. On the other hand, it is quite in keeping 
with the Johannine usage for ἐκεῖνος to refer to | Christ 
(n. 16). It seems even more natural here than in 1 John ; 
for, in the first place, John has here reached the, con- 
clusion of the earthly life of the Lord, and He is the one 
overshadowing figure in all the preceding, narratives. 
John and his readers know that He who died on the 
cross lives in the world above; nor can there be any ques- 
tion in their minds that He who in His earthly life 
showed such wonderfully profound knowledge of the 
human heart (John i. 42, 47 f., 1.125, iv. 17 f., vi. 64-71), 
now from His heavenly throne, to which the cross was 
only preparatory, knows, proves, and judges even more 
deeply the innermost thoughts and works, of His servants 
upon earth (Rev. ii. 2, 9, 18, 29). In the second place, 
as indicated by the address to the readers, John imagines 
himself in the midst of the assembled congregation. Here, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 221 


however, the Christians of that time knew Christ to be 
always invisibly near (Matt. xvii. 20; 1 Cor. v. 4; Rev. 
ii. 1). In an address to the assembled congregation, a 
“Thou knowest that I speak the truth” (ef. John xxi. 
15-17) direeted to Christ passes naturally into the assur- 
ance intelligible to every member, “ He, the only one, He 
who is exalted from the cross to heaven, He knows that 
His witness on earth speaks the truth, and that he does 
not here testify out of any feeling of self-complacency in 
order to represent himself as the only faithful witness 
among the apostles, but only in order that the readers 
may possess the same unwavering faith which he himself 
enjoys.” Such an affirmation has the force of an oath. 
This is the climax of all the testimony of this Gospel to 
its author. This is not the place to discuss why John 
makes so much of this testimony, and why he lets it eulmi- 
nate just in this passage in an appeal to Christ; as the 
highest witness and judge, that has the force of an oath. 
The exposition of the actual situation is of itself 
sufficient refutation of the attempts to make the. testi- 
mony of the Fourth Gospel refer to some other person 
than the apostle John (n. 17). Those efforts are fre- 
quently influenced by the idea that the author refers to 
himself in some very mysterious manner. Again there 
are others who think that between the attempt to identify 
himself with the intimate disciples of Jesus and the con- 
sciousness that he was making a false claim, the author's 
attitude becomes one of wavering. To the extent that 
this opinion is based upon xix. 35 it must fall to the 
ground of its own weight, even if the preceding interpre- 
tation of this passage be incorrect. Since it is incon: 
ceivable that, at the very moment when for the first time, 
with the exception of the general testimony of i. 14, he 
unhesitatingly describes his account as that of an eye- 
witness, the courage and intelligence of the author should 
have failed him, to such an extent as no longer to render 


222 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW ‘TESTAMENT 


him able in intelligible language to say to his readers 
that he himself is this eye-witness, or that he is someone 
else who received his information directly or indirectly 
from the eye-witness. If this was the actual relation of 
the author \to the apostle John, then 1. 14 is a weak 
attempt to deceive the readers as to the real facts, and 
xix. 35 is the halting confession of a false witness who is 
no longer able to maintain his röle, But granted, that 
the contradiction between i. 14 and xix. 35 can be got md 
of, by’ proving in the former passage, with the aid’ of 
exegetical art, that it is not the testimony of jan eye- 
witness, and by reading into xix. 35 the clear confession 
of the author who was not the eye-witness as to his actual 
relation to this person, yet the consistent silence of the 
Gospel concerning the apostle John and his entire family 
in i. 35 f.; xii. »23 fl, xvii. 15 ff; xix: 26 f.,.35, xx. 2-8 
is an unsolvable riddle, or rather an unreasonable and 
purposeless trifling. If, as the fact that they are twice 
addressed would seem to indicate, the author was known 
to the readers, as the writer of a letter is usually known 
to the persons whom he addresses, the avoidance, of the 
use of“ I” and of “ we” in the narrative, and his constant 
suppression of his own name and that of his family, is not 
to be considered an aimless attempt to create an air of 
mystery, even less so than is the similar procedure of 
Mark; but it is an expression of that sense of fitness 
which in various ways meets us everywhere in the his- 
torical literature of this time, Christian and non-Christian 
alike. Therefore, the only question is whether the witness 
of the Gospel to its author, which was clear to the original 
readers at once, and is so to the modern reader, after a 
little reflection, is worthy of credence or not. The testi- 
mony of the post-apostolic Church as to the origin of the 
book (§ 64) does not so confirm its witness and correspond 
so exactly to it that,it may be regarded as simply an echo 
of it; for, with regard to the time and place of the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 223 


composition of the Gospel, concerning which the tradition 
of the ancient Church gives very definite information, no 
clear testimony is to be derived from John i.-xx., of 
which the tradition of the origin of the Fourth Gospel in 
Ephesus late in the apostolic age might be regarded as a 
reflexion. 


1. (P. 207.) As to addressing a person to whom a writing is dedicated, 
apart from the dedication itself, cf. above, pp. 81, 85, nn. 2, 10. Concerning 
Just. Dial. viii. exli., ef. Z/KG, viii. 45f, ΑΒ a rule, such direct address 
occurs also in writings at the beginning of which there stands a dedication, 
but in such cases only at the end of the entire writing or at the-transition 
from one book of a larger work to another, so that xx. 31 would be less 
striking than xix. 35. The address xx. 31 is not without example even in 
writings in which the preface has not the form of a letter of dedication 
(Jos. Vita, 76; ef. Ant.i., Proem. 2). On the other hand, the direct address, 
xix. 35, is unprecedented in historical literature. There is, of course, no 
parallel here with such narratives as the accounts of the death of Polyearp 
or of the martyrs of Lyons, which have throughout the form of epistles 
(Patr. Ap., ed. maior, ii. 132, 162 ; Eus. H. E. v. 1.3); the comparison lies 
rather with the Passio Perpetuew (ed. Robinson, p. 62. 13), which, partly in 
Johannine forms, show that it is intended for reading in the meetings of 
the Church (pp. 61, 94). Im other writings, as in the pseudo-Cyprian ad 
Novatianum and de Aleatoribus, it appears from addresses, such as fratres 
dilectissimi, that they are not treatises, but either sermons or letters. 

2. (P. 207.) Itis indeed said of those who are already believers, that they 
came to their faith through a new experience, ii. 11, 22, xx. 8, or that they 
should believe, xi, 15, 40, 42, xiii. 19, xiv. 1, 11, 29, xx. 24-29, or it is denied 
that they have the right belief, ef. iii. 2 with iii. 11f., or viii. 30f. with 
viii. 45-47 ; also iv. 41f., 48-53. It is to be further noted that in xix, 35, 
xx, 31 is probably to be read with N*B πιστεύητε (“may believe”), not 
πιστεύσητε (“shall believe”), and that an author who writes x. 38, iva γνῶτε 
καὶ γινώσκητε, is conscious of this difference. 

3. (P. 209.) The comparison of the Logos appearing in the flesh with 
the manifestation of the glory of God, Ex. xiii. 21f., xxxiii. 9f., xl. 34-38, 
is warranted not only by the word ἐσκήνωσεν, which the LXX does not 
employ of the Shekinah (it uses, indeed, κατασκηνοῦν, Num. xxxv. 34; 
1 Kings vi. 13), though it is used by Aquila, Ex. xxiv. 16, xxv. 8, but also by 
the combination of the conceptions σκηνοῦν and δόξα, as well as by the 
antithesis of the nox) non. and the law given through Moses (vv. 14, 16, 17; 
ef, Ex. xxxiv. 6, 29-35); cf. also John ii. 21; Rev. xxi. 3; Ex. xxxvii. 27; 
Joel iv. 17. Moreover, the metaphorical use of σκῆνος, 2 Cor. v. 1, 4, and 
σκήνωμα, 2 Pet. 1. 13f., for the body may have occasioned the employment 
of σκηνοῦν in this place, and made the thought more intelligible to the first 
readers. The circle of the disciples is designated by ἐσκήνωσεν ev ἡμῖν as 
the Church, in whose midst the glory of the Logos dwelt in the flesh, as in 
a tabernacle. But the additional πάντες, ver, 16, does not mean an expansion 


224 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of this circle to those who later attained to the belief, among whom the 
Logos had not visibly dwelt—in which case the aorist would not haye been 
adhered to—but is explained from the contrast of the many who received, 
and the One from whose fulness all drew as from one single source. =~ 

4..(Ρ. 209.) In Matt. iv. 18-22, ix. 9, x. 2-4; Mark i. 16-20, ii. 14, 
iii. 13-19; Luke v. 2-11, 27, vi. 13-16 we are not informed, as we are in 
John i. 35-51 (al. 52 because of the division of ver. 39), of the organisation 
of a circle of the disciples. We are told simply of the call of those who 
already believe on Jesus to follow and work with Him (vol. ii. 541f.). The 
Synoptists present to us the character outlines only of Peter, the sons of 
Zebedee, and Judas the traitor; concerning the publican among the 
apostles, of whose call we are told (vol. ii. 506f.), as also of Andrew, very 
little is said. On the other hand, Peter (i. 40-42, vi. 68, xiii. 6-10, 36-38, 
xviii. 10-27, xx. 2-10, xxi, 2-22) and the traitor (vi. 70f., xii, 4-6, xiii. 2, 11, 
18-30, xviii. 2f.) are, at least, as prominent as they are in the Synoptics. 
However, it is John alone who informs us of the remarks of Philip (i. 43f., 
vi. 5-7, xii. 21f., xiv. 8-10), of Thomas (xi. 16, xiv. 4f., xx. 24-29 ; cf. xxi. 2), 
of Andrew (i. 40f., vi. 8; cf. xii. 22), of Judas the son of James (xiv. 22), 
indeed, very characteristic remarks throughout (cf. Luthardt, Das joh. Ev. i. 
78-119). The phlegmatic character of Philip, which accounts for the fact 
that he alone of the first disciples had to be expressly invited (i. 43) by Jesus 
to join the Twelve, is reflected in the cumbrous confession (i. 45), especially 
in contrast to the brief εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν of Andrew (i. 41), which 
expresses no less exultation than the εὕρηκα of Archimedes. Philip doubt- 
fully makes calculation, while Andrew immediately discovers the means at 
hand (vi. 5-9). He does not venture to submit the wish of the Greeks to 
Jesus until he has consulted the more courageous Andrew ; while the latter, 
as is shown by the fact that he is first mentioned, is ready to make the 
request of Jesus in the name of them both (xii. 21). Also in xiv. 8-10 
Philip still appears more than the others as the doubtful one. It would be 
in special keeping with this character sketch that, as Clem. Strom. iii. 25 
declares—probably following the Gospel of Philip—the remark given in 
Matt. viii. 22, Luke ix. 60 might have been directed to Philip if the 
apostle, and not the evangelist Philip were meant by it (cf. GK, ii. 766; 
Forsch. vi. 26, 158 f., 161). The portrait of Thomas, whose name John alone 
translates (xi. 16, xx. 24; ef. xxi. 2), speaks for itself. Here belongs; too, 
the fact that only John gives an account of the characteristic remarks of the 
brothers of Jesus (vii. 3-10), whose attitude toward Jesus as given in the 
Synoptists is not at all clear (Matt. xii, 46-50, xiii. 55; Mark iii. 21 (9), 
31-35, vi. 3; Luke viii. 19-20 5 Acts i. 14), and that he as well as Luke 
(i. 26-ii. 51), through important information, gives character to the picture 
of the mother of Jesus (ii. 3-5, xix. 25-27 ; ef. ii. 12, vi. 42), which is entirely 
colourless in the other Gospels. But it is worthy of note that throughout 
his narrative he calls her merely “ His mother,” only once “the mother of 
Jesus” (ii. 1), and never by her name, which Matthew uses 5 times, Luke 
(incl. Acts i. 14) 13 times, and Mark at least once.‘ John lets his adopted 
mother also participate in the anonymity of his whole family. 

5. (P. 209.) In John i. 41, ABMTPXIT have πρῶτον, also one of the 
later correctors of NS'S*, and a few minuscules, among which are two of 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 225 


the Ferrar group (69, 346, on the other hand not 124); N*LTAA and the 
mass of the remainder have πρῶτος. So also Sh. Moreover, there is not 
much more to gain on this point from the older versions. Sc Ss eliminate 
the characteristic passage, “and one of these disciples of John; Andrew was 
his name, the brother of Simon (Kepha,t Se). And this Andrew saw Simon 
Kepha on that day (so Ss; only “Simon Kepha,” Se) and said to him,” ete, 
The copyists who corrected πρῶτος to πρῶτον (N° from N*) certainly wished 
to have it understood not adverbially, but as an accusative ; because, to 
designate this deed as the first that Andrew did (cf. Matt. v. 24, vii. 5; 
John ii. 10, vii. 51; Rom. i. 8), would be meaningless in a connection where 
nothing of the further action of Andrew is told, and a closer time connection 
of ver, 40f. with vv. 35-39 is not expressed at all. Moreover, the accusative 
(cf. Matt. xvii. 27), which would mean that Andrew, as the first of those 
whom he found or of all who were found, found Peter, is impossible ; 
because, in the first place, the hypothesis, that Andrew had received and 
later carried out the command to seek men, would have no support in this 
connection, while the notion of Delff (Gesch. des Rabbi Jesus, 1889, Κ΄. 80), 
that not Jesus, but Andrew, is the subject of εὑρίσκει Φίλιππον, ver. 43, 
merits no refutation. But, secondly, τὸν ἴδιον would not suit such a con- 
nection ; instead of this, αὐτοῦ alone would have been more appropriate. 
We are, therefore, to read πρῶτος. But this finds its antithesis, of course, 
not in Philip who finds Nathanael later (ver. 45),—about which the reader 
knows nothing in ver. 41, and to which his attention is not called in ver, 45, 
—but in the other of the two men who have been already introduced. As 
the first of the two disciples of John who had followed Jesus, Andrew finds 
his brother (cf. John xx. 4, 8; Matt. xxii. 25; Rom. x. 19). In this way 
only is explained the strongly accented τὸν ἴδιον, which, just as πρῶτος here, 
and as ἴδιος everywhere (especially in connection with ἕκαστος, John xvi. 32 ; 
Acts ii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 23, 38), is intended adversely or distributively. 
Each of the two men finds his brother, but Andrew as the first finds his. 

6. (P. 210.) In regard to Nathanael= Bartholomew, cf. vol. ii. 524 and 
vol. i. 31; in regard to the variation of the list, ef. vol. ii. 522f.n.1. Späth 
(ZW Th, 1868, S. 168 ff., 309 ff.) wished to show that Nathanael is a pseudonym 
for the author, who, however, still wishes to pass for the apostle John. 
Aside from xxi. 2, where Nathanael stands next to the sons of Zebedee, the 
author through the use of this name would have made it absolutely impos- 
sible for the reader to identity him with the nameless disciple of xiii. 23 f,, 
etc., and especially to recognise in him the apostle of the wholly different 
name of John. The name Nathanael, which, according to the O.T., the 
Talmud (vol. i. 22), and Josephus (Ant, vi. 8.1, xx. 1.2), has been borne by 
Hebrews of all times, is said to be an entirely non-Hebrew invention of the 
Gospel, a Grecised (!) form of Elnathan or Jonathan (S. 324, 329f.). On the 
contrary, Hilgenfeld (Zf/WTh, 1868, 8. 450; ef. also N.T. extra Can. iv. 
(evangeliorum secundum Heb., sec. Petrum, ete.) 119) held firmly to his 
theory that Nathanael should= Matthias of Acts i. 23. The Apostolic Church 
Directory, which counts Nathanael among the twelve apostles, agrees im this 
with the correct interpretation, while its distinction of Nathanael and Bar- 
tholomew is as mischievous an invention as the distinction of Peter, and 
Cephas and the whole catalogue of such distinetions (N.T. extra Can.2 iv. 111). 

VOL. III. 15 


226 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


7. (P. 211.) In regard to the forms by which the authors introduce 
themselves in the Gospels, the Acts, and the other N.T. literature, ef. above, 
pp. 55, 86, n. 11. That Matthew, just as Xenophon or Thucydides, Polybius 
or Josephus, does not omit his name from the narrative, is fully counter- 
balanced by the fact that, in distinetion from them as well as the other 
historians of the N.T., he does not in any way identify the author with the 
Matthew mentioned in ix. 9, x. 3, or even hint at such identification, and 
that he offers absolutely no sort of substitute for the I of the author which 
fails in his whole book. That John in the prologue speaks of himself in the 
first person (plural), but in the narrative in the third person, is not especially 
remarkable. Josephus and many others have done the same (above, p. 86). 
The peculiarity of John consists merely in the twofold fact that he addresses 
the readers in the midst of the narrative (xix. 35; ef. xx. 31, above, p. 223, 
n. 1), and that in the same narrative where, as over against the “you” of the 
address an “I” or a “we” would be the more natural and more correct way 
for an author to designate himself, he retains the third person (μεμαρτύρηκεν, 
λέγει). But this is no more grossly inconsistent with good style than when 
one of us signs a letter: “Hearty greetings from your old friend, X,” or 
when, in petitions to a Minister of high rank, the latter is addressed as 
“ Your Excellency ” and “ You,” notwithstanding the writer of the petition, 
avoiding every “I,” speaks of himself constantly as the “ your most obedient 
servant”; or when a popular author writes: “Know, dear reader, that the 
writer of this is a grandson of the hero of his story.” In ancient times, also, 
we find examples of the same sort of awkwardness. With the more definite 
ἐγὼ Téprios ὁ γράψας (Rom. xvi. 22), ef. Mart. Polye. xx. 2, Εὐάρεστος ὁ γράψας, 
without ἐγώ (therefore in the third person with ὑμᾶς. . . ἡμῖν) ; also the 
appearance of the first and second person, even before the real greeting, 
which contradicts the style of the ancient form of greeting (see vol. i. 369. 
n. 1); or inscriptions such as those in Hogarth, Devia Cypria, p. 114, No. 36: 
“ Apollonius erected this column to his father and mother according to your 
own order.” : 

8. (P. 212.) The passage i. 35-39 is one of the most picturesque in the 
Gospel. The Baptist stands with two of his disciples; his eye falls upon 
Jesus (35 f., much more colourless ver. 29). The brief exclamation, “ Behold 
the Lamb of God,” attracts attention, and results in action (ver. 37). At first, 
not noticing those who were following Him, Jesus turns around (as He hears 
their steps) and lets His gaze rest in contemplation upon them. In direet 
form of speech, question, answer, and rejoinder follow. The Hebraistie form 
of address is retained. The ever memorable hour of the first meeting with 
Jesus is exactly noted, though the reader is left to infer the contents of many 
hours of conversation from the εὑρήκαμεν of Andrew. 

9. (P. 213.) In iv. 1 μαθηταί has the wider meaning ; but of μαθηταί, which 
immediately follows in iv. 2, has the narrower meaning, as, Of course, is to be 
understood in iii. 22-iv. 38. They are those who had been drawn by Jesus 
into His company to work with Him, and therewith commissioned (ἀπέσταλκα, 
iv. 38, ef. xiii. 20, xvii. 18, xx. 21) His ἀπόστολοι, xiii. 16. The number of 
the baskets, vi. 13, bears witness to the number of these disciples ; and where 
the question has to do with the distinguishing of these followers who adhered 
to Him from the beginning to the end as against the larger circle of the disciples 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 227 


who only temporarily accompanied Him, this number is three times expressly 
repeated, vi. 67, 70, 71, otherwise only one other time, xx. 24. It is signifi- 
cant, however, that the apostle John, as well as the apostle Matthew (x. 2) 
and Mark, who repeats the narratives of an apostle (vi. 30), uses only once 
the title ἀπόστολος (xiii. 16); while Luke, who was not an’apostle, makes use 
of it 6 times in the Gospel and about 30 times in the Acts. Their installation 
in office, which John no more narrates than the apostle Matthew, is designated 
by the former (otherwise only by Luke) as ἐκλέγεσθαι, vi. 70, xiii. 18, xv. 16, 
19, while he never uses this word of an act of Jesus which had to do with 
other men (also ἐκλεκτός, 1. 34, N* Sc Ss ete., only once of the Messiah). It 
is, therefore, to be considered a bold stroke that F. v. Uchtritz, Studien eines 
Laien über das Ev. nach Jo. 1876, S. 222, gave to the word in xiii. 18 another 
meaning from that which it has in vi. 70, particularly since in xiii. 10f., 
18-21, as in vi. 70f. (cf. xvii. 12), the same antithesis prevails between the 
whole of those present, whom Jesus had chosen, and the one member of this 
circle who forms the sad exception. The significance of Jesus’ choice of all 
those present is given us in the thrice repeated the twelve (vi. 67-71) ; but in 
chap. xiii. this is expressed by the name ἀπόστολος (xiii. 16) and by the 
ratification of the remaining disciples in their mission, xiii. 20,—7.e. ἀποστολή 
(Rom. i. 5; 1 Cor. ix. 2; Gal. ii. 8),—which was made necessary by the 
desertion of the apostle Judas. Also from the close connection of xv. 16 with 
ver. 18 it follows that ἐκλέγεσθαι does not signify reception into the number 
of the believing worshippers,—which no Gospel traces back to an ἐκλέγεσθαι 
of Jesus,—but to choice as apostles. They are those called to be preachers, 
xv. 20, 26 f. 

10. (P. 213.) With ἀγαπᾶν (xiii. 23, xix. 26, cf. xxi. 7, 20), φιλεῖν (xx. 2) 
is interchanged, as in the account of the similar relation to the brother and 
sisters of Bethany (xi. 3, 5, 36). The latter word is not confined to personal 
friendship (cf. per contra, xvi. 27, xxi. 15-17; 1 Cor. xvi. 22), though it is 
still the more distinctive expression for it. 

11. (P. 214.) Polyerates in Eus. H. H. v. 24. 3, Ἰωάννης ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ 
κυρίου ἀναπεσών. Similarly Iren. iii. 1. 1; Orig. in Eus. vi. 25.9; Jerome, 
Pref. Comm. in Mt. (Vall. vii. 3). By later writers ὁ ἐπιστήθιος ; cf. Routh, 
Reliquie Saere?, i. 42. The first exegete who formally states, and through 
appeal to John xxi. 24 establishes, what the others presuppose, namely, that 
the unnamed person in xiii. 23 is identical with the evangelist and apostle 
John, is Origen in Jo. (Ed. Preussen) tom. xxxii. 20. 

12. (P. 214.) When the Gospel to the Hebrews apparently makes James 
the Lord’s brother take part in the Last Supper (@K, ii. 700), it belongs to the 
realm of fable, if for no other reason because of the chronological contradiction 
which the whole narrative of the Supper would thus have with 1 Cor. xv. 7. 
We can no more infer from this inclusion of James in the circle of John xiii, 
that the redactor of this Gospel held James for an apostle, than that one who 
was not an apostle had taken part in the meal (cf. Forsch. vi. 277f.). Still 
less can the master of the house in which the Last Supper took place (as 
Delft, op. cit. 83, would have us believe), be thought of as a table companion, 
who then is to be identified further with the young man of Mark xiv. 51 ; for 
although a friendly relation between Jesus and this house must certainly have 
existed, it is not to be considered too intimate a one simply because of the 


228 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


question of the disciples (Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 19), and 
because of the way in which the two disciples are to find the house (Mark 
xiv. 13). With these facts as well as with such positive statements as Matt. 
xxi, 17, xxiv. 1-3, xxvi. 6; Mark xi. 11, 15, 19, 27, xiv. 3, 13,16; Luke xxi. 
37, xxii. 10, it is an irreconcilable fancy of Delfl’s (S. 89, 94) that this house 
was the regular lodging place of Jesus: The clothing of the young man men- 
tioned in Mark xiv. 51, and the distinction there made between him and the 
company of Jesus, excludes him from having had any part in the Supper. 
As to the actual facts in the case, see vol. ii. 491 f. Jesus does not send word 
to the master of the house that with him and his family, but that with His 
own disciples He wishes to keep the Passover in his house (Matt. xxvi, 18 ; 
Mark xiv. 14; Luke xxii. 11). Jesus and the Twelve made a household and 
a company at the table (Matt. x. 25; John xii, 6) of more than the requisite 
size for the Passover meal (ef. Ex. xii. 4). If, according to Jos. Bell. vi. 9. 3, 
the number of the participants might not be less than 10 (so also the Jeru- 
salem Targum on Ex. xii, 4), but sometimes rose even to 20, yet Josephus 
took the number 10 as that nearest the average for a basis of his reckoning 
of those present at the feast. 

13. (P. 216.) Here P. Cassel’s Das Ev. der Söhne Zebedäi (1870) should 
be named, and his Die Hochzeit von Cana (1883, S. 49-64). Cassel found 
these two brothers suggested in i. 35ff., and recognised in xili. 23, xix. 26, 
xx. 2 the John whose name was to some extent to be translated by ὃν ἠγάπα 
ὁ Ἰησοῦς. James was considered as the one referred to in xviii. 15. But 
when Cassel, against whose views up to this point there is nothing to be said 
(see above, p. 209 f.), distinguishes without reason (and no reason ean be dis- 
covered) the witness and the reporter in xix. 35 from the eye-witness of the 
death of Jesus in xix. 26f., he comes to the assertion that the ἑωρακώς, 
pepaprupnxos—who is designated also by ἐκεῖνος (xix, 35)—is James, and that 
therefore he and not John is the narrator in chaps. i.-xx. In other words, 
he claims that James is the actual author of the Gospel (S. 49 f.), which was 
written, consequently, before 44, and through the addition of chap, xxi. 
enlarged. by his younger brother John at a date considerably after the death 
of Peter, but published otherwise practically unchanged (S. 52-55). |The 
words, xxi, 24, οἴδαμεν--- ἐστίν (very inexactly quoted by Cassel, S. 55) are held 
by Cassel to be an ungenuine gloss taken fiom xix. 35. This is not, however, 
adhered to in his second work, 8. 57. 

14. (P. 219.) Throughout the Fourth Gospel an actual sense perception, 
or at least an experience comparable to this, and to be designated by this 
name, is posited as a presupposition of the μαρτυρεῖν, i. 34, iii, 11, 32 (v. 37), 
viii. 14, xii, 17 (xii, 41), xv. 27; 1 John i. 1-4, iv, 14; Rev. 1.2; cf. vol. ii. 
155 f. n, 9. 

15. (P. 219.) The Greek interpreters, in spite of the remarkable phrase- 
ology of xix. 35, have clung to the opinion that the evangelist himself is the 
only subject of all the verbs of this sentence (Chrys. Hom, lxxxv. in Jo., Montf. 
viii, 507). It is difficult to explain the statement of Cyril of Alexandria 
(Migne, Ixxiii. col. 677), oby ἕτερόν τινα σημαίνων, on the basis of any other 
interpretation of the ἐκεῖνος. This remained the ruling opinion, Even Baur 
did not make use of the passage to establish his opinion that the author 
throughout the Gospel pursued his purpose to be known by the readers as 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 229 


the disciple beloved by Jesus, and as John the apostle and the author of the 
Apocalypse, but refrained, however, from so announcing himself directly 
In fact, in xix. 35 as well as in 1. 14 it was rather a mere spiritual vision 
which the author had in mind (Krit. Unters. über die kan. Evv. 1847, 8. 
364-389). It was his pupil Köstlin (ΤΊ, 1851, S. 206-211) who, mainly 
from this passage, and especially from the ekeivos, first established the view 
that the author of John i.-xx. does not identify himself at all with the apostle 
John,—an identification which is first made by the author of xxi. 24,—but 
that he distinguishes clearly between himself, the author, and the apostle as 
his main authority. This was taken up by Hilgenfeld, who, however, more 
in the view of Baur, held that the purpose of the author was to pass for the 
apostle. At the same time, instead of following in the line of Köstlin and 
explaining xix. 35 as an uncontradictory expression of the author, who makes 
a clear distinction between himself and the apostle, he found in the very 
unnaturalness of the expression a proof that the author, who had written also 
xxi. 24 and thereby gave his book out for a work of the apostle, had in the 
determinative passage unintentionally betrayed his difference from the apostle 
(Die Evv. nach ihrer Entsiehung u. geschichtl. Bedeutung, 1854, S. 341; Der 
Paschastreit der alten Kirche, 1860, S. 151f., 403 ; Einl. 731). The discussions 
concerning ἐκεῖνος in John which this theory occasioned between G. Steitz 
(ThStKr, 1859, S. 497-506 ; 1861, 5. 267-310) and A. Buttman (ThStKr, 
1860, S. 505 ff. ; ΖΗ Th, 1862, 8. 204 ff.) have not helped to any clearness’ of 
exegesis. It is also of little interest to follow out the opinions of others in 
their wavering between the interpretations of Késtlin and Hilgenfeld. The 
present λέγει, with its added purpose in regard to the readers, leaves no doubt 
that the λέγων is the author who is here addressing the readers, and not some 
dead authority from whom the author directly or indirectly claims to have 
received the material and the spirit of his report. Such an authority does 
not speak to the readers in the present tense. Even if the author in a vivid 
representation could cite him as a witness still to be heard to-day (cf. i. 15), 
he could not have cited him as one addressing the readers and having their 
religious advancement in view. If, however, every reader had to recognize 
the author as the subject of λέγει, then the author was to be charged not with 
an ambiguous, but with a meaningless phraseology, in case we understand 
him as wishing to distinguish between the subject of Aeyeı which is not 
detached from the preceding statement either by a pronoun or in any other 
way (possibly ὅτι ὁ γράψας ἀληθῆ héyer)—and the subject of μεμαρτύρηκεν, and 
so of the ἑυρακώς, and the person again indicated by αὐτοῦ. The only question 
there can be is as to whether ἐκεῖνος also indicates the same subject ; cf. Forsch. 
vi. 183 f. and the following note. 

16. (P. 220.) The “ἐκεῖνος κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (Schol. on Aristoph. [Nub.], 
The Clouds, 195, ed. Dindorf, i. 196, compared with the “ αὐτὸς ἔφα" of the 
Pythagoreans) is used in John vii. 11, xix. 21 (ix. 12, 28) by those who stood 
far aloof from Jesus, or in unfriendly relations with Him. It is also used 
from a diseiple’s point of view in 2 Tim. ii. 13, where in the preceding 
sentence (συναπεθάνομεν κτλ.) Christ is not named, but is only to be under- 
stood as ‘referred to by the pronoun. In 1 John ii. 6, iii. 3, 5, 7, 16, iv. 17, 
it appears as a firmly established expression. The 6 θεὸς οἶδεν, 1 Cor. 
xi. 11, 31 (xii. 2,3), is formal, and the formule for solemn assertion in 1 Thess, 


230 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ii. 5, 10; Gal. i: 20; 2 Cor. i. 23, xii. 19; Rom. i. 9; ix. 1;..Phil. i: 8 (1 Tim. 
v.21; 2 Tim. iv. 1), especially 3 John 12, are to be compared with it as 
related in kind : To the testimony of the Church is added that of the ‘truth 
itself,” ae. of Christ (John xiv. 6; Papias in Eus. H. E, iii. 39. 3). For the 
truth of his own testimony, however, John does not appeal in this Epistle 
to his own consciousness, but to the knowledge of the recipient of the letter, 
Gerhard (Harmonia Ev. ad locum, ed. Jen. 1617, p. 874) mentions certain 
who haye applied the ἐκεῖνος to the soldier Longinus, who ran the spear into 
Jesus’ side ; and others (p. 883) who, in appeal to Rom. ix. 1, have referred it 
to Christ, as the present writer has done above and in Z/KW, 1888, S. 594. 
Recently essentially the same interpretation has been advocated by H. Dechent 
in ThStKr, 1899, S. 446 #f., and Hausleiter, Zwei apost. Zeugen für d. Jo. Ev. 
1904, 5. 27. Sanday also in The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905, shows 
himself favourably disposed towards this view, as doubtless others will be; 
cf. ET, 1905, Nov. p. 51. 

17. (P. 221.) The “presbyter John,” who owes his existence to the 
critical needs and devices of Eusebius (vol. ii. 452), served first as a suitable 
author of Rev., and incidentally also. as author of the shorter Epistles of 
John. More recently the Gospel also has been repeatedly ascribed to him, 
This hypothesis has been developed in fullest detail by the novelist and 
dramatic poet Fr. v. Uchtritz [+ 1875] (Studien eines Laien über das Ev. nach 
Jo. 1876), and without any consideration of this predecessor, who was far 
superior to him in suggestive speculations and in delicacy of treatment by 
the philosopher H. Delff (Gesch. des Rabbi Jesus von Naz. 1889, 8. 67-111 ; 
Das 4 Ev. ein authentischer Bericht über Jesus, 1890; Neue Beiträge zur 
Kritik u. Erklärung des 4. Ev. 1890 ; ThStKr, 1892, S. 72-104). Both agree 
that the nameless disciple (i. 35 ff., xiii, 23 ᾿ς xviii. 15 f., xix. 26 ff, xx. 2) is 
the author of the Gospel, yet not the apostle John, but the presbyter John of 
Ephesus. Uchtritz makes a few insuflicient attempts (S. 220 ff.), while Delff 
considers it superfluous to demonstrate how it was possible or even probable 
that one who was not an apostle should. partake of the Last Supper—over 
against the distinct ‚statement of the Synopties and of the Fourth, Gospel 
itself (above, pp. 214, 227 ff. nn. 9, 12).. Both leave unexplained the strange 
silence of the Fourth Gospel in regard to two of the three apostles who stood 
closest to Jesus, and as to the entire family of Zebedee (above, p. 211 f.), But 
both think that they can prove that the author, who appears as a member 
of the exclusively Galilean discipleship, of Jesus (i. 35-51, cf. vii. 52 ;, Mark 
xiv. 70; Acts ii. 7, in reference to all the disciples in Jerusalem) was no 
Galilean, but a man of Jerusalem, and did not belong to the regular follow- 
ing of Jesus. That this theory is wrecked by the inseparable connection 
of chap. i, with chaps. ii.-iv. has been already shown (p. 213 f.). Moreover, 
the acceptation of interpolations, by which Delff has tried to strengthen his 
hypothesis (Geschichte des Rabbi Jesus von Naz. S. 97 ff., Das 4 Ev. 8. 11-16. 
If we correct the entirely faulty numbering of the verses in accordance with 
the reconstruction of the text given in Das 4 Ev. S. 30-94, the following 
passages are omitted : i, 1-5, 9-18, ii. 1-11, 17, 21-22, iv. 44, 46-54, vi. 1-29, 
37-40, 40b, 54b, 59, vii. 39 [45-53 placed before 37, 38, 40-44], xii. 16, 33, 
38-41, xiii. 20, xx. 11-18; in 1890, xix. 35-37 was also added),—affords no 
help as long as there remains i. 61, according to which, even without the 


or” 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 231 


textually uncertain ἀπάρτι, the whole number of these newly won disciples 
are to be from that time onwards the witnesses of the wonder-revelation of 
Jesus, and as long as there is left xv. 27 (ef. xvi. 4), according to which the 
whole number of the table companions were constant followers of Jesus. 
From xix, 27, Uchtritz (S. 287) and Delff (Geschichte Jesu, S. 82) conclude 
that John possessed a house of his own, and that it was in Jerusalem (as to 
further fantasies of Delff, see above, p. 227, n. 12). With equal right one 
might conclude from John xvi. 32 that all the apostles were owners of 
houses in Jerusalem, and in the same night in which Jesus spoke these 
final words fled from His presence to their eleven dwellings. Cf. with the 
expression, Luke xviii. 28; Acts xxi. 6; Jos. Bell. i. 33. 8. Further, ar’ 
ἐκείνης τῆς Spas (Matt. xv. 28, xvii. 18) is not the same as ev ἐκ τ. Spa, John 
iv. 53; Luke vii. 21, or αὐτῇ τῇ Spa, Luke ii. 38, x. 21, xii. 12. The meaning 
is merely that, from the moment Jesus spoke, John fulfilled the duty of a 
son to the mother of Jesus, who was now, as it were, deserted—a filial care that 
must have appeared during the attendance upon the festival in Jerusalem 
in other ways, which through lack of information cannot be more definitely 
ascertained, as afterward it showed itself when both had returned to their 
residences in Capernaum (John ii. 12), whence Mary a few weeks later again 
came to Jerusalem (Acts i. 14, ii. 7) with the other Galilean women of the 
company of Jesus (Luke xxiii. 49, 55), her sons and the apostles, to dwell in 
that city for the future, as did the apostles and brothers of Jesus. The idea 
that Jesus could not have committed His mother thus to the apostle John, 
who himself had a mother that believed, in Jesus (Uchtritz, S. 204 1.), is due 
to the mistake of supposing that it was a question of providing John with a 
mother, instead of Mary with a son, who would consider her sorrow and take 
care of her as Jesus would have done. The natural sons of Mary were at 
all events not at that time the right ones for such a service (see vol. i. 104 f., 
vol. ii. 239 ἢ, ; Forsch. vi. 336 f. A. 1). Delff found support for further 
vagaries in xviii. 15, 16, according to which John was supposed to be a 
relative of Annas’ (rather of Caiaphas’, for he is the only one whom John 
designates as the high priest). But that γνωστός in the Bible, as sometimes 
γνωτός in the poets since Homer, ordinarily, or exclusively, designates the 
confidential friend, in the sense of relative, becomes no truer by repetition 
(e.g. Cremer, Worterb.? S. 223; Baljon, Woordenboek, i. 447). Luke xxiii. 49 
is clearly not to be thought of in this connection, while Luke ii. 44 so under- 
stood would be a useless redundancy; for that συγγενής designates the 
more distant, γνωστός the nearer, relative, is in view of Luke i. 61 (cf. i. 36) 
a groundless assertion. Asin Acts x. 24, where the combination ἀναγκαίους 
φίλους proves that not relatives but trusted friends are to be understood (cf. 
the proofs in Wettstein), so in Luke ii. 44 relatives and acquaintances are 
placed together. Moreover, no proof that yywords=“ relatives” can be found 
in the LXX. In Neh. v. 10: it is a free translation for 1yi=servant; in 
2 Kings x. 11, as is shown by the position of the optimates and sacerdotes 
(Vulg.) and the “and,” by which these three elasses are joined to the house 
of Ahab and the kingly princes (ef. vv. 6-8), relatives are not meant, but 
friends: belonging to the court, No other meaning is apparent in Ps. xxxi. 
12, ly. 14, Ixxxviii. 9,18. But Delff found in Polycrates of Ephesus, circa 
195 (Eus. H. E. v. 24. 3, above, p. 205, n. 27), another and more definite 


232 INTRODUCTION ΤΟΥ ΤΗΝ NEW ‘TESTAMENT 


evidence that the evangelist belonged to the high priestly aristocracy. Τη- 
asmuch as he desigriätes the John μηδ in Ephesus as the evangelist, but 
not as the apostle, it is claimed that he knew that he was no apostle, and 
this in contradiction to the conviction of his contemporary and fellow- 
countryman, Irenzeus, of his still older countrymen, the Alogi, and of Leucius 
Charinus, as well as of all the other heretics and Church teachers before and 
after his time (above, p. 177 f.). However, his statement ὃς ἐγενήθη ἱερεὺς τὸ 
πέταλον πεφορεκώς is said to bear witness to the fact that this same John, 
on one occasion on the Day of Atonement, without being ruling high priest, 
officiated in the full high priestly dress (Geschichte Jesu, S. 93; 4 Evangelium, 
S. 9) as substitute for the real high priest, who had been hindered, or, as he 
puts it later, when this view is rejected (ThStKr, 1892, S. 93), that John was 
“a priest of the first high priestly rank.” The aristocratic reserve which 
this man of rank, who had leaned on the breast of the Lord, is held to 
have observed toward the Church of Jesus, we may estimate by the fact that 
he possibly is identical with the John of Acts iv. 6 (read rather ’Iovadas) 
(Delff, Geschichte Jesu, S. 95). He is said to have written his Gospel before 
the destruction of Jerusalem for the sake of his colleagues in that city 
(ThStKr, S. 83-90). That the readers are twice addressed would then 
probably be explained by the fact that he had invited these mentioned in 
Acts iv. 6 to his reception room, and had read his composition to them, 
according to the custom of the literary men of the time, before he gave it to 
the publie at large. From beginning to end Delff has made simply an earnest 
effort to weaken by exegesis and criticism the witness found within the 
Fourth Gospel itself. Of the subterfuges by which Renan, Weizsäcker, 
Harnack, and others have thought to reach the same result, even this cannot 
be said ; cf. Forsch. vi. 186-190. 


§ 66. THE SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER. 


No other historical writing in the N.T., and few histori- 
cal writings of antiquity, have such a clear conclusion as 
does the Fourth Gospel in xx. 30f. Having in view the 
entire contents of the book, which he is now bringing to 
its close, the author declares to the readers, whom he here 
addresses for the second and last time (ef. xix. 35, and 
above, p. 223, nn. 1 and 2), that the σημεῖα of which an 
account is here given, as contrasted with many other 
miracles which Jesus performed in the presence of His 
disciples not recorded in this book, were written that they 
micht believe on Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and 
in this faith might enjoy the life which is to be had in His 
name, If it be, insisted that this distinction between the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 233 


signs of Jesus, which are recorded in this book, and those 
which are not recorded, is confined to the resurrection 
appearances of Jesus (xx. 14-29),—of which there is no 
indication and which is also extremely improbable, because 
the word. σημεῖα is much less adapted to describe these 
phenomena than it is the ἔργα and σημεῖα of which 
announcement is made in 1. 51, and which forms the frame- 
work of the entire narrative (ii. 11, 23, ii. 2, iv. 45, 54, 
v. 20, 36, vi. 26, 30, vii: 21, 31, ix. 16, χ. 32-38, 41, 
xi. 47, xii. 11, 18, 37, xv. 24),—then there is all the more 
reason for regarding chap. xxi. as a supplement to the 
book, added after its completion. For here‘ also we have 
the account of a σημεῖον wrought by Jesus in the presence 
of His disciples, and in xxi. 1, 14 this is connected with the 
two appearances of the risen Jesus of which an account is 
given in xx. 19-29, which is described as a third appear- 
ance, and which, in the nature of the case, has the same 
purpose as the preceding accounts. If, when xx. 30f. 
was written, the addition of this chapter had been con- 
templated, the only appropriate place for the verses would 
have been after xxi. 14, or rather after xxi. 23. 

There is clear evidence also that the composition of 
chap. xxi. has its own peculiar history. In general, this 
chapter has the stamp of the peculiar style of the Fourth 
Gospel (n. 1), which makes it impossible to treat it as an 
appendix added by some unauthorised hand, as we do, for 
example, Mark xvi. 9-20 (vol. ii. 467 £.) ; nor is it possible 
to cut out even a part of the chapter as an interpolation, 
as we do other portions of the Gospel, the style of which 
proves that they are not part of the original work (John 
vill. 1-11; see $ 69, n. 3). The relation of this chapter to 
the body of the book differs from that of such sections as 
these mainly in this, namely, that while it is possible by 
means of existing documents and patristic evidence to 
prove the absence of such sections from the books into the 
text of which they were interpolated, down to the Middle 


234 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Ages, so far as we know the Fourth Gospel never eireulated 
without chap. xxi., nor is there nearly so much uncertainty 
in the tradition of the text of this chapter as in the case of 
the interpolations mentioned (n. 2). Since now, as is 
indicated by the address to the readers (above, p. 207), 
the book was intended from the first for a Church, or a 
group of Churches, in close touch with the author,—which 
necessarily required that it be read in the congregations,— 
it follows that chap. xxi. must have been added to the book 
before it was circulated outside of this small circle. For if 
the book had been circulated without chap. xxi., there was 
no power on earth which could have prevented copies. of 
the Gospel from being read and multiplied without this 
final chapter. The only argument which can be opposed 
to this opinion is the fantastic idea, not worth refuting, 
that the canon of the Gospels was made by an official body, 
which had authority over the whole Church to withdraw 
from circulation and destroy copies of a Gospel already in 
use, and to substitute in their place the canonical recension 
of the same Gospel. 

Chap. xxi is therefore not to be thought of as an 
appendia, independent of the history of the origin of the 
Gospels, but as a supplement, added to the Gospel not 
long after it was written, and in the same region where it 
originated. The only interval which it is necessary to 
assume between the composition of chaps. i.-xx. and of 
chap. xxi., is that required for the feeling to arise that the 
supplement was necessary, which the author had not felt 
when he wrote xx. 30f., and for the need to be met. On 
the other hand, chap. xxi. cannot be referred to the author 
with the same directness as chaps. 1.-xx. The passage ex- 
hibits several differences from the main body of the book, 
which consist not so much in another style as in a different 
attitude of the narrator to the disciple whom Jesus 
especially loved and to his‘family. Whereas in chaps. L_xx. 
all the members of this family remain anonymous (above, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 235 


p. 211 f.), at the very beginning of chap. xxi. John and 
James, while not spoken of by name, are clearly designated 
as the sons of Zebedee (xxi. 2), as is sometimes the case 
in the other Gospels (Matt. xx. 20, xxvi. 37, xxvii. 56; ef. 
Mark x. 35; Luke v. 10). This impresses us all the more 
as an involuntary expression of the point of view natural 
to the author of this account, because in its course John is 
again characterised by a reference to xii. 23 without any 
name, as. in xix. 26, xx..2. But whereas,in xix. 26, xx. 2, 
this is done in the simplest possible manner, merely in 
order to prevent any doubt as to the identity of the 
person in question, in chap. xxi. more emphasis is placed 
upon the designation. The ἐκεῖνος in xxi. 7, which 15. not 
found in the parallel passages, and especially the detailed 
way in which the account in xi. 23-25 is recalled in xxi. 
20, show that someone else is here writing who is no longer 
influenced by the fear lest he should seem to sound his 
own praises. In xxi, 24 it is even more clear that some- 
one else, or rather a number of persons are speaking of 
the apostle and evangelist John in the third person. 
“This (1.6. the disciple concerning whom. an incident. is 
‚told in vv. 20-23) is the disciple that beareth witness of 
this (these things) and wrote this: and we know that his 
witness is true.” From its very nature, the “ we” includes an 
“I” and excludes the “he.” For this reason it is impossible 
to appeal on the one hand to i. 14, and on the other to 
xix. 35 in support of the idea that this “ we” includes the 
author of the book, while at the same time he is con- 
cealed behind the third person in ὁ μαρτυρῶν, ὁ γράψας. 
While in the prologue—+.e. outside the narrative sections 
of the Gospel—John does use “ we,” which, if occasion 
required, might have been changed to “I,” just as the 
“we” in xxi, 24 is changed naturally into “I” in the 
οἶμαι of xxi; 25 (n. 3), in the narrative sections he regu- 
larly uses the third person in referring to himself, even 
where, in addressing his readers, the use of the first person 


236 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


would seem to be more natural (xix. 35). It is true that 
xxi. 24, like the prologue, is not in the narrative sections 
of the Gospel, which makes it possible for the ‘‘ we” to in- 
clude the author of the book. But that in designating 
himself in the course of one short sentence the author 
should have so wavered and changed between “he” and 
“we” (including himself), it is impossible to assume. 
This abnormality is found neither in 1. 14-16 nor xix. 35, 
consequently not in xxi. 24. It is also rendered im- 
possible by the fact that the author of this particular 
Gospel is the last person to appeal to his own testimony to 
himself in affirmation of his truthfulness (above, p. 210 f.). 
We conclude, therefore, that others, who know him on the 
basis of their adequate experience, are here testifying to 
the readers of this book that the witness who speaks. to 
them in it is trustworthy. But, like the appeal to the 
Lord’s knowledge in confirmation of the truthfulness and 
pious purpose of the author in xix. 35, this testimony 
seems to be only an addition to the main affirmation, 
namely, that the disciple whom Jesus especially loved is 
the disciple who testifies to and wrote what precedes. 

It is unnecessary to prove that what is said in xxi. 
1-23 is included among the things to which he testifies (περὶ 
τούτων) and the things which he wrote (radra). The only 
question is whether the object of μαρτυρῶν and γράψας is 
to be confined to the contents of the supplement. This is 
altogether improbable. In the first place, while the con- 
cluding sentence of the preceding chapter, xx. 30 f., shows 
chap. xxi. is a supplement, there is nothing in the chapter 
itself to indicate that it is an independent account. ‘The 
passagé John xxi. 1 is connected with what precedes just as 
are John iii. 22, v. 1, vi. 1,— probably according to the cor- 
rect reading without ’Incods,— while xxi. 1, 14 refer back to 
xx. 19229, just as iv. 46, 54 do to 1. 1-11. While’chäp. 
xxi. is thus added as a supplement, it is really an essential 
part of the whole. Tf xxi. 24 referred exclusively to xxi. 


THE WRITINGS, OF JOHN 237 


1-23 this would necessarily be expressed, and, since vy, 
1-23 describe one continuous and uninterrupted event, this 
could have been done by the use of περὶ τούτου and τοῦτο 
(cf. μετὰ τοῦτο, 11. 12, as distinguished from μετὰ ταῦτα, iii. 
22). In the second place, if ver. 24 referred only to the 
supplement, every reader who understood it would ask who 
wrote chaps. 1._xx.; and if it was necessary to assure the 
readers that chap. xxi. was written by the beloved dis- 
ciple of Jesus, it was even more important to make clear 
to them who wrote chaps. .—xx. If this was omitted 
because it was self-evident, there must have been some 
hint to this effect in ver. 24, which could, have been very 
simply indicated by writing καὶ περὶ τούτου and καὶ τοῦτο. 
That disciple is the author also of the supplement, as he is 
known to be the author of the entire book. In the third 
place, reference is made in ver. 25 to a multitude of books 
which would have to be written in order to set forth in 
detail all the notable things in the history of Jesus, 
Here, as in xx. 30, a contrast is implied to the deeds of 
Jesus set forth in the Fourth Gospel, and to this one book 
with which the readers ought to be content. .Hence the 
person, who in ver. 24f. is speaking in the name of a 
number of persons of kindred mind with himself, has in 
view the entire book, which here reaches its final conclusion. 
John xxi. 24 refers to 1. 1-xxi. 23. 

To this conclusion it may be objected that traces of a 
hand other than that of the author of the entire book are 
to be found not simply in ver. 24f., but even from ver. 2 
onwards (above, p. 233). From this, to be sure, it would 
follow that the entire supplement was added by the friends 
of John, who came prominently to the front in ver, 24£. 
But this does not harmonise with the statement of this 
very verse, that John was the author of the supplement 
as well as of the rest of the book; or, if the statement 
concerning the authorship of chap. xxi. was written hy 
another hand, there would be the same authority for the 


238 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


authorship of the entire Gospel. The latter conclusion is 
certainly to be rejected ; since from chaps. 1._xx. it has 
been shown (§ 65) that the apostle John is here conceived 
of and represented, not as an authority upon whom the 
author depended, but as himself the author of the book, 
and since, from the difference in the way in which John is 
referred to in chap. xxi. and chaps. 1.—xx., it has been con- 
cluded that chap. xxi. is not from the same hand as chaps. 
i._xx. Consequently the testimony of xxi. 24 (ὁ γράψας 
ταῦτα) agrees literally with the result of the exegetical 
study of these preceding chapters. This is not so, how- 
ever, with regard to xxi. 1-23. At the same time there 
is nothing peculiar about the use of ὁ γράψας ταῦτα in 
connection with this supplement. As good a letter writer 
and author as Paul regularly made use of an amanuensis 
to whom he dictated ; accordingly Peter could say that he 
had written a short letter to the Christians of Asia Minor 
just as though he had written it with his own hand, 
although he had not even dictated it, but, after stating 
what he wanted written, had left its entire composition 
to Silvanus (1 Pet. v. 12, vol. ii. 149f.). As regards xxi. 
1-23, this or some similar relation must have existed 
between John, who in xxi. 24 is declared to be the author 
of the supplement, and the men who in ver. 24f. are 
clearly distinguished from him, providing the observations 
which show that this account was written by someone 
else than John, and the testimony of xxi. 24 are both 
allowed due weight. With John’s consent, or even at 
his suggestion, persons who were near him recorded the 
things which he more than once had related to them, and 
which he certainly repeated before he wrote them down. 
If they were conscious of having added nothing of their 
own, and of having omitted nothing contained in John’s 
communications, they could say that John was the author 
of this account; nor is there any apparent reason why 
they should have distinguished sharply between the direct 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 239 


Johannine authorship of chaps. i.-xx. and his indirect 
authorship of xxi. 1.-23. There would be occasion to 
charge these persons with culpable inaccuracy, which 
could hardly be defended against the suspicion of being 
intended to deceive the readers, only in case the apostle 
had left behind him as his work chaps. 1.-xx., and after 
the apostle’s death the author of chap. xxi. had added the 
supplement without his knowledge or consent.’ But this 
assumption is to be rejected not only because of the 
apparent candour of xxi. 24 and the naive tone of ver. 
25, but mainly because it contradicts the language of 
ver. 24. 

The first statement of ver. 24 concerning John is not 
ὁ γράψας ταῦτα, but ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων ; and not only 
the order of the words is significant, but the change in the 
tense. If uaprupety here as μεμαρτύρηκεν in xix. 35 referred 
to the testimony which John gave when he wrote his 
book, including the supplement, the only appropriate 
place for it would be after γράψας ταῦτας In this case 
also the use of μαρτυρῶν instead of μαρτυρήσας or μεμαρ- 
τυρηκώς would be unnatural, but might be justified on the 
ground that the act of writing belongs entirely in the 
past, while testifying by means of a book which outlives 
its author is continuous, lasting as long as the book is 
read (cf. John v. 46 with v. 39). But if these were what 
the writer meant, μαρτυρῶν would in that case have to 
follow γράψας, because the continuous testifying is the 
result of the preceding act of writing. When there is 
also taken into consideration the fact that, according to 
the reading, which is probably correct (ὁ ypawas, see n. 2), 
“the writer” and “the witness” are two ideas independent 
of each other, which it is possible to refer to two different 
persons, there can be no doubt that John’s testifying is 
thought of as independent of his writing. The former 
‘still continued at the time when xxi. 24 was written; 
so the author writes the present, ὁ μαρτυρῶν : the latter 


240 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW ‚TESTAMENT 


belonged to the past; so he uses the aorist, ὁ γράψας, 
This proves that John was still living when this was 
written. For, in view of the use of the aorist. participle, 
it is stylistically impossible that the present should have 
been chosen in order to make vivid oral testimony of the 
past (ef, John 1. 15, μαρτυρεῖ and also κέκραγεν), or that the 
present participle should be used without reference to time, 
—as is not infrequently the case in John’s writings (e.g. 
i. 29),—because after the death of John his oral testimony 
quite as much as the composition of the Gospel belonged 
to the past. 

That John was still alive when the supplement was 
added, follows with even greater certainty from xxi. 20-23. 
It is clearly a mistake to seek in these sentences the main, 
still less the exclusive purpose of the supplement. What 
precedes has independent meaning, and even without vv, 
20-23 would not only be worth telling for its own sake, 
but would be also a real addition to the book. Just as in 
xx. 21-23 all the apostles are newly confirmed in the 
calling for which they seemed to be rendered, incapable 
by the shattering of their faith (xvi. 32, xx. 9); so im 
xxi. 3-17 in a particular way, Peter who, after the traitor, 
yielded most to the temptations of the. hours of Jesus’ 
passion (xiii. 38, xvill. 17-27), is confirmed anew in his 
calling, and indeed on both sides of the apostolic office— 
1.6. as regards the task of winning men for the kingdom 
of God and of Christ by preaching (vy. 3-11), and as 
regards the office of directing the life of the Church (vy. 
15-17, n. 4). 

But this confirmation of Peter concludes with. pro- 
phecies as to his personal fate, and indirectly also as to the 
fate of John, the right understanding of which on the part 
of the readers is manifestly a matter of concern to the 
narrator. In the first of these prophecies it is revealed 
to Peter that in his old age, as contrasted with his youth, 
the impulsive and intrusive character of which was still 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 241 


constantly creating trouble for him (xii. 6-10, 36-38, 
xvii. 10-11, 17, 25, 27),—qualities which come to view 
again in this chapter (xxi. 7), although not in a dangerous 
way,—he shall streteh out his hands like a helpless old 
man for support and for someone to lead him, while others 
shall put his elothes upon him, and even compel him to go 
where he does not wish to go. If this had meant that at 
the end of his life he was to be given over to the power 
of his enemies, he could not possibly have understood 
that the added injunction of Jesus to follow Him signified 
only that he was to accompany the Lord a few steps 
further until He disappeared from view, as in the earlier 
resurrection appearances. Peter prepares to obey at once 
the command literally ; but he could not do this without 
endeavouring to discover in this, as in the other commands 
and transactions of that day, a deeper symbolic and pro- 
phetic meaning. When Peter connected this command 
with the prophecy of ver. 18, and recalled the conversation 
of xiii. 36-38, he must have understood it to mean—if 
not at once, certainly as soon as he thought the matter 
over—that after a long life he was to follow the Lord 
into the other world by a violent death (n. 4). We have 
already seen (vol. ü. 211 ff.) that Peter did actually under- 
stand these words and xii. 36 in this way (2 Pet. 1. 14). 
These words of Jesus could not be taken to mean more, 
either by Peter or by anyone else who heard them. But 
in ver. 19a the narrator gives the first saying—which is 
clearly a prophecy (ver. 18)—an interpretation which no 
amount of reflection upon the language of the passage 
could of itself produce. According to this interpretation, 
Jesus indicated in this prophecy by what death, «.e. by 
what kind of a death, Peter should glorify God. Since 
the language of the prophecy does not even suggest a 
violent death, much less a particular kind of death, such 
as beheading, strangling, or crucifixion, the interpretation 
given by the writer of the supplement must have origin- 
VOL. ΠῚ 16 


242 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ated after Peter’s death, being suggested by the death 
itself. All doubt in this point is removed when ver. 19a 
is compared with xii. 33 (ef. xviil. 32), which is in all 
respects parallel, and when there are recalled the express 
remarks of the evangelist in two instances, which are at 
least similar to the effect that it was not until after their 
fulfilment that the disciples understood the meaning of 
prophetic utterances and symbolie actions of Jesus (11. 22, 
xi, 16;;ef vii 61f., vi. 89m. 7, 19; xiv. 20, 26,29; 
xvi. 4, 12f., xvi. 9, xx. 81). After Peter was crucified 
in Rome in the year 64 (vol. 1. 165 ff.), Jesus’ words to 
Peter, which made such a profound impression upon Peter’s 
own mind (2 Pet. 1. 14), but which heretofore had remained 
somewhat mysterious, were called to mind. Now, in the 
light of what had taken place, it was no longer possible 
to think that in John xii. 36, xxi. 19b, Jesus had meant 
to express only the unimportant truth that Peter would 
sometime die and leave the world, like all men and like 
Jesus Himself. Since Peter died a martyr’s death, it was 
natural in the command to follow Him to find the suggestion 
to Peter that he like Jesus was to die for the sake of God 
and the truth, 1.6. that he was to suffer a martyr’s death. 
Since, moreover, Peter like Jesus was crucified, it was felt 
necessary to take the prophetic description of Peter's de- 
clining years in xxi. 18—especially the stretching out of 
his hands and arms—as a prophetic forecast of this par- 
ticular manner of death (n. 4). 

After the death of Peter, it seemed to the Church as if 
all Jesus’ various prophecies about Peter's work as a fisher 
of men and as the shepherd of the flock, about the patience 
he would have to learn, about his martyrdom and the 
particular manner in which he was to die, had been ful- 
filled. Thereafter it was almost inevitable that all who 
were familiar with the story related in xxi. 15-22 should 
endeavour to interpret the saying of Jesus with reference 
to John as it had been interpreted with reference to Peter. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 243 


When Jesus replied to Peter, who wanted to apply te 
John the same command that he had received, “ If I will 
that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” and when 
the command to Peter was repeated with strong emphasis 
upon the contrast between him and John, “ Follow thou 
me,” it seemed as if this could only mean that John was 
not to follow Jesus in the sense in which the word of Jesus 
had found fulfilment in Peter’s case—in other words, he 
was not to die a martyr’s death. It seemed at least 
possible that John should not die at all, but live until the 
Lord’s return, an event which makes death impossible for 
those of His followers who witness it. Words of Jesus like 
Matt. xvi. 28, Mark ix. 1, Luke ix. 27 gave this interpreta- 
tion a certain justification. Especially if John survived 
Peter and the other apostles a considerable number of years, 
it was very natural to regard the long life of this apostle 
as proof that he was destined to live until the parousia. 
This view actually became current and assumed the form 
of a definite judgment, “That disciple shall not die” 
(ver. 23). But this judgment is decisively opposed by 
the narrator, and inasmuch as this is the last thing which 
he says about this event,—indeed, the last word before the 
conclusion in ver. 24 f. which relates to the entire book,— 
it is clear that the story in vv. 20-22 was told primarily 
to correct the false interpretation of it which had become 
current. 

If this be so, it follows also that chap. xxi. was written 
while John was still living, a conclusion which has often 
been misunderstood and even rejected. If John died and 
was buried in Ephesus, this was a conclusive and final 
refutation of the idea that, according to a prophecy of 
Jesus, he was not to die, but to live until the parousia. 
If, notwithstanding John’s death and burial, the super- 
stition grew up that his death was only apparent, that he 
had secretly fled, as Nero was said to have done, and 
would appear again when the Lord came, all that the 


244 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


author says—his account of the event which gave rise to 
the superstition, the reminder that Jesus did not say in so 
many words that John was not to die, and the repetition 
of the hypothetical statement of Jesus—would be an 
entirely inadequate refutation of the belief. The only 
effective argument against such a superstition would be 
an appeal to those who witnessed John’s death, and above 
all a reference to the grave which was outside the eity 
gate. If, however, at the time when the supplement was 
written the superstition had grown to the point where it 
was claimed that John, who had seemed to die and was 
really buried, was still living in his grave, or that the 
grave had been opened by a miracle and that John had 
escaped, against such μῦθοι γραώδεις, vv. 20-21 would be 
merely childish prattle. When ridicule and reproof failed, 
the only effective answer to such foolishness was spade and 
shovel. But there is no need for these hypothetical con- 
siderations, since it is certain that, from the time of John’s 
death about 100 until the time of Polycrates in 190 and 
long afterwards, no one in Ephesus questioned the fact 
that John had really died and was resting in his grave like 
other men (above, p. 193 f.). 

It has been maintained that vv. 20-23 were not in- 
tended to refute the story about John’s immortality, but 
the claim made after John’s death to the effect that Jesus 
had been mistaken in His prophecy. But who would 
have ventured to make such a claim? ‘The fact that 
Jesus connected His prophecy about His return almost 
inseparably with His prophecy about the destruction of 
Jerusalem (Matt. xxiii. 36-xxiv. 35), and the faet that 
decade after decade passed after the destruction of Jeru- 
salem without the Lord’s return, furnished the strongest 
possible temptation for claims of this sort. But there is 
not the slightest evidence that between the years 70 and 
170 the Church lost its faith in the parousia, much less 
its confidence in the truthfulness and infallibility of Jesus, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 245 


There was a disposition manifested before the year 70, 
even in the reproduction of Jesus’ prophecies, to interpret 
elastically the chronological statements that seemed to 
relate to the parousia (vol. 1. 500f. ; cf. above, p. 158 f.); 
and in the decades after the year 70, men waited entirely 
confident of the truthfulness of Jesus, and certain that 
His promise of His return would be fulfilled. To be 
sure, before the year 70, as well as afterwards, there 
were, of course, weak souls whose faith in the promise, 
like their faith in everything else, wavered, requiring to 
be strengthened by argument and exhortation (Jas. v. 
7-11; 2 Tim. ü. 11-13; Heb. iii. 6-iv. 11, x. 35—xii. 29); 
there were also mockers who despised all the prophecies of 
Jesus (2 Pet. iii. 3-13). But in the present instance it is 
not a case of frivolous mockery, or of a general weakness 
of faith, but of a wrong interpretation of a single saying 
of Jesus’ which was current among the brethren,—among 
believers who were members of the Church,—and a wrong 
expectation regarding John based upon this interpretation, 
both of which errors could persist only until John’s death. 
To attempt their refutation after this event would have 
been foolish. But it would have been even more foolish 
to reply to an unfavourable judgment concerning Jesus 
and His prophecy, without so much as intimating that 
there were such impious opinions in the Church, and that 
they had arisen because of the contradiction between 
Jesus’ prophecy and John’s death. But the most foolish 
thing of all would have been the refutation of such opinions 
by the means which the author uses. A man of any in- 
telligence at all would have attempted the refutation of 
an unfavourable opinion regarding Jesus, which was based 
upon an alleged contradiction between a saying of His 
and the later course of events, only in one of three ways. 
It would have been necessary for him either to deny out- 
right that Jesus had said what was attributed to Him 
and was declared to be a false prophecy ; or, if Jesus 


246 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


really did speak the word which was interpreted as an 
unfulfilled prophecy, to prove that this interpretation was 
false, which eould have been accomplished only by giving 
another definite interpretation of Jesus’ words ; or, if this 
was impossible, he would have to show that this undeniable 
and perfectly clear prophecy was fulfilled by facts which 
his opponents had not properly appreciated (n. 5). The 
author does none of these things, He does not deny that 
Jesus spoke the word the meaning or fulfilment of which 
was in question ; he mentions no fact which could be con- 
sidered its fulfilment ; he does not oppose a wrong inter- 
pretation of the word of Jesus in question by another 
which could satisfy the reader. The only objection which 
he makes to the widely current interpretation of the saying 
is, that it does not correspond to the language used. It 
varies in two ways: (1) It takes for granted that “to 
tarry until the Lord comes” is equivalent to “not to 
die”; (2) it overlooks the hypothetical character of the 
saying and makes out of it an unconditioned affirmation. 
But this reply, which would have been so foolish if 
John had been dead for ten or thirty years, is natural and 
to the point if it was written in the interval between the 
death of Peter and that of John. Just as the crucifixion 
of Peter made possible a clear and certain interpretation 
of the two sayings of Jesus about him (vv. 18, 19),—as 
was true also in the case of other significant or enigmatical 
words and deeds of Jesus (ii. 19, 22, xii, 14-xvi. 32 f.),— 
so the author of chap, xxi. and John who stood behind 
him desired that a final judgment about the saying of 
Jesus referring to John be withheld until the Lord had 
made good His word by deeds. Different possibilities 
were conceivable. What Jesus had promised in a purely 
hypothetical sense could actually happen in exact keeping 
with its language, ze. the Lord might return before John’s 
death. It was also possible that John might die before 
the parousia. In the latter case, the Church found it 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 247 


necessary either to be satisfied with the belief that Jesus 
had spoken of a possibility which was not expected to be 
realised, simply in order to rebuke Peter, and to safeguard 
the freedom of His action, or to take the saying about 
Jesus’ coming in an elastic sense, interpreting it in the 
light of events, as they had already learned to do in the 
case of Matt. xvi. 28. In this particular instance they 
would have to refer it toa single event of the last time 
connected with the parousia, namely, to the destruction of 
Jerusalem, which would make Jesus’ prophecy mean that 
Peter would die before the year 70, John not until after 
this date. 

We reach accordingly the following conclusions as the 
result of a purely exegetical study of chap. xxi., par- 
ticularly of vv. 18-23 and ver. 24: (1) The supplement, 
chap. xxi., was written subsequent to the death of Peter, 
but while John was still living ; (2) it was not written by 
John with his own hand, but by persons closely associated 
with him who composed this account with John’s consent, 
probably at his suggestion and upon the basis of his oral 
statements. It was added as a supplement to the com- 
pleted Gospel, and from that time onwards remained an 
inseparable part of it. (3) These same persons testify 
that John is the author of the entire book, making their 
testimony cover also the supplement, without expressly 
saying that John’s authorship of chap. xxi. was indirect, 
as is affirmed in (2), but without in the least concealing 
this view. Proposition (3) agrees with the testimony of 
chaps. i.-xx. concerning itself (§ 65) and the unanimous 
tradition (§ 64); but in view of objections to this threefold 
witness to the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, the 
trustworthiness of the statement remains to be tested 
(§ 69). Proposition (2) is not confirmed by a certain 
tradition which is independent of the text of the supple- 
ment. The stories of the teachers of Clement of Alex- 
andria and the stories of the Muratorian Canon, as well as 


248 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the manner in which later writers tell of the amanuensis 
of whom John made use in the composition of his Gospel 
(above, pp. 178 f., 196 f., nn. 4-6), may be echoes of the 
fact that the friends of John had a part in the completion 
and the publication of the Fourth Gospel. But proposition 
(2) does not require the confirmation of external tradition, 
since it is proved absolutely by xxi. 24 and confirmed by 
observations on xxi. 1-23 (above, p. 233 f.). The fact that 
there is no clearer evidence in the tradition for proposition 
(2) is satisfactorily explained by the circumstance that 
the supplement itself, in the same sentence in which it is 
clearly indicated that it was written by friends of John, 
speaks of John as the real author of the supplement as 
well as of the Gospel. It is also explained by the fact 
that proposition (1) was firmly held by the tradition. 
Irenzeus calls John not only the author, but also the pub- 
lisher of his Gospel (n. 6); and Papias testifies even more 
emphatically, and with unmistakable reference to chap. 
xxi, that the Gospel was published and given to the 
Church by John while he was still living (n. 2). Then 
there is the added fact that everywhere and always the 
Gospel was transmitted and circulated with chap. xxi. 
attached, which would be inconceivable if chap. xxi. was 
added to it after the author of chaps. i.—xx. had published 
this book which he had written for the Church, and sub- 
sequent to his death. If this were the case, we should 
expect the same or similar phenomena in the tradition 
of the text that we find in the case of Mark xvi. 9-20. 
Finally, as has been shown, xxi. 18-23 is meaningless the 
moment it is assumed that this account was written after 
the death of the disciple whom Jesus particularly loved. 
In view of all these considerations, it may be said to be 
established beyond the possibility of critical doubt that 
chap. xxi., as well as the entire Gospel, was written and 
put into cireulation before the death of Jesus’ long-lived 
disciple, John of Ephesus, 2.6. before the year 100. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 249 


1. (P. 233.) Eberhardt, Ev. Jo. cap. 21, 1897, gives on S. 7-19 a review of 
the criticisms which have been made of this chapter, and on S. 73-78, as well aa 
in the intervening comment a varied assortment of remarks in regard to its 
language as compared with that of chaps. i-xx. Much more thorough is the 
work of Horn, Abfassungszeit, Geschichtlichkeit und Zweck von Ev. Jo. ο. 21, 1904. 
Words and phrases which are found elsewhere only or almost only in John 
are (A=chaps. i.-xx., B=chap. xxi.) : davepovv ἑαυτόν, φανεροῦσθαι, B 1. 14 (3 
times, A 6 times ; elsewhere only in Mark iv. 22, and then without reference to 
Jesus, and twice in the ungenuine supplement, Mark xvi. 12, 14) ; ἡ θάλασσα 
ἡ Τιβεριάς, B 1 (similarly only in A vi. 1); ek τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ dio, B 2 (just 
so Ain 1. 35; cf. ix. 16, xii. 42); ὀψάριον, Β 9, 10, 13 (again only in A vi.9, 11; 
for this in the parallels we have ἐχθύς) ; the asyndeton λέγει αὐτοῖς, αὐτῷ 
with and without an expressed subject, B 3 (twice), 6, 10, 12, 15, 16 (3 times), 
17 (twice), 22 (very frequently in John alone, sometimes in Matt. See 
vol. ii. 591, note 7); also λέγει οὖν, B 5, 7 (A vii. 6, xii. 4); further, in 
general a more abundant use of οὖν (B, 8 or 9 times in the whole of Mark, 
certainly not more than 7 times ; on the other hand, in A oftener than in Matt., 
Mark, Luke, and Acts together). ἀμήν, ἀμήν, B 18 (elsewhere only A); inter- 
change between ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν, B 15-17 (ef. A xix. 26 with xx. 2). Com- 
pare the entire sentence B 19 with A xii. 33; further, τοῦτο ἤδη τρίτον, B 14, 
and πάλιν δεύτερον, B 16, with A iv. 54 ; ὡς ἀπὸ πηχῶν διακοσίων, B 8, with A xi. 
18; also B 4b with xx. 14. Also in Bas in A, Jesus is designated regularly 
by His personal name (13 or 14 times), and within the narrative, merely in 
view of a former remark of the disciples and from their standpoint, by 
ὁ κύριος (xxi. 12 ; cf. ver.7). The latter occurs in A only in iv. 1 (?), vi. 23, xi. 
2, and in xx. 18, 20, just as in xxi. 12. Cf., on the other hand, Mark xvi. 19 
and vol. ii. 476. Further, “Simon Peter” is given in B 5 times, in A 12 
times ; as “ Son of John” only in B 15-17 and A i. 48 ; Thomas called Didy- 
mus B 2, otherwise only A xi. 16, xx. 24. Only in B 2 and A i. 46 ff. is 
Nathanael mentioned ; but here for the first time—that which helps us to 
understand the connection of ii. 1 with i. 46 ff.—his origin from Cana is stated, 
and in a form which, both because of the superfluous addition τῆς Γαλιλαίας 
(ef. ii. 1, iv. 46) and in view of the ἀπό (1. 45, 46, xi. 1, xii. 21, xix. 38, other- 
wise only in Matt. xxvii. 57; Mark xv. 43; Luke xxiii. 51), is genuinely 
Johannine. The παιδία used once in address in B 5 (cf. 1 John ii. 14, 18) with 
the once used rexvia, A xiii. 33, is of no consequence ; but the ἀρνίον, B15 (Rey. 
29 times instead of ἀμνός, A i. 29), and προβάτιον, B 16, 17, instead of πρόβατον 
(A x. 1-28), are full of significance, The interchange between lamb and sheep, 
however, is plainly only an interchange, just as that between ἀγαπᾶν and 
φιλεῖν, and the diminutive forms have reference to the need of protection and 
care of the flock which is given into the charge of the shepherd. For the use 
of οἱ ἀδελφοί, B 23,—instead of which οἱ μαθηταί (thus Ss) would have been 
misleading, since the latter would have been understood of the apostles while 
the former designates the members of the Church,—there would have been 
absolutely no opportunity in A, except perhaps in the prologue, where there 
was, however, no urgent need of it, Naturally xx. 17 is no parallel. 1 John 
iii. 14, 16; 3 John 3, 5, 10, however, offer good comparison. The πρωΐας 
γινομένης OT γενομένης, xxi. 4 (cf. Matt. xxvii. 1), would have been out of place 
in xviii. 28, xx. 1, because the previous context does not inform us that some- 


250 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


thing had happened in the night before. But from the point of view of style 
ὀψία ἐγένετο, Vi. 16, is quite similar. 

2. (Pp. 234, 239.) To the testimony of all the Greek MSS. and of all the old 
versions (also Ss, though Se. is defective), is to be added the above mentioned 
statement of Papias, pp. 178, 196, n. 4, which is intelligible only if the Fourth 
Gospel was already supplied with the supplement, which through ver. 24 
could make it appear as if not John himself, but others after his death, had 
published the Gospel. It is also noteworthy that Tatian in the Diatessaron 
has worked up the substantial contents of chap. xxi. (Forsch. i. 218), and that, 
following the combined testimony of the Arabic and of the Latin Diatessaron, 
he concluded his work with John xxi. 25 as he began it with Johni. 1 (@K, 
ii. 554). What is said above on p. 234 of the whole chapter holds also of 
ver. 25, which Tischendorf has excluded from the text. The former opinion 
that this verse is wanting in Codex 63 at Dublin, which formerly belonged to 
Usher, has been refuted by Scrivener, more thoroughly by Gwynn (Herma- 
thena, vol. viii. No. 19, 1893, pp. 1-7). The latter has shown in the same 
article, pp. 7-17, on what a weak foundation Tischendorf’s opinion rests, that 
ver. 25 and the signature of the book in X were not written by the first hand, 
but by the hand of the contemporary corrector. In fact, Tregelles, who 
had seen the Dublin codex, opposed Tischendorf’s view, while the spelling 
κατὰ Ἰωάννην instead of ’Ioavnv, which is peculiar to the corrector (N ), is 
decisive. There is, therefore, no manuscript evidence against ver. 25. A 
scholiast also, who explains it as a marginal note which had gradually worked 
into the text (in Wettstein N.T. i. 964, and Matthaei, Hv. Jo. p. 354. Accord- 
ing to the Cod. Vatic. Regin. 9, fol. 1976, in Mai, N. patr. bibl. vii. 1. 407, this 
was Theodore of Mops.), bears witness that ver. 25 is found in all MSS. But 
if the case were otherwise, every critic would have to hold that the simple 
hyperbole of the expression had induced pedantic writers to expurgate it. As 
Tatian in the Diatessaron, so also the probably still somewhat older Acts of 
Peter have taken ver. 25 into account ; for if the ἃ ἐχωρήσαμεν ἐγράψαμεν to 
which Peter there gives expression (ed. Lipsius, p. 67, 2: preserved in the 
Greek by Isidorus of Pelusium ; cf. GK, ii. 848 A. 2, 849 A. 2, 851) both in 
the name of the other apostles and especially of the sons of Zebedee, is based 
primarily upon 1 John i. 1-4, still the expression ἐχωρήσαμεν which is not 
found in the Epistle passage, and which in the Acts of Peter is at once taken 
up again in χωρητικῶς (capaciter), proves that there is reference at the same 
time to John xxi. 25. Origen (in Jo, tom. xiii. 5f., xix. 10, xx. 34; ef. Eus. 
H. E. vi. 25) and Isidorus, who through Jewish polemic against John xxi. 25 
had his attention called to the passage of the Acts of Peter, and also Bengel, all 
understood χωρῆσαι to concern the intellectual comprehension. Leucius both in 
the Acts of John and the Acts of Peter had already given a similar interpretation, 
only that at the same time he connects it with the uncertainty and incomplete- 
ness of the sense perception of Jesus’ being which was conditioned by the muta- 
bility of His bodily appearance? Cf. Forsch. 6, 195 f. That Theodore of Mops. 
pronounced ver. 24, or ver. 25, or the entire chapter as spurious, is pure myth. 
Where Mill (N.T., 1707, Proleg. p. xxix) obtained his note in regard to Theodore 
which Eberhart, 8. 8, so remarkably misinterpreted, the present writer has no 
knowledge. According to the Syrian Ischodad, circa 850 (cod. Sachau, 311 fol. 
163 ; ef. Goussen, Stud. theol. i. p. 111), Theodore would have eliminated John 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 251 


v. 4 and xxi. 25 from the text. Barhebr&us (in Ev. Jo., ed. Schwartz, p. 24) 
repeats this statement, but refers this opinion to people generally (φασίν 
rıves)instead of to Theodore. According to the Syriac translation of Theodore’s 
commentary on John, with whose conclusion Prof. L. Abel aequainted the 
present writer by a copy of the Cod. Sachau, 217 fol. 280%, at Berlin, Theodore 
adds to the text of xxi. 24 and 25 given in full by him nothing further 
than this: “These are sentences (xdinp) which are not from John, but 
(belong) to someone else. And here we conclude the seventh book, with 
which this writing (that of the commentary on John) ended and was com- 
pleted.” It follows from this that Theodore did not at all dispute the 
_ Johannine authorship of xxi. 1-23, but merely, as a good exegete, had con- 
cluded from the plural οἴδαμεν that ver. 24 and with it ver. 25 were not 
written by the hand of John himself, but by that of some unknown person. 
In the Cod. Syr. 308 at Paris, upon which the printed edition is dependent 
(Theodorus Mops., Comment. in Ev. Jo. versio syr., ed. Chabot, Paris 1897), the 
concluding sentence (p. 412) runs literally as follows: “ But these sentences 
from ἔστεν δὲ καί onwards, and up to this point, the Commentator says, are not 
by John, but by another, whoever that may be.” The writer of this MS, 
forgets his röle when he speaks of Theodore, who by the Syrians bears the 
honorary title of “the commentator” as of another person, probably in order 
to entirely remove from himself the responsibility of this critical remark. 
At the same time, however, he confines the criticism expressly to ver. 25; 
while Theodore, according to the original text of the Berlin MS., wished to 
have it referred to vv. 24 and 25. The texts for vv. 24-25, which have come 
down to us, show no greater fluctuations than other undoubtedly original pas- 
sages. A καί before μαρτυρῶν (B, Orig. in Jo. xxxii. 13, ed. Preuschen, p. 461. 9, 
and Cyril) might be genuine, and it might be correlative with the following 
καί, which Origen, however, discards. Only in that case we could not read 6 
before the second καί (x@ Cyril, etc.) or after it (BD). Probably, however, B, 
which has in part Origen and in part D and good Latin witnesses on its side, 
has the original wording: ὁ καὶ μαρτυρῶν m. τ. καὶ ὁ γράψας ταῦτα. From Ss 
(“who bore witness of this and wrote this”) we cannot infer a reading 
μαρτυρήσας. Just as little critical value has the free translation of Ss in ver. 
25 (“and many other [things] Jesus did, which, if they were written down 
one by one, the world would not be enough [have been big enough] for 
them”). It gives evidence of the tendency to displace the real and tangible 
conception, which has been vouched for by ra γραφόμενα βιβλία by the inter- 
pretation which has been shown to be very early. The only doubt can be 
whether we are to read the hard ὅσα, but which just on that account demands 
especial notice, instead of ἅ before ἐποίησεν, and whether χωρήσειν or 
χωρῆσαι is the correct reading. 

3. (P. 235.) Inasmuch as of those who in xxi. 24 testify to the writing 
of the book by the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who witness to his truth- 
fulness, only one actually penned the statement, the change from οἴδαμεν to 
the singular οἶμαι cannot appear strange, especially since the latter expression, 
like οἶδα, οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως, opinor, and other similar ones, had come to be almost an 
interjection. The whole circle of those in whose name the writer of these lines 
speaks, guarantees the testimony of ver. 24 ; but to make all of them responsible 
for the very subjective judgment contained in ver, 25 would be unnatural. 


252 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


4. (Pp. 240, 241.) The symbolical meaning of the draught of fishes, which 
at the same time was full of a promise of blessing, could not have remained 
secret to such readers as knew the traditions in Matt. iv. 19, xiii. 47; Mark 
i. 17; Luke v. 10, and, least of all to Peter, if in this passage as in the others 
actual words and deeds of Jesus have been reported. The disciple John, who 
had been an eye-witness of Peter's former draught of fishes, recognised the 
Lord by this one (ver. 7). On the other hand, the number 153 (ver. 11) as 
well as the number 200 (ver. 8) and the numbers in i. 39, ii. 6, 20, iv. 6, 18, 
v. 2, vi. 7, 9, 19, xi. 18, xii. 5 elude every reasonable allegorical or cabalistie 
signification, in spite of the frequent attempts which have been made in this 
direction, e.g., by Theophilus, Latin version, Forsch. ii. 84= Augustine, Tract. 
exxii. mm Jo.; by Ammonius (Cramer’s Catena, ii. 408); Severnus Antioch. 
(Cat. in Jo., ed. Corderius, p. 438) ; Jerome, ad Exk. xlvii. 12 (Vall. v. 595), 
with appeal to the ἁλιευτικά of the poet Oppianus : OLIIT. esse genera piscium, 
which Hilgenfeld, Einl. 717, further applies to the men who are to be won 
from the heathen peoples, as if John had said anything about the different 
kinds of fishes, or could have represented Peter as primarily the apostle to 
the heathen. Volkmar, Mose Prophetie, S. 62, found that the name Simon 
Bar Jona Kepha, written in Hebrew (x53, however, instead of x=) and 
resolved into its value in figures, yields 153. The only unfortunate thing is 
that the author of John xxi. 15-17 as well as of i. 42 does not call the father 
of Peter Jona, but Jochanan. The symbolic meaning of the draught of fishes 
in Matt. iv. 19; Mark 1. 17 is connected with Peter and Andrew, in Luke 
v. 10 with Peter alone. In xxi.6 the command falls upon the seven disciples 
of ver. 2 (cf., however, also Luke v. 4, χαλάσατε, with eravayaye, and v. 5, 
χαλάσω), but Peter occupies the entire foreground in xxi. 3, 7, 11, so that 
the predictive meaning of the incident concerns him primarily. Moreover, 
according to Matt. xvi. 17-19 (of which the reader of the Fourth Gospel is 
reminded by i. 42); Luke xxii. 32; John x. 9 (where men are introduced, 
who through the interposition of Jesus receive the office of shepherd in the 
Church), the allegorical meaning of the three times repeated injunction of 
vv. 15-17 could not be any more doubtful for Peter than for us. More in 
agreement with the command in ver. 6 than with that in vv. 15-17 is that 
in ver. 19, so far as it refers to a definite outward act, which immediately is 
to and actually does ensue. But the deeper predictive meaning is excluded 
thereby as little here as in ver. 6. As surely as Peter must have been re- 
minded by the thrice asked question vv. 15-17 of his thrice uttered denial 
(xiii. 38, xviii. 17, 25, 27), so certainly must the ἀκολούθει μοι have called to 
his mind the conversation of xiii. 36 f.—especially after the prophecy in 
ver. 18 had pointed out to him his future life up to old age. Furthermore, 
the reader, to whom the narrator in ver. 19a had explained this prophecy as 
relating to the death of Peter, could have understood the ἀκολούθει μοι, with- 
out detracting from its most probable and proper meaning, as referring to 
nothing else than to Peter’s following into death and the invisible world. 
It is evident from ver. 20f., however, that Peter himself at once grasped this 
meaning more or less cles shes Whether in connection with it a recollection 
of the prophecy in Matt. xx. 23, Mark x. 39 assisted him, cannot with cer- 
tainty be determined. Only when in his following of Jesus, which was the 
point in question here, he recognised a symbolic expression of that following 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 253 


of which Jesus in xiii. 36f. had spoken, namely, an accompanying and fol- 
lowing of Hım into the other world, through which for him the time of the 
painful separation from Jesus was shortened, only then could he perceive in 
this a privilege and an honour, a share in which he could wish to have given 
also to his fellow-diseiple John who stood so elose to Jesus. For no proof is 
needed that this is the meaning of Peter’s question as to John in ver. 21, 
and that Peter in the following of Jesus, which he had before desired, bab 
which was now proffered him, and at the same time foretold of him, saw no 
punishment, that in his jealousy for his rival he wished him to share. Ina 
Gospel which contains words such as xii. 26, xiii, 36-xiv. 6, xvi. 16-22, and 
in a period of the history of Christianity in which words such as Phil. i. 
20-23; Rev. xiv. 13; Ign. Rom. ii.—vil., were written, the latter meaning 
would have been a blasphemy and an absurdity beyond all comprehension. 
The second draught of fishes, as the first, had led Peter to the most humble 
self-abasement (cf. Luke v. 8); and whatever remnants of a false ambition 
might have been present in him, must have been entirely stifled, at least for 
the moment, by this conversation of vv. 15-17, which put him again in his 
place as leader, and yet at the same time painfully reminded him of his 
weakness (ver. 15, πλέον τούτων ; ver. 17, ἐλυπήθη), and also by the prophecy 
of ver. 18, which was not lacking in censure. The interpretation of ver. 18 
in the light of ver. 19a is similar, not only in form but also in substance, to 
xii. 33. As that word concerning the lifting up from the earth (xii. 32) by 
its context expresses first of all the thought of the removal from the earth 
to heaven (xii. 23, 34-36, 111. 14, vi. 62, viii. 21-28), and was only recognised 
after the crucifixion of Jesus as a predictive indication of this definite kind 
of death in which the one about to die is raised from the earth (xii. 33, 
XViiii. 32), so xxi. 18 gave Peter, and, as long as Peter lived, the reader no 
definite information concerning the apostle’s death, while it was only through 
combination of ideas that Peter himself came to base upon this statement, 
among other things, the expectation of a violent death (vol. ii. 211 f.). Inas- 
much as he remained active in the service of the truth until his old age, he, 
as Paul in Phil. i. 20, ii. 17, 2 Tim. iv. 6, must have connected with this the 
hope that his violent death would be a martyrdom, and so redound to the 
glory of God. But John xxi. 19 goes beyond that ; for ποίῳ θανάτῳ here, 
as in xii. 33, xviii. 32, points to a definite kind of death, in fact, here as there 
to the same kind of death—the crucifixion ; for even if we did not possess 
historical information concerning the crucifixion of Peter, we would not be 
able to think of anything but the crucifixion, if any hint of a definite kind 
of death is given in ver. 18. The point of comparison lies in the stretching 
out of the hands, the extending of the arms ; cf. Epict. Diss. iii. 26. 21 (in 
the address to the man who feared to become poor) : δέδοικας μὴ οὐ σχῇς. 
ἄλλον τὸν ὑποδήσοντα, ἄλλον τὸν ἐνδύσοντα, ἄλλους τοὺς τρίψοντας, ἄλλους 
τοὺς ἀκολυθήσοντας, iv’ ἐν τῷ βαλανείῳ ἐκδυσάμενος καὶ ἐκτείνας σεαυτὸν 
ὥς οἱ ἐσταυρωμένοι τρίβη ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν; with reference to Artemi- 
doras, Interpretation of Dreams (Ονειροκρίτικα), i. 76, see Horn, S. 98. 

5. (P. 246.) Itis instructive to note the comparison of the martyrdom 
of the sons of ΟΣ ἘΣ —a prophecy not given even in pate form 


with the Miserly of John (ef. above, p. 205, and Acta Tol 199. 20- 900. 5, 


254 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


201. 4, 207. 2, 237. 27; Act. Ap. Apoer., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part i 
156. 13 ff.) ; and above, p. 195 f. 

6. (P. 248.) Iren. iii. 1.1; see the text, vol. ii. 398,n. 7. If the expres 
sion used of John (καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκε τὸ evayyeAuov)—as distinguished from 
that previously said of Luke, and more plainly than the expressions used of 
Matt. and Mark—itself asserts not only the writing, but the formal publica- 
tion of the Gospel by John, so does the context completely prove that 
Iren»us had no thought of a merely indirect Johannine origin of the Gospel. 
According to Irenzeus, the fourfold Gospel originated with apostles—the second 
and third with Peter and Paul through the agency of Mark and Luke, the first 
and fourth direct with Matthew and John. Moreover, the legend which tells 
of certain assistance of others in the writing of the Fourth Gospel, neverthe- 
less emphasises the fact that John himself wrote the whole book (Can. Murat. 
line 13 ff., “Revelatum Andrew ex apostolis, ut recognoscentibus cunctis 
Joannes suo nomine cuncta deseriberet ἢ). 


§ 67. THE RELATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL TO 
THE EARLIER GOSPELS. 


The view that the Fourth Gospel was written for a 
Christian church, or for a group of such churches, which 
cannot be said in any way of Matthew and Luke, and only 
with limitations of Mark, is corroborated by the observa- 
tion forced upon us as soon as we read the Gospel, that 
John takes for granted a considerable degree of acquaint- 
ance with the gospel history on the part of his readers. 
The question arises whether this knowledge was derived 
from the unwritten Gospel which they heard from their 
missionaries ($ 48), or from books in circulation among 
them. The tradition makes John write his Gospel in his 
old age, and later than Matthew, Mark, and Luke (above, 
p. 178 f.), and for this very reason favours the latter sup- 
position. We have also the account of the teachers of 
Clement of Alexandria, that John wrote with the three 
older Gospels consciously in view and with the purpose of 
supplementing the same on the theological side (above, p. 
197, n. 5). Moreover, it has been shown that Mark’s 
Gospel was the subject of earnest discussion among the 
friends of John at Ephesus (vol. ii. 438 ff.), and that in 
the same region the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew was 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 255 


interpreted orally in the church services for a long time, 
until the translating of the Gospel into Greek rendered 
this unnecessary (vol. 11. 510 ff.). There is no certain 
starting-point in the tradition for the determination of the 
chronological relation between these facts and the com- 
position of the Fourth Gospel. It is possible, however, 
that our Gospel of Mark was much read in Ephesus, that 
the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew was interpreted orally 
there, and that even the Greek translation of it had been 
made prior to the time when John wrote. In fact, Luke’s 
work may have been known in Ephesus at this time 
(above, p. 159). Since, moreover, the preceding investi- 
gation has not confirmed any of the conjectures concern- 
ing lost documents which Matthew and Mark made the 
basis of their works, and since, with the exception of 
Mark, there is no trace of the wider circulation of the 
older attempts to produce a gospel history with which 
Luke became acquainted in the course of his investiga- 
tions, we infer that our Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and 
Luke are the writings from which John’s readers may have 
derived the knowledge of the gospel history which he 
takes for granted they possessed (n. 1). 

No one of the Gospels shows from the outset so clearly 
as does the Fourth Gospel the lack of any attempt to 
furnish readers who may not be as yet familiar with the 
subject a history which could be understood out of its own 
material. Without any introductory words acquainting 
the readers with the person and work of John the Baptist 
(n. 2), the Gospel begins (i. 19), in striking contrast to the 
other Gospels, with an account of an official embassy from 
the Jews of Jerusalem, which presupposes that John had 
been carrying on an important work for a considerable 
time ; as a matter of fact, we learn incidentally (i. 25, 26) 
that he had been engaged in baptizing with water. 

Whence John obtained that knowledge of the person 
of the Messiah—who had already made His public appear- 


256 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ance— which he shows in reply to a question put to him 
at the time by the Pharisees (n. 2), the reader first learns 
from the following narrative, in which John applies to 
Jesus as He was approaching him, a testimony spoken 
earlier concerning Him, while still absent, and explains 
(i. 29-34) from a definite experience his knowledge of the 
high dignity of Jesus, which had already been attested 
by the earlier testimony and at the time it was given. 
Even if there were no thoroughly characteristic words 
recalling the account of the baptism in Matt. ii. 13 ff; 
Mark i. 9 ff.; Luke ii. 21 ἢ, every reader would under- 
stand from the way in which John twice recalls the fact, 
that his mission was to baptize with water (vv. 31, 33),— 
which otherwise would be without point in this connection, 
—that John as he concluded the act of Jesus’ baptism 
had seen the sign which God had revealed to him as the 
sign of Him who should baptize with the Spirit, namely, 
the visible descent of the Spirit from Heaven, in the form 
of a dove which rested upon Jesus. From these statements 
of John we conclude that his baptism of Jesus preceded 
not only the scene recorded in vv. 29-34, but also the 
testimony in ver. 26f., and the still earlier testimony to 
be distinguished from that of ver. 26, to which the Baptist 
refers in ver. 30. After His baptism, which took place 
some time prior to the events recorded in i. 19 ff., Jesus 
came again to Bethany where John was baptizing, before 
His return to Galilee (1. 43), which continued to be His 
home (i. 45) notwithstanding His presence in Judea, 
Anyone familiar with Matt. iv. 13-17; Mark 1. 9-11, 
or Luke 111. 21-22, iv. 1-14, recognizes at once that this 
interval between Jesus’ baptism and His return to the 
Jordan was the forty days of His temptation. Without 
acquaintance not only with the general outlines, but also 
with numerous details of the synoptic accounts of the 
work of the Baptist and of the baptism of Jesus, the 
entire narrative in John i. 19-34 is unintelligible (n. 3). 


THE WRITINGS OF JOFIN! | 257 


ıt is consequently inconeeivable that the author should 
have: written in this way without. consciously taking it 
for granted and without being certain that. his: readers 
were in the possession of such knowledge. 

This appears ina particularly striking) manner in ii. 
24. No intelligent writer could communicate in this form 
to readers, who: did not as yet: know that the work of the 
Baptist: was brought to an end by imprisonment, a fact of 
which he relates: nothing either in what precedes or in 
what follows (cf. per contra, Matt. ıv. 12, xi. 2, xiv. 35 
Mark i. 14, vi. 17 ; particularly, however, what is said by 
Luke, who is a real historian, Luke in. 19 £., vii 18). 
Nor would mere acquaintance with the fact on the part of 
the readers be sufficient to render the sentence intelligible. 
For, since it ‘is impossible that a man could be engaged in 
a public work of baptism and. preaching and surrounded 
by his disciples, as indicated in in. 25 and im. 25-1v. 1, 
and be suffering at the same time the imprisonment from 
which he was never to be released, it is self-evident that 
this statement was not made on John’s account. Least of 
all could it be intended to explain the statement about his 
continued public work. The remark is intelligible only if 
John presupposed on the part of his readers a clear idea 
of the relation between Jesus’ public work and) John’s 
imprisonment—a relation with which his account did not 
seem to harmonise. Although such a conception was not 
required by) Luke’s account (above, p.' 106 ἢ, 167 £.), it 
was an inevitable inference from Mark 1. 14 and Matt. 
ivi 12; since bothiof these evangelists make all: of Jesus’ 
publie work, which they deseribe, follow the arrest of the 
Baptist.. Christians who had a definite idea of the course 
of the gospel history which they had derived from Mark 
or Matthew could read John 1.19-11.' 21 with the feeling 
that here were important facts: of which they had known 
nothing heretofore.» When, however, they came to 11]. 
22-iv. 2, which contained an ‘account of the’ contempor: 

VOL. III. 17 


258 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


aneous activity of Jesus and of the Baptist, the new 
account may have, indeed it must have, seemed to contra- 
dict their familiar conception of the course of the history, 
The statement in iu. 24 was intended for the information 
of such readers, possibly also designed to offset: their 
wrong impression. ‘The writer says to them in effect: 
“You must understand that what is here related ‘took 
place before the imprisonment of the Baptist ; it was) not 
until after this event that Jesus began the work: with 
which you are familiar, which was then confined chiefly to 
Galilee.” This remark, which is intended for the infor- 
mation of his readers, is inserted at this particular point 
where it is necessary, in order to make the narrative clear 
to those acquainted with Mark and Matthew ; it is, how- 
ever, related to the entire contents of 1. 19-iv. 54, for 
Jesus breaks off the work which He had begun and with- 
draws from Judea to Galilee, in order not to interfere 
with the Baptist’s work so long as God permits: it to be 
carried on, and in order to avoid the appearance of rivalry 
with His Forerunner (iil. 25-iv. 3). [Ὁ would never oceur 
to readers such as John had in mind—treaders familiar with 
the synoptic tradition, and others of common intelligence 
—to identify this journey of Jesus from Judea to Galilee, 
which was undertaken because of the continuance of the 
work of the Baptist, with the journey from Judea, to 
Galilee which Jesus made after the arrest of John (Matt. 
iv. 12; Mark i. 14). This unlikely combination of events 
was made altogether impossible by the fact that, according 
to the synoptic accounts, this journey marked the begin- 
ning of a prophetie work on the part of Jesus: which 
moved the whole of Galilee, whereas in John there is 
nothing to indicate that Jesus resumed in (Galilee the 
work which He had broken off in Judea. Nothing is 
recorded in iv. 43-54 concerning teaching and baptism on 
the part of Jesus, and nothing is said of His activity as ἃ 
mirmeulous healer, Only a single act of healing is ΤῸ: 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN (|: 256 


corded, which was wrung from Jesus against His will (iv. 
48); and in this instance the parallelism between. this 
miracle and that im Cana (iv. 46, 54) is twice pointed ‘out, 
showing it to have been a revelation of Jesus’ glory which 
was just as isolated and just as premature as was the 
latter event (ii. 4), and just as much an exception to the 
rule which Jesus observed at this time of refraining from 
publie work. It is: Just here, in connection with this stay 
in Galilee, that John represents Jesus as formally: estab- 
lishing this rule, for he gives as the motive of this journey 
to Galilee a saying of Jesus —when spoken need’ not be 
considered here—from which no exegetical sophistry can 
derive any other meaning than this, namely, that Jesus 
went to Galilee at this time because He was convinced— 
and as occasion demanded, expressed the conviction—that 
in His native Galilee He was less likely to receive such 
recognition as He had) received im Judea and even in 
Samaria, as He passed through it on His hasty journey to 
Galilee (n. 3). It was not His intention, therefore, to 
change the scene of His labours from Judea to Galilee, 
which would not have relieved in any way the unfortunate 
state of affairs which had caused His withdrawal from 
Judea (ii. 26, iv. 1), but He designed to remain in retire 
ment so long as it pleased God that the Baptist: should 
remain at liberty and! continue his: work. When Jesus 
appears again im Jerusalem at) a feast (v. 1); this period 
of waiting is at, amend; because now He speaks of John 
ass a hight whieh, was no» longer burning jand shining 
(ν.. 85). Readers, such as were presupposed) in ii) 24, 
knew that when im the narrative Jesus: appears “again in 
Galilee after this visit to Jerusalem (vi. ff), the! time is 
that following the arrest of the Baptist,:to which period 
the older accounts were almost exclusively confined...» And 
their expectation 1s confirmed by the very first incident! 
which John records after this reappearance in Galilee (vi: 
3-13). Here they find a portion of the: older tradition’ 


260 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with which they were familiar (Matt: xiv.:13 f.; Mark vi. 
31 ff.; Luke ix. 10ff.), and this is the first instance where 
John gives essentially the same account as was — in 
the Syndpties. 

Here there comes: to light with great clearness the 
general presupposition on which the Fourth Gospel was 
based. The readers are introduced at once to the climax 
of Jesus’ Galilean ministry, of which not only is nothing 
said. in what precedes, but for which, rather, there 
is, no place before v. 1, and consequently no place 
before vi. 1. » As the imperfects in vi. 2 indicate, on 
account of His numerous deeds of healing, Jesus is fol- 
lowed constantly in Galilee by great throngs. The en- 
thusiasm of the people is roused to a dangerous pitch 
(vi. 14 f.). As we learn in a purely incidental way in vi. 
67-71, the twelve apostles have been for a long’ time 
already chosen. A harsh saying of Jesus brings about a 
crisis among the disciples less intimately attached ‘to 
Him ; from this moment the movement, now at its cul- 
mination, begins to: decline (vi. 6-66). The) ebb con- 
tinues, so that half a year later (cf. vii. 2-9 with vi. 4) 
Jesus’ brothers, in view of the decrease of His popularity 
in Galilee, urge Him now at last to reveal Himself before 
the whole world in Judea, where it was alleged that He 
had. won, so many followers (vii. 8, cf. ü. 23, iii, 26, iv. 
1, 45). There is an interval of at least: six months 
between v. 1 and vi. 4 (n. 4), and according to John’s 
account this period was occupied by a work which moved 
the whole of Galilee, or more specifically, by the! whole) 
series of events which, according to Matt. iv. 12-xiv. 12); 
Mark i. 14-vi. 80; Luke iv. 14-ix. 10, took place in! the 
interval between the arrest and the execution of the 
Baptist. Then follows another six months, from’ the 
Passover which, according to vi. 4, took place | shortly 
after the events recorded in vi. 3-71 until the feast of 
Tabernacles in vit. 2,.to which John gives only a single 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 261 


sentence, vii. 1. Nor was this six months a time of 
retirement, like the period beginning with ἵν. 48 (πα. 3); 
for at its close Jesus’ brothers do not find fault with Him 
because He had begun His work on ἃ large scale in Galilee 
and then given it up again, but because He did His’ works 
in Galilee instead of in Judea and Jerusalem. We have, 
therefore, at least one full’ year of important prophetic 
work in Galilee which John passes over in silence, with 
the exception of the one connected account in vi. 3-71 
and the general hints of vi. 2, vii. 1; although he not 
only betrays knowledge of the events ‘which he passes 
over, but indicates their significance. There is no com- 
parison between this procedure and that of the Synoptists, 
who also sometimes mention single events about which 
they know, without giving ‘a full account of them (Matt. 
xi, 21, xxii. 37, above, p. 170 ff.).° John’s procedure’ at 
this point, where for the first time his narrative comes 
into touch with the great current of the synoptic account 
(vi. 1-vii. 2), can be explained only on the assumption 
that his readers were fully informed’ about all the events 
which took place during this great “ year of the Lord ” in 
Galilee (Luke iv. 19, above; p. 169). Where, however, he 
does have occasion to bring before the readers again in 
full the account of a particular event which is recorded 
also in the older Gospels (vi. 3-13),—in order’to add to it 
the account of other and new incidents and discourses, 
closely connected with the event (vi. 14 £, 23, 26-71), 
which he hadıto give, he shows again, as in the history of 
the relations between Jesus and the Baptist (above, p. 
256 f.), by the addition of various details which cannot be 
explained as due to the influence of a poetic or didactic 
idea, that: he has at his command independent woah eo 
of the situation (n. 5). 

A new:aspect of the relation between John and the 
Synoptists comes to view in John xi. 2/°3. Inasmuch as 
x. 40 refers back ito 1. 28, where Bethany (not Bethabara) 


262 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


on the east bank of the Jordan is mentioned as the place 
in which John began his baptism, it would not be αὖ all 
unnatural, in the passage immediately following, where 
another, Bethany near, Jerusalem is referred to (xi. 1, 18), 
if in some way the latter place were distinguished from the 
former.’ The fact, however, that Bethany in Perea is ‘not 
mentioned again by name in x. 40-42, renders such a 
geographical notice unnecessary. But even if it were, 
what a remarkable designation is that) given in xi. 1. 
Instead of saying that the Bethany mentioned in this verse 
was situated near Jerusalem (ver..18), John calls it “the 
village of Mary and her sister Martha.” It is not until 
ver. 2 that the reader learns that the two women are the 
sisters of Lazarus ; and even if it had been possible to infer 
this earlier, it must have impressed him as peculiar that 
the place which is mentioned as Lazarus’ home is described 
not by his name, but as the village of Mary and. Martha. 
Neither designation, however, is suited to distinguish. the 
geographical location of the one Bethany from: that of the 
other. The passage. is intelligible only if we assume that 
the readers were already acquainted with a ‘village: of 
Mary and Martha.” In this ease it would be of interest to 
them to learn, what they had not. known before, that the 
Bethany where Lazarus lived and where he was now sick 
was the “village of the sisters Mary and) Martha”. of 
which they already knew. | Manifestly the readers were in 
the same ‘position in which we find ourselves to-day, 
Krom, Luke x. 38-42 they knew, as do we, of a village: im 
which two sisters, Mary and Martha, possessed a house; 
but that this village was called Bethany, and that it was 
the same Bethany where also a certain Lazarus lived, they 
learned, as do we, for the first time when they read John 
xi. 1. Before, however, informing his readers concerning 
the relationship. of Mary and’ Martha to Lazarus (ver! 2b), 
who up to this time has remained unknown to them (xi. 1, 
vis), the writer arouses further interest in the persons who 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 263 


appear in the narrative which follows, by indicating that 
Mary was the woman who had anointed the Lord with oil 
and wiped His feet with her hair. This incident was te 
be narrated with ample detail in its historical connection, 
xii. 1+8. But unless informed from’ other sources, the 
reader could not know this beforehand; and would neces- 
sarıly understand. xi. 2 incorrectly to’ mean that the 
anointing had taken place before the time of xi: 2, just as 
vil. 50, xviii 14, 26, xix. 39 are to be taken as references to 
events which had happened and which are recorded earlier 
in the book, namely in ii. 2, x1. 50, xvii. 10. Here, how- 
ever, where, as xi. 1-8 shows, the narrator has no inten- 
tion of being so understood, he nevertheless refers to an 
anointing of Jesus with oil by a woman, just as though he 
himself had narrated the incident’ earlier. He takes for 
granted, therefore, that his readers are familiar with the 
details of the ıincident from other sources, and the new 
thing which he relates is the fact that this .woman 15 
identical with the Mary who has just been mentioned, 
Consequently the readers must have known, ‘as we’ do, 
either: from’ Matt. xxvi. 6-13, Mark xiv. 3-9, or from 
Luke vii. 36-50, the story of an anointing such as John 
took for granted they knew, 1.6. one in’ which the act was 
narrated without the name of the woman being given. 
But comparison with John xi. 1-8 shows that: John had 
in mind Mark xiv. 3-9 = Matt. xxvi. 6413, not Luke vu. 
36 ff; and here again his account resembles that of Mark 
so closely, both in subjeet-matter and in language, that it is 
most natural to suppose that Mark:was consciously made 
use of by John: (n. 6). Here, as in the account: of the 
feeding of the five thousand, John represents one disciple 
as saying what Matthew and Mark represent the disciples 
as saying collectively. Neither does he hesitate to report 
the ‘most significant saying of Jesus in a form differing 
widely from that of the other accounts (ver. 7),—a form 
which, at a comparatively early date, seemed to pious 


264 INTRODUCTION TO ‘THE NEW TESTAMENT 


readers objectionable, because, as John reported the saying, 
it had the appearance of ve a ) prophecy which was net 
fulfilled (n. 6). we ΠῚ 
Up to this point two things seem to have been estab- 
lished, or shown to be extremely probable. (1)'John 
takes for granted on the part of his readers a comprehen- 
sive knowledge of the gospel history. This knowledge 
includes ‘not only the main outlines of the Gospel and the 
facts of great religious importance which would necessarily 
be brought out in the mission preaching, but also many 
separate stories which sometimes may "ἘΣ been narrated 
orally, but which could not have been parts of a uniform 
tradition in general circulation. (2) He is ποῦ only him- 
self acquainted with the synoptic Gospels, especially with 
Mark, apparently also with Luke; but) he presupposes this 
knowledge on the part of his readers. This is proved by 
the fact that throughout his Gospel he utilises the synoptie 
narratives, sometimes by connecting ' his! own ‘account 
directly withthe same on the presupposition that they are 
known, sometimes by’ taking for granted that some event 
there recorded had) happened which he doesnot repeat, 
sometimes by guarding the readers against possible» mis- 
understanding of the synoptic’ accounts, or by informing 
them for the first time of details which had beeome effaced 
in these accounts, or by correcting slight imaecuracies 
which had crept into them. On the whole, however; ‘the 
synoptic accounts ‘are confirmed both by what John re- 
peats and by what he does not report but takes for granted 
as having happened and as being known. heen daom 
Assuming that these facts suflice to:prove that John’s 
omission of material found in the Synopties, which imitself 
is important, is no: proof either that he was ignorant of 
the same or that he disapproved of it; we may pursue this 
line of inquiry still further... In passages like 1. 19-34, mi. 
24, vi. 1-21, xi 1 fi; xi, 1-8, the reader is: reminded con- 
stantly of the synoptic accounts, and nowherendoes he get 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 265 


a conception of events essentially different‘ from that 
which he finds in the earlier Gospels. Just as in the case 
of the most important facts of the gospel history; as, for 
example, the whole of John’s baptismal work, Jesus’ bap- 
tism by him, the imprisonment of the Baptist, the healing 
of multitudes in Galilee, and the choice of the apostles, 
the reader finds his previous conception directly confirmed 
by the fact that John: does not undertake to give a new 
and different account of these facts ; so he discovers with 
regard to numerous other instances to which John less 
π᾿" refers. 

«Without claiming anything at this point as to: the 
purpose of the Botrth Gospel, we may call attention to 
the patent fact, which the author ‚himself brings out very 
explicitly in) xx. 30: (xxi. 25), that what he records is 
selected from: a mass of material at his disposal.» Ina 
degree unparalleled by any other evangelist, he abandons 
all attempt at’ completeness: in: the narrative in the 
history, and consequently disregards entirely an external 
pragmatic treatment of the history. »Im‘the case of the 
‘year of grace in Galilee” this is self-evident, and like» 
wise in the case of the beginnings'of the history of Jesus. 
We: haverseen how the curiously chosen beginning of his 
narrative in il 19 does ποῦ exclude the accounts in Matt. 
iii 14,11; Mark 1. 2-133; Luke it, 1-iv. 13, nor lessen 
their “importance, but ‘rather presupposes them (above, 
p» 256). Quite as little does this beginning exclude or 
disparage the accounts in Matt. 1.-ii. ; Lukei-ii. Just 
before it is said that the Logos became flesh, who, because 
of the incarnation, isicalled' the only-begotten Son of God 
(i 14); it is stated (accordine’to the text still accepted) 
very explicitly how those for whom Christ’ has won ‘the 
right and possibility of becoming children of God, and 
who are now believers on the name οἵ Christ, become 
children of God. If the reader were unacquainted with 
the) traditions in ‘Matt. i and Luke 1, possibly the ποῦ 


266 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


that the simple thought that we become children of God 
not by a natural, human birth, but by a working of God 
which may be figuratively described as begetting or birth 
(ef. iii. 3-8), is expressed by three negative and one 
simple positive statement, might excite only surprise; 
especially, however, that the willsof the man as a factor 
im the begetting and birth of the child of God is:exeluded} 
whereas) in natural birth the'woman as well as the man 
is a factor, and besides the use of the plural αἱμάτων, 
suggests the inclusion of both ‘the mam ‘andthe woman: 
On the other hand, for readers such as those whom John 
addressed—who belonged to the: Christian) Chureh’/ and 
were familiar with the traditions of the beginning) of 
Jesus’ life—the mystery was solved at once when it was 
observed that John deseribed the birth of the children; of 
God according to the analogy of the birth of the only- 
begotten Son of God, who is this in the fullest sense, and 
from His mcarnation onwards. How imevitably Christian 
readers discovered in the passage’ reference to the beget+ 
ting and birth of Jesus without the mingling of the blood 
of two human beings; and) without the concurrence οὗ 
fleshly desire and of the willof man, would be shown in 
the history of the text, if in ver. 13 οὗ. „u ἐγγενήθησαν 
were the original treading, from which in :the second 
century the reading ἐγγεννήθη, without ἃ connecting 
relative (of or ὅς), τῆᾶν have arisen and been widely 
spread | abroad in» the Churches. There are, however, 
strong reasons for the originality οἵ this, latter reading, 
For. John would then have expressly acknowledged the 
traditions in Matt. 1. and! Luke i., and all the more 
have presupposed readers who knew these traditions and 
believed them to be true (n. 7). 

After having put before his readers in. i, 19-x1.157 
material which, with the exception, of vi 1-18 and 
occasional references. to, what they) knew from „other 
sources, was entirely new, in the account of the last days 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 267 


of Jesus’ life John was under the necessity either of 
remaining silent altogether or of repeating what. was 
already known from various sources; for, like the earlier 
Gospels, the missionary preaching and all the oral 
traditions concerning these days must have contained 
a full: account of:everything: connected with the death 
and resurrection of Jesus. Nevertheless, in this section 
also the author of: the Fourth Gospel follows the same 
eclectic method, and makes no effort to conceal the fact. 
Here it) was impossible for a reader of any intelligence at 
all to conclude from John’s silence regarding facts which 
were important in themselves, and which still survived in 
the tradition, either that the events had not taken place 
or that they were not accepted by John as true. From 
ΧΙ 1, 12: the reader learns that a number of days inter- 
vened between ithe entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem and 
His death; but: only one event, xii. 20-36, which took 
place during these days, and one short discourse, xu. 44- 
50, the:time and place of which is not even indicated, are 
recordedi: It is'also necessarily presupposed in xii... 35 1 
that Jesus did not in any way withdraw Himself from the 
people, but rather testified to them of Himself by, His 
teaching and His deeds. After all the conflicts between 
Jesus and the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, of which 
John especially gives us a full account from. 11]. 18) on- 
wards, it must have been perfectly clear to everyone that 
collisions of this character could not be avoided during 
His last visit to the city. The fact that John, passes all 
these events by in silence without even so much as} such 
general remarks as are found in Luke xxi. 37f., which 
would give the readers an idea of Jesus’ life during these 
eventful days, of His place of residence, and of His works 
and discourses, is to be explained only on the supposition 
that they were : sufficiently informed regarding these 
particular facts (Mark xi. 12-xiii. 37; Matt. xxi. 12- 
xxv.46; Luke xix. 47-xxi. 38). In contrast to the 


268 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


seanty account of this part of the history, we have. de- 
tailed reports regarding the last hours which Jesus spent 
with the apostles) (xiii. 1-xvu. 26). But this) narrative 
would be quite unintelligible to readers unacquainted with 
atleast the main features of the history of the last night 
of Jesus’ life. It is not until well’ on in the narrative 
that such readers would become aware that it was the last 
evening which He spent with them and the night: before 
His arrest (zii. 32, εὐθύς; ΧΗ]. 38, xiv. 25-31, xvi 32, 
xvii. 11). Without’ statement as to place’ or “time 
(xiii. 1, n. 8), an account is given of what) took place 
during a meal of which Jesus partook with His disciples. 
That Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, which is referred to at an 
earlier point in the narrative (vi. 64, 70f., xii. 4), and 
again in xiii 2, 18430 (xiv. 22), xvii. 12, as if it !were 
already known, was the outcome of an arrangement with 
the authorities, is not indicated either here or anywhere 
else, not even in xviii. 2, where the progress: of the 
narrative requires that it be’ presupposed. ἰὖ must. be 
taken for granted, therefore, that this fact was known. 

If; as all ‘the tradition from 1 Cor. xi. 23) onwards 
attirms, Jesus instituted the Christian sacrament of the 
Lord’s Supper'on the oceasion of His last meal (vol. si. 
880, No. 7), the idea could occur to no Christian writer 
that, by passing byom silence this event; which was. of 
such "great importance in ‘Christian worship, he. could 
banish the same from the consciousness of the Church for 
which he wrote (above, p. 208 f.). And the later he wrote 
and the more deeply the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, 
which depended upon this act of Jesus, became ingrained 
into the custom of the Church with the lapse of: time, the 
more’ impossible would it be for him to entertain ‘such an 
idea. «If the writer had not taken it for granted» that his 
readers: were fully informed, concerning ‘this part of! the 
history, he could not have passed this event by in silence, 
nor eould he have written chaps. xill.-xvii in their present 


THE WRITINGS OF/JOHN | 269 


form: The same is'true of chaps. xvill.—xx.,, The omission 
of the account of Jesus’ struggle in prayer in Gethsemane’ 
and of Judas’ kiss in xvii.) 1-11; and) the) introductiom into, 
the picture of a number of features which are not found) 
inthe Synoptics:(the names of Peter and of Malchus, the 
co-operation’ of the Roman cohort, and the conversation 
between Jesus and those sent to arrest Him), are quite in 
keeping with what:we have observed in sections previously 
diseussed, which are formally parallel to accounts in the 
Synoptics. Here, however, is to be / especially, observed 
that John does not omit important facts which) the 
parallelism between portions of his account and that) of 
the Synoptics would naturally lead him to relate without 
elsewhere supplying a kind of substitute for them,—a fact 
which was found to be true also of Luke in relation to 
Mark (above, p. 102 ἢ). The essential contents of the 
story of the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi..| 37-45; 
Mark xiv. 33-41 ; Luke xxii. 41+46;) Heb. v. 7, vols in 
362, 380), which John omits, are given in connection) 
with an event recorded by him alone in xu. 27. There is 
no account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper; but 
im vi. 26-65 is found a discourse which the. original: 
readers could construe only as a prophecy fulfilled by the 
observance of the Supper in the Church, and which was 
actually» so construed (n. 9). Peter’s ‚great confession 
(Matt. xvi. 16; Mark vin. 29; Luke ix. 20) is replaced 
by: another having the same significance, but different) in 
form, and found in a different: connection (John vi.'69). 
For the missing story of Jesus’ birth there is a brief but 
significant substitute in 1. 18:1. (above, p. 265 f.); and in 
place of the account of His baptism, Johmoffers 1. 32-34, 
In all these instances John’s statements and» narratives 
are independent. » An author who, on the one hand, 
shows by such chapters as iii. 1-v. 47, vil.~xi., xiil—xvii. 
that he has a large amount of material at his disposal not 
used in any form by the Synoptists, and that he knew 


270 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


also how to arrange the same, and who, on the other 
hand, does’ not hesitate to’irepeat without essential 
modification "what the Synoptists had written earlier 
(vi. 1-13, xii, 1-18, xviii. 1 ff), is above the ‘suspicion 
of having produced these and other accounts (n. 10) with 
the help of his imagination and by recasting the material 
furnished him by the Synoptics. J 

In the history of the Passion, repetition was unavoidable; 
but here also John writes with the same conscious reference 
to the Synoptics. Accepting the text of the older MSS., 
modifications of which are easy to understand and therefore 
to be rejected (n. 11), John in xvii. 13-28 distinguishes 
between a transaction in the house of Annas and a later 
hearing in the house of Caiaphas. The express statement 
that the former of these hearings took place first (xviii. 13, 
πρῶτον), and the omission of all account of the second hear- 
ing, with only the insertion of the account of Peter's 
second and third denials between the notice of Jesus’ 
deliverance into Caiaphas’ hands by Annas (ver. 24) and 
His handing over to Pilate by Caiaphas (ver. 28), would be 
incomprehensible on the part of an author who was giving 
the history of these events without reference to other 
accounts with which the readers were familiar. τ: For it is 
altogether self-evident that what is first recorded and 
what immediately follows the account of the arrest took 
place first ; and everyone understands that what took place, 
in the house of Caiaphas, whose position as ruling high’ 
priest is strongly emphasised in vv. 13f., 24'as earkien:in 
xi: 49-51, must have been more important than the: hear- 
ing before Annas, to whom | John <ascribes; no. official 
position whatever, and whose participation in: the trial he 
explains merely on the ground of his relationship) [ὃ the 
hich priest (ver, 18). | When, neverthieless; John expressly 
affirms that the hearing before Annas took place first, and 
then passes by without a word the latter event, concerning 
which he had aroused their attention in ver. 24, it-can only: 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 271 


be because he wrote with other accounts in view which 
seemed to make the first statement necessary and allowed 
him to pass the other by. | Mark xiv. 53-65 and xv. 1 and 
Matt. xxvi. 57-68, xxvii. 1, agree in distinguishing be- 
tween what took place during the night in the dwelling of 
the high priest and.a session of the Sanhedrin held in the 
early morning ; and both Gospels place the decisive hearing 
and the death sentence of Jesus in the night assembly. 
Matthew differs from Mark only in calling the high priest, 
before whom the hearing by night took place, Caiaphas, 
and in stating (xxvii. 1) that the decision in regard to the 
execution of Jesus was made at the morning sitting. 
There is no reference: to this in Mark xv. 1. Luke is 
similar to Matthew in this latter variation... He makes no 
mention whatever in xxii. 54 ff. of a hearing by night be- 
fore the Sanhedrin, and, on the other hand, places the 
decisive hearing in the official session of the Sanhedrin, 
which was held in the morning (xxi. 66-70). It is evi- 
dent that the tradition was uncertain with regard to the 
ditferent steps of Jesus’ trial. It was the special mission 
of the disciple who was known in the household and the 
court of the high priest, and who, therefore, was not com- 
pelled like Peter to remain without in the court, but could 
enter the inner rooms of the house which were used for 
the trial, to make this clear. Since John says only that 
Peter remained in the court, he himself must actually have 
gone within, and so have gained a more exact idea of the 
course lof events than was possible for Peter, especially ‘since 
the Jatter was very much occupied with his own affairs and 
became confused (n.11)., Consequently, whether the disciple 
in xviii. 15-16 was John himself or his brother James (above, 
p. 216), John was able to correct the error, which is expressed 
in so many words only by Matthew, but which was probably 
shared also by Mark and Luke, namely, that Jesus was led 
at once upon His arrest to Caiaphas. | Not to Caiaphas, 
says John, but before and first to Annas (ver. 13)... With 


272 INTRODUCTION! ‘TO THE NEW ‘TESTAMENT 


this error which John thus corrects was connected another, 
expressed by Matthew and Mark, but corrected by Luke; 
namely, that witnesses were examined at the hearing held 
during the night, and the sentence of death passed as if it 
were a regular court. Here John agrees with Luke, since 
what ‘he relates about the transaction im the house of Annas 
is only a preliminary hearing of Jesus; there is no decision, 
and the whole lacks the character οὔ ἃ judicial procedure 
in which a case is pressed to an issue: But such a trial 
was the necessary presupposition of ‘the appearance of: the 
members of the Sanhedrin before Pilate (John xvin. 30; 
xix. 7; Matt: xx. 18; Mark x33 5vActs χη]. 27). This 
was not held at night before Annas, but im the early 
morning before \Caiaphas. John: 18. aware of this, and 
notices also the transference of Jesus to Caiaphas (vv. 24, 
28), but omits an account of what took place during this 
trial, because in the nature of the case neither he nor his 
brother was present at the meeting of the Sanhedrin, and 
consequently he had nothing to add to what the readers 
already knew from Mark or Luke or Matthew, or from all 
three of the synoptic Gospels. While in this instance 
John clearly shows himself‘ acquainted with the older 
tradition and reveals his definite purpose to arrange his 
own account with reference to the earlier: synoptic narra- 
tives, the reference of πάλιν in xviii. 40. to previous 
participation of the crowd in the trial by loud cries, of 
which, however, nothing is saidin John, may be uninten- 
tional. But it is evidently an echo of Mark xv. ‘8, 11,118. 
In general, it may be said that the sudden’ appearance οὗ 
Barabbas in John’s narrative isto be\éxplained only on ‘the 
supposition that the story was famihar to the readers, but 
could not well be pussed over by John in silence, | This is 
true also of xx. 2, although in the previous verses we read 
only that Mary Magdalene came to the graverand saw that 
the stone was rolled away ; nevertheless, when she comes to 
Peter and Jolin she says to them that someone has) taken 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 273 


the Lord’s body out of the grave, which no one eould know 
without having convinced himself that the tomb was 
empty. Moreover, in declaring her uncertainty as to the 
place where the body has been laid, she does not use οὐκ 
οἶδα, as in ver, 13, but οὐκ οἴδαμεν. It is thus presupposed 
that others besides her had had essentially the same experi- 
ence, and had, discussed with her the question as to where 
the body had been removed. But the others must have 
seen more than she did, 2.e. they must have inspected the 
tomb and have found it empty. In short, while on the 
one hand John’s account presupposes the narrative in 
Mark xvi. 1-5 (Matt. xxviii. 1. 5-6; Luke xxiv. 1-10), on 
the other hand it differs from this account, in which the 
distinctions had become obliterated, by indicating that 
Mary Magdalene came only as far as the grave, but did 
not enter it. In the meanwhile, however, she had spoken 
with the other women who had gone into the grave. The 
lack of skilful historical narrative in John which we notice 
here and elsewhere is more than offset by the evidence of 
his dependence upon the synoptic narrative, especially 
upon Mark. Indeed, this lack of skill is the very means 
by which dependence upon the Synoptics is brought clearly 
to light. 

It is from this point of view that an answer is to be 
given to the much debated question as to how John’s idea 
of the chronology of the Passion history, 2.e., of the time 
relation of the last meal and the crucifixion to the Jewish 
feast. of the Passover of that year, is related to, that of the 
Synoptists. This was one of the main questions at issue 
at the time of the disputes about the proper date for the 
celebration of the Christian Passover which arose between 
165 and 170 in the Churches of Asia Minor, and which 
after 190 were continued between the Churches of Rome 
and Ephesus (n. 12). With only rare exceptions, such as 
Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis (about 170),the Churches 
and bishops of the province of Asia had at the time of 


VOL. III. 18 


274 INTRODUCTION ΤΟ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


these disputes been for a long time Quartodecimans {τεσσα- 
ρεσκαιδεκατῖται), and they continued to remain such during 
the third century, %.e., they observed the Christian Pass- 
over, which consisted of a special celebration of the 
Eucharist after a fast, on the day and at the hour of the 
Jewish Passover meal on the evening of the 14th of Nisan. 
In support of this practice they appealed to the example 
of the great saints of the Church of their province, the 
apostle John of Ephesus, Philip of Hierapolis, and also the 
bishops and martyrs of the post-apostolic age. They 
appealed also to “the Gospel,” ‘particularly to Matthew, 
according to which Christ on the evening before His death 
observed the Jewish Passover at the time prescribed by the 
law. 1.6., the evening of the 14th of Nisan, and on this 
occasion instituted and celebrated the Christian Passover 
or Eucharist. Inasmuch as they claimed to have the 
authority of “the Gospel,” 2.6. the four Gospels, and in 
general of the entire Scripture on their side in this ques-, 
tion, they must have been of the opinion that John and 
Matthew were in agreement on this point. Their 
opponents also took for granted that under all cireum- 
stances the Gospels must agree with one another and that 
they did actually so agree; but on the authority of 
John, especially of John xviii. 28, they claimed that Jesus 
partook of His last meal, which they regarded as in no 
sense a Jewish Passover meal, on the 13th of Nisan, and 
died on the 14th of Nisan as the true Passover lamb. 

How the original representatives of these two opposing 
practices and exegetical views found support in detail in 
the texts for their common principle, namely, that the 
four Gospels are in harmony with one another, we are 
unable to determine positively from the literature which 
has come down to us, and which consists merely of scanty 
fraoments. The view of the Johannine account whieh the 
opponents of the (uartodecimans (Apollinaris, Clement, 
Hippolytus) maintained has become the dominant view 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN By 


also in modern times. The Tübingen school made this 
one of their prineipal arguments against the genuineness 
of the Fourth Gospel. They maintained that the anti- 
Quartodecimanian Fourth Gospel could not have been 
written by the apostle John, who according to trustworthy 
tradition was himself a Quartodeciman in practice; in 
fact, that one of the reasons for the composition of the 
Gospel and its ascription to the apostle was to give 
support to the anti-Quartodecimanian manner of observing 
Easter (n. 13). This view was extreme, and may be dis- 
missed in a few words. In the first place, if this were the 
writer's purpose, then he must have been devoid of intelli- 
gence. For he leaves the character of Jesus’ last meal 
entirely indefinite (xii. 2) and says nothing about the 
institution ‘of the Lord’s Supper, thus leaving entirely 
untouched the chief point of dispute in the Easter. con- 
troversy of the second century. Nor does he anywhere 
inform his readers expressly regarding the time relation 
between the separate acts of the Passion and the various 
parts of the Jewish Passover, and his own definite view 
regarding this relation which is thought by many to 
contradict that of the Synoptists comes out only in an 
incidental way. A man who conceived the bold idea of 
setting aside the view regarding the most important part 
of the gospel history which had prevailed up to his time 
and upon which the method of celebrating Easter in the 
Church of Asia was based, must have attempted to do so 
by an out and out denial of the correctness of the prevail- 
ing practice, and by positively claiming in the appropriate 
place at the beginning of the history of the Passion the 
correctness of the opposite practice. The later he wrote 
and the more deeply the practice which he antagonised 
had become rooted with the lapse of time through the 
influence of literature and of Church usage, the more 
positive must have been his denial. The employment of 
such entirely inadequate means as it is claimed that the 


276 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


writer used to accomplish his purpose resulted in the com- 
plete failure of his attempt in the immediate region where 
the Fourth Gospel originated: for, with the exception 
of the isolated case of Apollinaris, the Church of Asia 
Minor remained Quartodecimanian until within the fourth 
century. In the second place, even if John did observe 
Easter in Ephesus according to Quartodecimanian practice, 
we have no right to assume that at this early date he was 
influenced by the same considerations and arguments 
which the Quartodecimans advanced in the disputes 
between the years 165 and 200 when their time-honoured 
custom was attacked. That the conception of Christ as 
the Paschal Lamb of His Church is entirely independent 
of the alleged view of John that Jesus died on the 14th of 
Nisan, before He could: have partaken of the’ Passover 
meal, is proved by Paul; since he expresses the idea even 
more clearly than the author of the Fourth Gospel (1 Cor. 
v. 7), although he is familiar with the fact that Jesus 
observed the Jewish Passover on the night of His arrest, 
and on this night instituted the Lord’s Supper (above, 
vol. 11,380 under no. 7). The conception of Christ as the 
Paschal Lamb which is found throughout the N.T. is in no 
way based upon this alleged coincidence of the hour of 
Jesus’ death with the time of the slaying of the Passover 
lamb, but was involved in the view that redemption under 
the new covenant was the counterpart of the deliverance 
from, Egypt, and found merely a natural point of con- 
nection in the fact that Jesus died at the time of the 
Jewish Passover, and not, for example, during) the feast 
of Tabernacles (John vii. 2-10). In a similar way the 
(Juartodecimanian observation of Easter was not dependent 
upon the chronological details of the Passion, e.g:, upon 
the faet advanced by the later Quartodecimans that Jesus 
observed the Passover and instituted the Lord’s Supper on 
the 14th of Nisan, for the reason that the observance 
of the Lord’s Supper by the Church and the Christian 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 2%8 


/ 


Passover—for that is what the special, yearly celebration 
of the Eucharist really was—is not a memorial celebration 
of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, but the celebration 
of the redemption of the entire Church by Christ,—an 
antitype of the Jewish Passover meal. 

In just the same way the method of observing Easter 
in the West, opposed to that of the Quartodecimans, is not 
dependent upon the exegetical opinion of Apollinaris or 
Clement regarding single passages in the Fourth Gospel, 
since Irenzeus, Origen, and Tertullian observed Easter 
after the manner customary in the West, without on that 
account denying that Jesus observed the Passover on the 
evening before His death at the time prescribed by the 
law, and, consequently, without denying that the earliest 
possible date for His death was the 15th of Nisan (n. 14). 
The Quartodecimanian observance of Easter may have 
been introduced into the province of Asia by Paul or his 
disciples (Timothy, Epaphras, and others), and John may 
have adopted the method of Easter observance which he 
found already existing in Ephesus, without regard to our 
view of the details of the chronology of the Passion 
history ; since the fact that Jesus had partaken of His last 
meal with His disciples at the time οἵ ἃ Jewish Passover 
feast, the fact that He had suffered death and! had risen 
from, the dead, and that by choosing this time for His 
redemptive acts He had represented Himself as the 
Paschal Lamb of the new covenant, and His work as the 
antitype of the deliverance of Israel, from, Egypt, were 
facts established beyond all question and; independent of 
chronological details. If John did. hold a. view. of. the 
date of Jesus’ death. different from that held by Paul and 
the Churches from Antioch to Corinth, by the Synoptists 
and the different circles who reproduced. their, tradition, 
the possibility that this would have influenced him, to 
oppose the custom in vogue in the Churches of the pro- 
vince ,of Asia was, rendered less by the fact ‚that in 


278 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Palestine he himself, like all his companions, had lived 
according to the law which required the yearly celebra- 
tion of the Jewish Passover, but which in the case of 
Christians could not terminate without the celebration of 
the Christian Passover meal, namely, the Eucharist. Con- 
sequently, John’s Quartodecimanian practice in Ephesus is 
no proof whatever that this John connected the different 
stages of the Passion history with the different days of 
the Jewish feast of the Passover, and so argues nothing 
against his authorship of the Fourth Gospel, even if this 
should be found to present a view of the chronology of 
Jesus’ Passion differing from that of the later Quarto- 
decimans. The belief still prevalent that this is actually 
the case, has influenced many who are convinced that the 
Fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John, or ‘at 
least by an eye-witness of the Passion history, in some 
instances to form conclusions regarding the Synoptists 
which deny all connection between them and first hand 
information; in other cases, to make bold conjectures 
concerning the facts in the case designed to remove the 
alleged contradiction between John and the Synoptists 
(n. 15). 

There is, however, no occasion whatever to dispute the 
fact that all three Synoptists report, without the least evid- 
ence of uncertainty about the matter, Jesus’ observance 
of the’ Jewish Passover at the time prescribed by the 
law, namely, on the 14th of Nisan, His crucifixion on the 
15th of Nisan, 1.6. on Friday, and His resurrection on the 
17th of Nisan, which fell on a Sunday. According to the 
preceding investigations (§§ 48-63) this is attested by the 
apostle Matthew, by Mark, who drew his account prin- 
cipally from the oral discourses of Peter, and in whose 
home Jesus partook of His last meal, and also by Luke, 
who had been a member of the Church in Antioch since 
about the year 40, and who also had abundant oppor- 
tunity to inform himself of the details of the gospel history 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 276 


from members of the original Church, of which oppor- 
tunities he made good use. But even if these results of 
the investigation of the first three Gospels were less 
certain than they seem to the present writer to. be, it 
would nevertheless remain true that we have to do here, 
not with the opinion of three individual writers, but with 
three representatives of a tradition which before the year 
80 had spread from Palestine to Rome with ramifications 
in many directions. 

To this must be added Paul’s testimony, who publishes 
the same view in the year 57 (vol. 11. 380, πο. 7), and 
declares that at the time when the Corinthian Church was 
founded (52-54 a.p.) he had imparted to the Corinthians 
the history of the institution of the Lord’s Supper—in the 
account of which his opinion comes clearly to view—just 
as he had received it by tradition from the Lord (vol. ii. 
384, n. 6). Therefore he must have found this view 
dominant not only in the Church of Antioch between the 
years 43 and 49, but also in the Church in) Damascus 
between the years 35, and 38. In view of, this fact, it 
seems impossible that an eye-witness of the Passion should 
have held a view regarding the question as to whether 
Jesus’ last meal, when the Lord’s Supper was instituted, 
was a Passover meal, and as to whether Jesus died on the 
14th or 15th of Nisan, differing from the tradition which 
universally prevailed after the year 35, and which was 
necessarily repeated) whenever the chief features of the 
Passion history were related, and whenever instruction was 
given regarding the institution and significance of the 
Lord's Supper. A writer who advanced such a view, and 
at the same time claimed that he occupied a place at 
Jesus’ side during the last’meal and stood under His cross, 
would beat once convicted of falsehood, both as regards 
his claim: and his view of the time of Jesus’ last meal. If 
the Fourth Gospel dates the chronology of the Passion 
a day earlier—in,this way changing the character of 


280 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


essential features of this most important part of the 
gospel history—then the Johannine authorship of the 
record will have to be denied, not because he was ἃ 
Quartodeciman, but because of the close relationship whieh 
this disciple sustained to Jesus. But is it true that the 
Fourth Gospel does date the Passion a day earlier? 

This question cannot be correctly answered if one 
denies what was established above (p. 255 ff.), namely, 
that John wrote for Christians who were familar with ‘the 
tradition represented in the Synoptics, and especially with 
Mark, in consequence of which he treats this tradition 
throughout as a history which the readers believed’ and 
which is essentially trustworthy ; that in some instances 
he passes over very important parts of this history with- 
out thereby implying any doubt as to its importance or 
truth ; that in other instances he incidentally takes for 
granted that events have happened and are known (e.g. 
vi. 2,70); and finally, that in cases where he’ does find 
the synoptic account misleading (e.g. ii. 24), or actually 
inaccurate and incorrect, he simply supplies another 
account out of his own fuller knowledge (e.g. xii. '7), 
or corrects it in so many words (e.g. xviii, 13). In the 
light of these facts it must be self-evident that if John 
had held the synoptic accounts, or, rather, the tradition 
universally current in the early’ Church regarding the 
character of Jesus’ last meal and the time relation of His 
death to the celebration of the Jewish Passover, to be 
incorrect, he must either have corrected the same ex- 
pressly, clearly, and) in the appropriate place, or have 
omitted all corrections, and have replaced) the synoptie 
accounts by another account. An eye-witness of the 
events would certainly not have lacked the courage’ to 
make such corrections, and a pseudonymous writer, who 
intended by his invention to oppose or to correct the 
account which had been heretofore believed and) upon 
which Church usage was based (see above, p. 275 f.), must 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 281 


have summoned it to action. But there is nothing of 
this spirit in the Fourth Gospel. The author does not 
show any disposition to instruct his readers concerning 
the relation of the last events of Jesus’ life to the Jewish 
Passover; he only uses this relation to explain a few 
oceurrences. On the other hand, he does lay a good deal 
of weight upon the fact that Jesus died on a Friday and 
rose from the dead on a Sunday (xix. 14, 31, 42, xx. 1, 
19, 26), evidently because the Christian arrangement of 
the days of the week was based upon this presupposition 
(Reviiis 105 ρος. xvi) 25 Actsoxx 07)», But» in this 
John agrees entirely with the Synoptists. Even as early 
as vil. 8 (cf. vv. 1-6) the attentive reader is prepared: by 
what is there said to expect that Jesus will not end His 
eareer at the feast of Tabernacles, but at a later feast, 
which is definitely in mind. < In xi.45-53: his attention 
is directed to the near approach of Jesus’ death ; in xi. 
54—57, to the nearness of the Passover. ‘The date of His 
arrival in Bethany, xu. 1, is reckoned with reference to 
the Passover (πη. 16). Since, however, in the case of the 
six days which follow the transition from one to the other 
is indicated in only a single instance (xii. 12), it is 
impossible for the reader to assign the events) recorded 
in xn. 20-xvii. 27 to the particular days on which they 
took place; but if, like the first readers of the Fourth 
Gospel, he already has a definite view of the course of 
events during the last days, he finds nothing in Joba 
which euibsédinin it, certainly not in xi. 1. 

When this passage is correctly understood (n. 8), the 
very most that can be inferred from it is that everything 
related in xiil. 2—xx. 29 took place during the Passover 
which began some time during the course of the 14th of 
Nisan; and when the reader observes, as he must ido: at 
once, that what is recorded in xiii. 2—xvilis 27 took place 
on the last, evening and the night before Jesus’ death, 
this preconceived idea thatthe meal mentioned in 


282 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


xiii. 2 ff. was’ the Passover meal could only be confirmed, 
especially since the omission of the article before δείπνου 
γενομένου, ΧΙ]. 2, was an appeal to the reader’s previous 
knowledge of the history of the last evening of Jesus’ 
life, and the verse contained not the slightest hint of any 
intention on the writer’s part to mform his readers more 
fully regarding the time and character of this meal. 

' Readers such as John had in mind could not infer, 
even from xiii. 29, that the feast was still to take place, 
and had not begun already at the time of xiii. 2. The 
first passage which could lead them astray was xviii. 28, 
But as:a matter of fact, so far as we know, the author's 
own disciples and the Church of the province of Asia were 
not misled by the verse, and it was not until the middle 
of the second century that several ‘scholars came to the 
conclusion that, according to John, the Passover meal had 
not yet been celebrated on the morning of the crucifixion, 
—a view, opposition to which to-day is almost an act of 
impropriety (n. 17)». But for scholarly readers, who 
know how to put themselves in the place of the original 
readers, the singular expression φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα is less 
difficult to accept than the possibility that in this passage, 
near the end of his book, in an entirely incidental remark 
which has no connection either with Jesus’ last meal or 
with the transactions and sufferings on the last day of His 
life, but which ostensibly is designed merely to explain 
why. members of the Sanhedrin refused to enter the 
Preetorium, the writer should have attempted to over- 
throw a view of his readers which he has’ left entirely 
undisturbed throughout the whole of the ‘preceding 
account (xii. 1+xvili. 27). It would. be more credible te 
assume that ¢aywow is an early seribal error for ἄγωσιν, 
which would then naturally refer to the entire seven days’ 
feast just begun. But.it 15: ποῦ necessary to employ such 
a drastic means of escaping the difticulty, since the usage 
of the expression “to eat the Passover” loosely and 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 283 


popularly for the entire seven days’ or, properly, seven 
and a half days’ feast, beginning with the slaughter of the 
Passover lamb, is adequately attested (n. 17). Moreover, 
it is probable that the members of the Sanhedrin had 
specifically in mind the so-called Chagigah, the sacrificial 
meal of the 15th of Nisan, which, unlike the Passover 
meal, was held during the course of the day and not after 
sundown. Cum vulgo logwitur evangelista, correctly 
remarks the elder Lightfoot (Opp. ii. 670). To stake 
everything upon one little subordinate clause, or possibly 
even upon a single letter in the clause, and to leave out 
of consideration everything that is said elsewhere in the 
book, and the clear relation of the whole narrative to the 
older accounts, is not exegetical accuracy, but violates the 
laws of historical interpretation. The relation of the 
Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics harmonises, with John 
of Ephesus’ brief judgment regarding Mark: ἀκριβῶς 
ἔγραψεν, οὐμέντοι τάξει, which, because it is brief, requires 
careful elaboration, and with Papias’ judgment, . based 
upon the statement of John : οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μᾶρκος. Thus 
the investigations of this section confirm the conclusions 
reached above in §§ 48-63 regarding the origin of the 
first three Gospels. | 7 

1. (P: 255.) Concerning the relation of John to the Synopties, cf. Hug, 
Einl ii. 191-205 ; Baur, Krit. Unters. über die kanon Evwv. 1847, 8. 239-280 ; 
Holtzmann, Z/WTh, 1869, S. 62-85, 155-178, 446-456. Wuttig (Das joh. 
Ev. und seine Abfassungszeit), 8. 52-59, is under necessity of denying John 
all reference to the Synopties, because, contrary to most critics, he makes 
Luke write his Gospel to supplement the Fourth Gospel, S. 59-69, 96-102. 
Οὐ still less importance are the few words with which Gebhardt, Die 
Abfassungszeit des Jo. ev. 1906, 8. 15-17, believes that he'can discredit all 
proofs for John’s attention to the synoptic tradition. 

2. (Pp. 255, 256.) That John i. 6-viii. 15 is no substitute for an historical 
introduction—such as is found in Matt. iii. 1-6; Mark i. 2-8, but especially 
in Luke i. 5-25, 39-80, iii. 1420-48 obvious. It is likewise obvious that the 
conjecture that the Baptist wished to pass for the Messialı (John i. 20, 25, 
ef. iii. 28; Luke iii. 15)—a conjecture presupposed by the question put to 
him by the embassy—could not have arisen so early in his public activity. 


If, as is undoubtedly the case, in ver. 24 ἀπέσταλμένοι, without the article, 
is the correct reading, it is to be tendered : “and there were sent Pharisees” ; 


284 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


since here, as in ix. 40, xvi. 17; Rev. ii. 10, iii. 9,,xi. 9; Matt. xxili, 34 
(similarly also John vii. 40 ; Rev. ii. 17 ; Matt, xiii. 47, xxvii. 9; ZKom. Matt. 
700), ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων is a Hebrew and Syriac idiom (Blass, ΝῊ. Gr. § 35. 4; 
Noldeke, Syr. Gr. 8 249c)=des Pharisiens. The official embassy (cf. ν, 33) con- 
sisted of priests and Levites, and was made up, therefore, not of Pharisees, but 
rather of adherents of the Sadducean party ; these were accompanied, how- 
ever, by representatives of the Pharisaic party. Moreover, as Origen saw,— 
although his insight is not without error (tom. vi. 8 in Jo.),—the tenor of 
their question proves that the persons speaking in ver. 24 are altogether 
different from those speaking in vv. 19-23. The fact that in the Fourth 
Gospel the Baptist is never called ὁ Barrıorns (Matt. 6 times, Mark 3 times, 
Luke 3 or 4 times, also Josephus),—although baptism is everywhere spoken 
of as his distinctive calling (i. 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, iii. 23, iv. 1, x. 40),—may be 
due to the circumstance that the apostle John is never mentioned by name 
in the Fourth Gospel. There is no occasion, therefore, to distinguish be- 
tween the Baptist and the apostle. The various readings in ver. 27 are due 
to a mistaken effort to find in this verse the earlier testimony to which the 
Baptist refers in ver. 30 (=ver. 15). The testimony recalled in ver. 30 
belongs before the beginning of the narrative in ver. 19ff. Since it pre- 
supposes also that profounder knowledge of Jesus which the Baptist obtained 
only when the Spirit descended upon Him at His baptism (vv. 31-34), this 
revelation in visible form, 7.e. the baptism of Jesus, must likewise precede 
vv. 19-27. This is proved also by ver. 26; for the emphatic ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ 
οἴδατε implies a ὃν ἐγὼ οἶδα, without which also the positive μέσος ὑμῶν στήκει 
would be unintelligible. The description of the Messiah as ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν 
πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, which is used in ver. 33 as if it were a familiar conception, 
presupposes on the part of the readers acquaintance with the fact that the 
Baptist had ascribed to the Messiah, who was to come after him, baptizing 
with the Spirit as His prineipal function, ef. Mark i. 8; Matt. iii. 11; Luke 
iii. 16. Similarly also only readers familiar with Mark i. 11 (Matt) iii, 17; 
Luke iii. 22) could understand how, on the basis of the experience ‚related 
in vv. 32-33, the Baptist could claim to have testified previously what is 
given in ver. 34 as the contents of his testimony. | In the same verse ἐκλεκτός 
(8* Se Ss e) is to be read instead of vids, as in the Textus receptus, which 
agrees with the ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα of the Synoptics, when this phrase is correctly 
understood =“ whom I have chosen,” cf. Luke ix. 35, xxiii. 35. But in the 
use of this word John, like Peter (vol. ii. 215 ff.), shows that his knawledge 
is independent of the language of the Synopties. 

3. (Pp, 256, 259,261.) The correct. and, in fact, self-evident interpretation 
of iv. 44 has been urged particularly by Hofmann (Weissagung u, Erfüllung, ii. 
86). The following points are clear ; (1) Τὰ this connection, where only Judea 
and Galilee are mentioned, and Samaria is spoken of as the region lying between 
the two (iii. 22, iv. 3, 4, 43-45, 47, 54), the ἰδία πατρίς of Jesus can be only 
Galilee, not Nazareth, which is not even mentioned, still less Judea. (2) The 
remark, which would have been appropriate in iv, 3, is properly introduced 
in iv, 44, because the unexpectedly great and unsought for results im Sychar, 
which might have diverted another from his immediate calling, and turned 
him aside from his newly formed resolve temporarily to withdraw from public 
work (iv. 1-3), had not so affected Jesus, but had rather led Him, in view of 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 285 


the common experience that a prophet is not apt to be very highly esteemed 
in his own home, to leave Sychar at once, and immediately to continue His 
journey into His native Galilean homeland. Whether on this occasion Jesus 
actually spoke the word concerning the prophet, or whether John, remember- 
ing that Jesus had used this proverbial expression on another occasion (Matt. 
xiii. 57; Mark vi.4; Luke iv. 24), introduces it in order to explain why 
Jesus continued His journey to Galilee, cannot be determined. (8) αὐτὸς 
Ἰησοῦς (without an article, as in ii. 24) does not, like Ἰησοῦς αὐτός, iv. 2, mean 
“Jesus Himself,” as distinguished from His disciples or others, who might 
have been more likely to express themselves in this way. The meaning is 
exactly the same as in ii. 24 : “He for His part” thought and spoke thus, in 
contrast to what, from a different point of view, might otherwise have been 
thought and done. In this instance it meant that the results were not 
entirely in accordance with the purpose of Jesus. (4) It is not necessary 
in this case that οὖν in ver. 45 be replaced by δέ, since ver. 45 does not in any 
sense express a consequence and result of ver. 44 or ver. 43. Jesus’ friendly 
reception by the Galileans was a result neither of the common experience 
noted in ver. 44, nor of the circumstance that Jesus had uttered the words 
of ver. 44, nor of His journey to Galilee (ver. 43), nor even of His un- 
reported work in Galilee, but the outcome rather of the miracles which He 
had wrought in Jerusalem. The particle oöv, which John uses with very 
great frequency (about 210 times; in all three Synoptics only about 110 
times), is used here, as often in John, especially after inserted remarks, 
simply in order to resume, or even merely to continue, the narrative ; ef. iii. 
25, iv. 5, 9 (certainly genuine), xi. 3, 6, 14. The contrast between the mind 
and purpose with which Jesus went to Galilee (iv. 1-3, 43-44), and His 
reception there, is not formally expressed in this passage any more than it 
is in those passages where John connects contrasted statements by καί 
(e.g. 1. 10, 11). That Jesus, however, did persist in His opinion and purpose 
is attested by ver. 48, and by the silence of the Gospel concerning the 
public activity in which Jesus might have permitted Himself to become 
engaged. 

4, (P. 260.) This is not the connection in which to give the real order of 
the gospel history, though it is in place to sketch its plan according to John, If 
in v. 1 we read ἡ ἑορτή, with NC, ete., there can be no doubt that the reference 
is to the feast of Tabernacles, since in vii. 2 the expression ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν 
Ιουδαίων, clear enough in itself, is further explained by the appositional 
phrase ἡ σκηνοπηγία (vi. 4 is not a parallel case). This corresponds to the 
use of an in the narrower sense of the feast of Tabernacles-—a usage common 
in the Talmud, to which there is approach even in the O.T, (see Levy, 
Jastrow, Dalman, s.v.), a usage also which is in keeping with the extremely 
popular character of this feast. The error of the Church Fathers, beginning 
with Irenzus, and of many modern interpreters, in assuming that. “ the feast 
of the Jews” means simply the Passover, is due to the supposition that the 
Passover must have had the same significance for the Jews that it came to 
have for the Church and its worship through the Passion history. If the 
feast of Tabernacles be meant, then between December (iv. 35) and the feast 
of Tabernacles in v. 1 about nine months elapsed, and a Passover falls within 
the period; but, like everything else which occurred in this interval, is passed 


286 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


over in silence. We would have then, besides the three Passovers mentioned 
in ii. 13-23, vi. 4, xi. 55-xx. 29,a fourth between iv. 35 and y. 1, and between 
the first, Passover in ii. 13 and the fourth in xi, 55 an interval of three years. 
Ii the reading ἑόρτή without the article (ABD, etc.) be preferred, so far as the 
language is concerned one is at liberty to assume any feast he: pleases, e.g. the 
feast of Purim: after the December suggested in iv. 35, and. preceding the 
Passover of vi. 4 by a month. But this is, in fact, historically impossible, 
assuming, of course, that John is writing history. It would then be necessary 
to crowd into the single month between Purim and the Passover, less the 
time oecupied by the journey from Jerusalem to Galilee and the days which 
intervened between the feeding of the multitude and the Passover (vi. 4), 1.6. 
into about three weeks, the whole of Jesus’ extensive Galilean ministry (the 
content of Matt. iv. 12-xiv. 12), for which John leaves no place before chap. v., 
and which is presupposed in chap. vi. This is impossible. If ἑορτή be the 
correct reading, either the Passover, or Pentecost, or Tabernacles must be 
meant. Not only in case it be interpreted as the third feast, which would be 
self-evident if we read ἡ ἑορτή, but also in case it be interpreted as the first or 
second, according to John’s plan, besides the three Passovers mentioned, there 
would be a fourth, belonging somewhere between iv. 35 and vi. 4. The 
whole course of events would then be the same as if we read ἡ ἑορτή. The 
only difference arising from the various possibilities would be the interval of 
time between iv. 35 and v. 1, or between v. 1 and vi. 4. This would vary, 
while that between iv. 35 and vi. 4, and the: period covered by the gospel 
history, would in any case remain the same. 

5. (P. 261.) Leaving out of account general agreement in the progress of 
the story aud in situation, resemblances between John vi. 3-13 and Matt. 
xiv. 13-21, Mark vi. 34-44, Luke ix. 11-17, are as follows: (1) The: five 
loaves of bread and two fishies’; (2) the twelve baskets of fragments ; (3) the 
five thousand men (only in Matt. are women and children expressly excluded) ; 
(4) the two hundred denarii (only in Mark vi. 37 and John vi. 7). Peculiar 
to John are: (1) the conversation between Jesus, Philip, and Andrew (of 
which the Synoptics give only a colourless picture). Mark alone has a some- 
what more vivid account, so that in Mark vi. 37 the name Philip can be 
supplied from John, and in Mark vi. 38 the name of Andrew. In this 
connection it may also be remarked that John very closely resembles Mark: 
ἀναπίπτειν twice in John, once in Mark; the picturesque description of the 
grass-covered ground (expressed in Mark by xAwpos, in John by πολύς) ; 
(2) παιδάριον, ver. 9; (3) the description of the loaves of bread as κρίθινοι; 
vy. 9, 13; and (4) the characterisation of the fish as ὀψάρια, vv. 9, 11 
(ef. xxi. 9, 10, 13). 

6. (P. 264.) That the event referred to in John xii, 2--8 and hence in 
xi. 2 is the one mentioned in Matt. xxvi. 6-13, Mark xiv. 3-9, and not the 
story in Luke vii. 36-50, is apparent from the place (Bethany); the near- 
ness of the Passover; the character of the woman who anointed Jesus; the 
practical identity and at the same time the difference in the remarks called 
out by the deed. But it is equally evident that in the statement (John 
xii. 3) that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair, the 
Johannine narrative varies from Matt: xxvi. 7 (ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς) and Mark 
xiv. 3 (xara τῆς κεφαλῆς), where nothing is said of the anointing of the feet of 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 287 


Jesus, and of their being dried with the woman’s hair, although one does not 
exclude the other, and possibly the indefinite τὸν κύριον in xi. 2 (cf. Matt. 
xxvi. 12; Mark xiv. 8, τὸ σῶμά pov) permits of both. It is also undeniable 
that John here resembles Luke vii. 38. Even the Lucan word ἐκμάσσειν is 
found in John xi. 2, xüi.’3. This is not the place to settle the question 
whether Luke is here relating an historical fact distinct from the anointing 
in Bethany, or whether the same fact has been handed down in the two 
entirely different forms, one of which is found in Matt., Mark, and John, the 
other in Luke. In favour of the latter hypothesis is the fact that in Luke the 
host’s name is Simon, as in Matt. and Mark, and the fact that Luke, in view 
of his own distinct account of the anointing, omits the anointing in Bethany 
with which he was familiar from Mark (above, p. 102). On the other hand, 
it is not impossible that two different events, which, however, agreed in some 
points, were assimilated to each other in the oral tradition more than they 
should have been, which gave rise to resemblances that awaken suspicions on 
the part of critically disposed investigators. But this is a question having to 
do more with the ἀσφάλεια of the traditions used by Luke than with the 
relation of John to the Synoptics. John agrees with Mark as against Matt. in 
the following points: (1) the valuation of the ointment at three hundred 
denarii (ver. 5 = Mark xiv. 5 preceded by ἐπάνω, Matt. xxvi. 9 only πολλοῦ) ; 
(2) in the use of almost exactly the’ same, words, some of which are rare: 
λαβοῦσα Alrpav μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτίμου = Mark. ἔχουσα ἀλάβαστρον 
μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτελοῦς (Matt., on the other hand, apparently has 
ἔχουσα ad. μύρου Bapvrinov). John xii. 8 is almost identical with Matt. 
xxvi. 11; only Mark xiv. 7 inserts καὶ ὅταν θέλητε δύνασθε (in other readings 
αὐτοῖς Or αὐτούς OT αὐτοῖς πάντοτε are added) ed ποιῆσαι. In addition to those 
already mentioned, the following are the more important variations in the 
Johannine account of Mary’s action: (1) whereas the connection of the story 
in Mark and Matt. makes possible the impression—a possibility which dis- 
appears when the words are carefully considered—that the event took place 
two days before the Passover (Matt. xxvi.2,6; Mark xiv. 1,3, ZKom. Matt. 677), 
John says (xii. 1) that Jesus arrived six days before the Passover ; so that the 
feast given in His honour occurred either on the same or the next day, certainly 
on the day before the triumphal entry (xii. 12). This is not a correction of 
the Synopties, any more than is iii. 24, but is intended rather to guard 
against a misunderstanding that might easily arise from the synoptic 
accounts, which do not follow exactly the chronological order. (2) John does 
not mention the host Simon, neither does he say who prepared the feast, con- 
sequently he does not indicate in whose house it took place, That, however, 
John did not think of it as taking place in the house of the sisters, is evident 
from the fact that in that case it would not be necessary to mention the 
circumstance that Martha helped in the serying, and still less the fact that 
Lazarus was one of those at the table. (3) Only John mentions the amount 
or weight of the ointment (ver. 3, cf. xix. 39). (4) John puts into the mouth 
of Judas practically the same words which in Matt. xxvi. 8 the, disciples as 
a body are represented as saying, and which are assigned to some of the dis- 
ciples in Mark xiv. 4, with whose account, therefore, at this point John 
agrees more closely than with that of Matthew and Luke. The situation is 
exactly the same as in John vi. 5-9 (see above, n. 5), and here the work of the 


288 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


harmonist is not a difficult one. The explanation of Judas’ words in ver. 6 
(ef. xiii. 29) seems to be derived from independent information, particularly 
since John says nothing about the payment of money to the traitor by the 
Sanhedrin, which is more easily understood if John’s explanation in ver: 6 be 
correct. (5) Undoubtedly the correct reading in ver. 7 is ἵνα εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν 
τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ μου τηρήσῃ αὐτό. But since this Mary had nothing to do 
with the burial of Jesus, and since even those women who did desire to 
anoint Jesus failed to accomplish it (Mark xvi. 1; Luke xxiii. 56, xxiv. 1), 
the reading was easily replaced by τετήρηκεν omitting ἵνα, without thereby 
making the personages agree with Matt. xxvi. 12; Mark xiv. 8. According 
to the correct reading of ver. 7, Jesus’ aim is to prevent Judas’ words from 
affecting the future acts of Mary and the disciples. He assumes that Mary 
will gladly use the remainder of the ointment left in the vessel to anoint His 
body, when He is laid in the grave. At the same time He indicates that this 
will shortly take place. The only point which Matt., Mark, and John have 
in common is the notice of Jesus’ approaching burial. 

7. (P. 266.) In the first and second German editions the present writer 
preferred the reading in i. 13, οὗ. . . ἐγεννήθησαν, of the Textus receptus, and 
therefore found only an indirect confirmation of the statement that Jesus was 
born of a Virgin (cf. also the writer’s work, Das apost. Symbolum, S. 62 f.). 
Since then, however, by more careful investigation of the tradition, and 
especially for reasons of style, he has become convinced of the originality of 
the reading ἐγεννήθη without ὅς, which prevailed until the fourth century in 
the Western Church. Also the Valentinians, whom Tertullian accuses of 
having invented the reading ἐγεννήθησαν, used the verb without of. The 
proofs of this conclusion, which are not exactly simple, will be found in 
ZKom. Joh. Cf. Resch, Auserkan. Parall. iv. 57 ff. ; Ev. Joh., ed. by Blass, 
1902, p. xiii Readers, such as i. 13 presupposes, could not have been misled 
by Philip’s remark on the first day that he met Jesus (i. 46), or by vi. 42, 
into supposing that Jesus was Joseph’s own son; since they knew that the 
Jews, notwithstanding their belief to the contrary, were not at all acquainted 
with Jesus’ real origin (vii. 27-29, viii. 14), while it was not until later that 
Philip and the other disciples became aware of it (xiv. 8-11, xvi. 27-30). 
Neither did they need a learned dissertation to show that Jesus was really 
descended from David and born in Bethlehem,—facts which occasionally at 
least were questioned by some of the common people who knew Him only as 
a Galilean (vii. 41f., cf. i. 45, 46, vii. 52). If the readers were not familiar 
with these facts, the evangelist certainly shows unpardonable carelessness, 
and defeats the purpose stated in xx. 31 in failing to answer these criticisms 
and in not denying—as, indeed, he could not deny—the basis of these 
opinions in Seripture (vii. 42), and in the Law and Prophets (i. 45). 

8. (Pp. 268, 281.) That the events recorded in chaps. xiii.-xvii. belong to the 
time of the Passover the readers were already aware from xii. 1, 12, 20, sinee up 
to this point events have been recorded in strietly chronological order, Con- 
sequently in xiii. 1, 29, the readers are not definitely informed of this faet 
again, but simply reminded of it incidentally in connection with remarks 
made for a different purpose. With regard to xiii. 1-4, we limit ourselves 
here to the following points: (1) Since v. 1 is graminatically complete, and 
since the object of εἰδὼς ὅτι in ver. 1 is entirely different from the object of 
εἰδὼς ὅτι in ver. 3, there is no occasion to assume a sort of a logical anacoluthon 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 289 


between the two clauses and to take the second εἰδώς as a resumption of the 
first, by means of these devices making the time indicated in ver. 1 cover the 
washing of the disciples’ feet in ver. 4 ff. (2) In ver. 1 there is as yet no 
reference whatever to the washing of the disciples’ feet. Although strictly 
ἀγαπᾶν always means an emotion expressing itself in deeds (1 John iii. 18), 
and although occasionally, like φιλεῖν, the word is used for a peculiar ex- 
pression of affection, namely, the kiss (Ign. ad Polye. ii. 3; used by the same 
writer of the celebration of the love feast and the Lord’s Supper, ad Smyrn. 
vii. 1; the word ἀγάπη is found in Jude 12 ; 2 Pet. ii. 13 ; vol. ii. 235); here 
ἠγάπησεν must have the same meaning as ἀγαπήσας which precedes, 16. 
Jesus’ devoted love to His own, which was naturally a love manifesting itself 
in words and deeds. The translation, “to give a proof of His love,” referring 
to the washing of the disciples’ feet, is not only in itself inadmissible and in- 
compatible with the correlation between ἀγαπήσας and ἠγάπησεν, but does not 
agree with eis τέλος; for whether the latter phrase means “to the end” 
(Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13) or “finally” and “ultimately” (1 Thess. ii. 16; Luke 
xviii. 5), Jesus did not wash the disciples’ feet to the end nor ultimately, nor 
was the washing of the disciples’ feet the last nor the supreme proof of Jesus’ 
love to His own. The greatest proof of His love was still in the future 
(xv. 13, xix. 17-37) ; such proof was not lacking even after the resurrection 
and the ascension ; nor between the washing of the disciples’ feet and the 
laying down of His life. Furthermore, leaving out of account the fact that 
the discourses in xiii. 18-xvii. 26 evidence Jesus’ very great love for His 
disciples (cf. especially xviii. 8, xix. 26 f.), the washing of the disciples’ feet is 
not given as a proof of love, but as an example of humble service (xiii. 12-17). 
The words ἀγαπήσας αὐτούς serve as a heading for chaps. xiii.-xvii. or even 
chaps. xiii.-xx., and mean merely that Jesus kept to the end the love which He 
had ever manifested toward His own who were in the world, and who were to 
remain in the world after His departure. Unlike other men in a similar 
situation, as His terrible death approached, Jesus was not preoccupied with 
thoughts of Himself and anxious to receive help and comfort from His own. 
He was constantly thinking of how He could lovingly serve and help them. 
(3) Since eis τέλος must be equivalent to ἕως τέλους, the other temporal 
expression , πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα, cannot be taken with the same phrase, 
but is to be connected with εἰδώς, as in Ss. The scenes of violence which 
were to affect so deeply all the disciples and make them lose their self- 
command (xiv. 1, xvi. 20-33), did not overcome Jesus, because they did not 
take Him by surprise. “As one who knew before the Passover that the 
hour of His departure out of the world to God had come, Jesus continued to 
show His love for His own... to the end.” Just as the consciousness of 
the power which has been given Him forms the background for His humble 
act in washing their feet (ver. 3ff.), so the consciousness of His approaching 
return to God, which He had before His Passion, explains the quietness and 
serenity with which Jesus suffered, and the loving spirit of sacrifice by which, 
up to the last moment, He showed Himself to be concerned not about Him- 
self, but about‘ His own. This is a thoroughly Johannine idea (xviii. 4, 
xix. 28 ; ef. vi. 64, vii. 8, ix. 4f., xi. 9f., xii. 7, 23-36; with application to the 
disciples, xiii. 19, xiv. 29, xvi. 4). The placing of the time phrase first is just 
as natural if taken with εἰδώς as with ἠγάπησεν, and it is thus given the 
VOL, II. 19 


290 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


emphasis which the writer intends (ef. i. 1, 48): “Even before the feast and 
not at the time of the feast,” z.e. before the events happened (xiii. 19), not 
when the events had taken place, and because of them, did Jesus know that 
He was to suffer. In this way it is assumed and indirectly attested that the 
events, the account of which follows, took place during the Passover. (4) 
Even if ver. 1 referred to the washing of the disciples’ feet, πρὸ τ. é τ. m. 
could not determine the time of this event. In this case we should expect 
“shortly or immediately before the beginning of the feast” (Xen. Cyrop. v. 
5. 39, πρὸ δείπνου), which would be just before the killing of the Passover 
lamb, that is, the forenoon or noon of the 14th of Nisan ; but δεῖπνον in 
ver. 4 (cf. ver, 30) places the time of the event in the evening. Assuming 
the usual meaning of πρό as contrasted with μετὰ τὴν €. or ev τῇ €, the 
reader was left to choose for himself any moment between the last date 
mentioned (xii. 1, 12) and the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan. This would 
leave the day and the hour of the washing of the disciples’ feet very in- 
definite, Still more incredible is the supposition that John, who nowhere 
indicates that the meal in question is Jesus’ last meal, and who makes no 
mention of very important events which took place during the Last Supper 
(the institution of the Lord’s Supper, ete.), recorded in the Synopties, should 
have corrected the latter, which say nothing of the washing of the disciples’ 
feet, by merely assigning such a meaningless time to this event. The 
evangelist, who certainly had as much insight as some of his interpreters, has 
been supposed to mean: “Jesus did not partake of His last meal with His 
disciples at the time of the Passover feast, but in connection with a meal 
(δείπνου, ver. 2, without the article) before the Passover, not more definitely 
described, He washed His disciples’ feet” ; which would be as senseless as to 
say, “Luther did not burn the bull of excommunication on December 10, 
1520, but rather on October 31, 1517, he did post the ninety-five theses.” (5) 
Since δεῖπνον γίνεται signifies only “a meal takes place,” not “a meal is being 
prepared” or “a meal is begun” (ef. ii. 1, x. 22; Matt. xxvi. 2), the reading 
δείπνου γινομένου (S*BLX Orig. tom, xxxii. 2), which agrees better with 
ver, 4, means “during the meal,” δείπνου γενομένου (NAD, ete.) “after the 
meal.” The determination of the correct reading in this passage is of im- 
portance to one attempting to harmonise the Gospels; but of greater weight 
in the present connection is the fact that John does not consider it necessary 
to say explicitly that a supper was prepared in connection with which the 
following events took place (cf, per contra, xii. 2; Mark vi, 21; Luke xiv, 16), 
and that he does not specifically describe the supper in question, either 
positively or negatively, Having indicated to the readers in ver. 1 that from 
this point on he intends to tell what took place at the feast of the Passover 
(see above under 3), he was sure they would understand that the supper to 
be mentioned was the same with which the reader knew the Passover began, 
namely, Jesus’ last meal, 

9. (P. 269.) The designation of the σάρξ instead of the σῶμα of Christ 
as the heayenly substance in the Lord’s Supper by Ignatius, Justin, and 
[reneus, also the conception of the Lord’s Supper as φάρμακον ἀθανασίας, is 
derived entirely from John vi. ; ef, Ign. Eph. xix. 2; Smyrn. vii. 1; Rom. 
vii. 3; Philad. iv.; Just. Apol. i. 66; Iren. iv. 18. 5, v. 2. 2f. ; Clem. Quzs 
Div. xxiii. ; the writer’s Ignatius von Ant. 8. 605; as to whether Marcion is 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 05 291 


to be considered in this conneetion, see GK, i. 677, ii. 472. Churches in 
which the Lord’s Supper was called εὐχαριστία, and in which an annual 
celebration, the chief event of which was the Eucharist, was ca)led the Pass- 
‘over, were led to this understanding of the Lord’s Supper by vi. 4—which 
otherwise is only an unimportant parenthetical remark—and by vi. 11, 23. 
10. (P. 270.) The opinion that John iv. 46-54 is a working over of 
Matt. viii. 5-10, Luke vii. 2-10, is untenable. ‚The point in the synoptie 
narrative is the fact that the centurion is a Gentile whose faith: puts to 
shame that of Israel. John’s royal official, on the other hand, is treated by 
Jesus as a representative of the Galilean populace, whose eagerness to see 
miracles Jesus condemns (ver. 48); he is therefore to be regarded as a Jew, 
and belongs to the group of officials of “ King” Herod Antipas (Matt. xiv. 9 ; 
Mark vi. 14) to which reference is made in Luke viii. 3; Acts xiii. 1... The idea 
of the synoptic account would have been in place in John’s, narrative ; 
Judeans (iii. 22-iv. 2), Samaritans (iv. 3-43), and then a Gentile, would form 
a climax, and there are no general reasons why John should have failed to 
recognise the strong faith of a Gentile (cf. x. 16, xi, 52, xii. 20, 82, xvii. 2, 20). 
More difficult to decide is the question of the relationship of John ii, 13-22 to 
the very similar story in Matt. xxi. 12-16; Mark xi. 15-18; Luke xix. 45 ἢ, 
It is possible (1) that the Synoptists, who narrate only a single visit to 
Jerusalem, have included in this account facts which belong to an earlier 
visit, and that John, in placing this event earlier, rectifies the earlier accounts 
without comment. It is also possible (2) that Jesus did the same thing twice, 
at the time both of His first visit and of His last visit to Jerusalem. Since 
it was John’s purpose to omit after xii, 19 the later event; with all that 
happened on the following days, he tells of the earlier cleansing of the 
temple. The saying of Jesus which accompanies the action is in each ease 
different. On the occasion of His first visit to the temple after His baptism, 
Jesus felt Himself to be the son in His Father’s house, as He did when a boy 
(Luke ii. 49), exercises the authority of the head of the house, and condemns 
the use of the holy places for purposes of trade (John ii. 16; ef. Luke ii, 49). 
Three years later (Matt. xxi. 13; Luke xix. 46) it is the prophet whom 
Jerusalem will murder, as it has His, predecessors (Luke xiii. 33 f.), who 
speaks, using the language of the prophets, relative to the proper use of the 
temple (Isa. lvi. 7), which the Jews have turned into a robbers’ eave, believing © 
that they and their booty were safe from the arm of divine justice (Jer, vii. 
2-11), On both occasions He was asked to justify His action ; but the first 
time His answer is a riddle, understood by neither friend nor foe (John 
ii, 18-22), but the second time His answer is a counter-question, the purport 
of which could not be misunderstood (Matt. xxi. 24 ff.). When one considers, 
in addition, the many things peculiar to John, even where the narratives are 
parallel (the κέρμα of κερματισταί, the scourge of cords, the words spoken to 
those who sold doves, and the anxious foreboding of his disciples), he is 
confronted by the alternative of supposing either that a writer—for some 
unknown reason—has taken old material, and with wonderful skill fashioned 
it into, a new picture remarkably suited to the assumed situation, or that 
an eye-witness is here faithfully reproducing impressions received at the time. 
11. (Pp. 270,271.) Ss (in all probability earlier than this Tatian; ef. TALb, 
1895, col. 20f.) placed John xviii, 24 directly after ver. 13, and inserted 


292 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


vv. 16-18 between ver. 23 and ver. 25, The marginal reading of S® (probably 
also an Alexandrian MS. collated by Thomas) and Cyril of Alexandria 
(Migne, lxxiv. 539) place only ver. 24 after ver. 13, and a cursive 255 has 
ver. 24 after πρῶτον of ver. 13a. This interpolation has also crept into 
one of the three MSS. of Sh, namely, the Vatican MS., which until recently 
was the only one known ; according to Adler, de NTi vers. syr. p. 196, 
“margini adscripta” ; according to the more exact statement of Lagarde in his 
edition, p. 393, it is an addition of © (the corrector), “non vetus in inter- 
columnio.” In the edition of Lewis and Gibson nothing is said concerning 
this interpolation on p. 193; and in the preface, p. Ixi, one only finds 
something which is inconsistent with the text and notes on p. 193. — As for 
the rest, all three MSS. of Sh agree in omitting from ver. 13 the words ἦν yap 
πενθερὸς τοῦ Καϊάφα, so that concerning Annas alone the statement is made : 
ὃς ἢν ἀρχιερεὺς τ. ἐν. ἐκ. This omission, as also the insertion of ver. 24 in or 
after ver. 13, is to be judged as an act of short-sighted arbitrariness, which is 
shown also by the fact that, in spite of this insertion, all the witnesses which 
have been mentioned have ver. 24 also in its proper position. Cyril’s reflec- 
tions (Migne, Ixxiv. 608 1.) on this repetition are merely amusing. Ss, on 
the other hand, offers a text which, in itself, does not appear untrustworthy. 
However, it has an arbitrary emendation, the causes for which are evident. 
(1) The need of the harmonists, who wished to remove the contradiction 
between Matt: xxvi. 57 (πρὸς Καϊάφαν) and John xviii. 13 (πρὸς “Ἄνναν 
πρῶτον). By means of this change it was lessened, in that it appeared that 
Matthew had passed over a very subordinate event. (2) Added to this was 
the astonishment that, according to John xviii. 24, as long as this sentence 
remained in its position nothing at all seems to have taken place before 
Caiaphas. (3) Finally, there was the consideration that, aceording to xi. 49-51, 
xviii. 13 f., 24, by ὁ ἀρχιερεύς of vv. 19, 22 it seemed possible to designate only 
Caiaphas and not Annas. One who, like Sh, would cut the knot by evident 
violence to the text and meaning of ver. 13, could be easily led to infer that 
a hearing, in which the high priest Caiaphas was the principal person, would 
have taken place in his dwelling, and not in the house of his father-in-law 
Annas. He would, for this reason, suppose that ver. 24 had its correct and 
original position after ver. 13. The premise in No. 3 is correct, but the 
conclusion is wrong. Since John everywhere emphasises in the strongest 
manner the high priesthood of Caiaphas, and, on the other hand, never calls 
Annas high priest (Luke iii. 2), nor even says that he had held ‘the office 
earlier, but gives as the only reason why Jesus was led before Annas, the 
relationship of the latter to the high priest Caiaphas, there can be no question 
that Caiaphas is meant in vv. 19, 22 and also in vv. 10, 15, 16, 26. But this 
does not in the least invalidate John’s statement to the efleet that they led the 
prisoner first to the older man, Annas, before whom was held a preliminary 
hearing, at which, according to Matt. xxvi. 57, 59, Mark xiv. 58, 55, many 
members of the Sanhedrin were present. That the official high priest should 
ask Jesus afew questions in the house of his father-in-law (John xviii! 19) is 
not strange, any more than that later they should go to the house of the 
ruling high priest with the prisoner for the purpose of holding a formal 
session, which must have been previously appointed for a very early morning 
hour at a definite place (ver. 24). The former assumption’ that Annas and 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 293 


Caiaphas dwelt in separate wings of a single large palace, which enclosed a 
court, has much to commend it, in the light both of the comparison of John 
xviii. 25-27 (between ver. 24 and ver. 28) with Luke xxii. 61, and because of 
xviii. 15. In order to reach Annas, or in order to be near Jesus, who was 
brought before Annas, it was necessary to enter the αὐλὴ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως (John 
xviii. 15; Mark xiv. 54, vol. ii. 504), the palace (consisting of several 
buildings, wings, and courtyards) of the reigning high priest, i.e., according 
to John, of Caiaphas. This assumption makes it all the more clear why, 
as regards the assignments of the separate acts to the various places and 
assemblies, the tradition of the group of men, who in other respects had the 
best information, is uncertain. Everything took place in the αὐλή or οἰκία τοῦ 
ἀρχιερέως (Luke xxii. 54). 

12. (P. 273.) In regard to the disputes concerning the date of Easter, 
already touched upon (above, pp. 177, 192 f.), cf. E. Schürer, De Controversiis 
Paschalibus, 1869; in German) ZfHTh, 1870, 8. 182-284, where the earlier 
literature on the subject is indicated ; ef. also GK, i. 180-192; Forsch, iv. 
283-308. 

13. (P. 275.) The Tübingen critics (Baur, Krit. Unters. 273 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, 
Paschastreit, 159 f., 222 f.) conceive John to be strongly. influenced by the idea 
that Jesus was the Passover lamb of the New Testament, and therefore must 
have died on the 14th of Nisan, in reply to which it may be remarked, in 
addition to what has already been said (above, p. 273 ff.), that while the idea 
of Christ as the Passover lamb certainly seems to be suggested in John i. 29,36 
by the Baptist, there is no particular reference to the Passion’ history. 
Moreover, it is at least a question whether the reference in ‘xix. 36 is not to 
Ps. xxxiv. 21 rather than to Ex. xii. 46; Num. ix. 12. 

14. (P. 277.) How Irenzus, Tertullian, and Origen: dealt with the 
chronological allusions in the Fourth Gospel, especially xviii. 28, unfortun- 
ately we do not know (cf. GK, i. 190. A. 1). Tatian solved the difficulty 
in a peculiar manner, by referring John xiii: 1-20 to the day before the 
appointed day for the feast of the Passover, then inserting Luke xxii. 7-16; 
John xiii. 21 ff., ete. (GK, 11. 551) ; probably also by rendering xviii. 28, as in 
Ss, “ That they might not be defiled, while they ate the Azyma” (ZhLb, 1895, 
60]. 21; cf. Burkitt, Ev. da-Mephar. ii. 79, 83, 313, and Hjelt, Forsch. vii. 1. 105, 
on the translation of πάσχα by sw» chosen by Ss only in the Fourth Gospel). 
Consequently, according to Tatian, they did not fear, lest by defilement they 
should be hindered from ‘participating in the approaching feast of the 
Passover, but lest their eating of the Azyma, which lasted for seven days, 
should be interrupted. Similarly, Maimonides and Bartenora (in Surenhus 
on Pesachim ix. 5) refer a sentence of the Mishnah, which treats only of the 
Passover lamb, to the seven days’ eating of the unleavened bread. 

15. (P. 278.) It is not possible, also hardly necessary, to give here an 
enumeration of the various attempts which, under the’ supposition that 
John correctly dates Jesus’ death on the 14th of Nisan, have been ‘made 
from the time of Eusebius on (ef. his writing De Pasch. in Mai, N, Patr. 
Bibl. iv. 1. 214 ff), either to discredit the synoptic account, according to 
which Jesus delebrated the feast of the Passover on the 14th of Nisan and 
died on the 15th, or to'show that, notwithstanding some inaccuracies of 
expression, the synoptic account is essentially historical and in harmony with 


294 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


John—the Last Supper; really being the’ Passover feast, although held on the 
13th of Nisan, . The present writer is not acquainted with an adequate 
survey of the literature dealing with the question. References to the more 
important of the earlier literature will be found in the commentaries in 
Winer, RI, ii. 202f., and in Schürer (Über φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα), 8. 8£. ; for 
more recent statements, see R. ScHÄFER, Das Herrenmahl nach Ursprung und 
Bedeutung, 1897, 8. 538-99. CHwoLsoN attracted attention by his Das letzte 
Passamahl Ohristi und der ‘Tag seines Todes nach den in Übereinstimmung 
gebrachten. Berichten der Syn.'umd des Jo. (Mem. de P Acad. de St. Petersbourg, 
Serie vii: Tome: xli: No. iv; it also appeared’ separately in St. Petersburg, 
1892) see also a paper by the same author in GW J, 1893, also published 
separately, Breslau, 1893. Further treatises in Z{W Th, 1894, 5. 542 ff, 1895, 
8.335 ff, 1898, S. 960 8, Cf. the discussion by E. Riggenbach, Th Lb, 1894, 
No. 51. Chwolson denies what, in view οἱ the agreement of Josephus and 
all three Synoptics, seems beyond dispute (α. 17, Nos. 2 and 3), namely, 
that the 14th of Nisan could be :ineluded: in the feast of the Azyma. 
Accordingly, Matt. xxvi. 17, on which Mark xiv. 12, Luke xxii. 7, must be 
dependént, is meaningless as it stands, and must be corrected: by conjecture. 
In the Aramaic Matt. the reading was: “* The first day of the Azyma drew 
near, and the disciples of Jesus drew near (12>) a1p) to him.” The letters 'v27p 
were dropped-out by mistake before 1277, and, in order again to give the words 
meaning, the preposition 3. was inserted. before the first word) \xov. | The 
harmonising of! the synoptic account thus corrected with the Johannine 
tradition is effected, through the hypothesis that im that year, when the 
14th: of Nisan «fell on Friday, the Passover lamb. was killed: on the 
evening of the 13th, im order to ‚prevent ἃ desecration of the Sabbath, 
which otherwise would have beer unavoidable, because! presumably at that 
time the lamb was not slain before sunset, as in the time of Josephus and the 
Mishnah (see note 16), but after sunset, so that, it would, have fallen on 
the Sabbath, 6.9. on the 15th of Nisan. The. Passover could be celebrated 
immediately after the lamb. was slain on the evening of the 18th, or not until 
the evening of the 14th. Jesus and the Pharisees kept the Passover on 
the former, the Sadducean high priests on the latter day. According to 
J. Lichtenstein’ (from his: Hebrew commentary on the N.T. 1895, Schr. des 
Instit. Jud. aw Leipzig, No. 48, S. 24-29), this difference between the majority 
under the leadership of the high priests and a minority to which Jesus 
belonged arose from the fact: that, the Sadducees, in accordance with their view 
that Lev. xxiii, 11 refers tothe Sabbath, falsified the dates of the new/moon, 
so that in this year the first, day of the Passover fell upon a Sabbath. | 
16. (Ρ. 281.) John xii. 1 Seems to be an. exact date, and it is naturally 
to be taken not as|Hilgenfeld takes it (Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche, 8. 
221 1), 85 the peculiar terminology of the Roman calendar, but asan ordinary 
Jewish expression (2 Mace, xv. 365 Jos, Bell. ii. 8.95, Winer, sec. 61. 4.end; 
Wieseler, Beiträge, 264); and is unquestionably to be reckoned backwards from 
the beginning of the celebration of the |Passover, i.e. from the slaying of the 
Passover lamb between three and five o'clock on the afternoon of the 14th 
of Nisan (Jos. Bell. vi. 9:3 ;-cf.Pesachim ν. 5), which makes Jesus come to 
Bethany on the afternoon ‚of the 8th of «Nisan. It now, as the Synoptics 
imply, Jesus died on Friday the löth, then the 8th of Nisan fell alse 


Γ THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 295 


on Friday. If, om the other hand, as the Johannine account is supposed 
to necessitate, Jesus died on the 14th, and if the 14th was also Friday, 
then the 8th, the date on which Jesus arrived in Bethany; must. have 
been a Sabbath. But that is impossible, since Jesus could not travel on 
the Sabbath. One is. compelled to make the very improbable assumption 
that Jesus arrived in the vicinity of Bethany on the 7th—so that on the 
8th He was compelled to make only a Sabbath day’s journey. But why 
should Jésus have planned the journey so badly as, within a short distance 
of His destination—the friendly home in which He regularly lodged during 
the last days of His life—to be under necessity of seeking quarters for 
Himself and the large company with Him? It was only necessary to start 
fifteen or twenty minutes earlier, or to hurry a little, in order to avoid this. 
But if the day of Jesus’ arrival in Bethany, according to John xii. 1,'the 
8th of Nisan was not a Sabbath, then, according to John, the 15th of 
Nisan) was not a Sabbath; in other words, the Sabbath, during which 
Jesus was in His grave (John xix. 31, 42, xx. 1), was not the 15th of 
Nisan. Since to assume in this particular year, in addition to the synoptic 
and the alleged Johannine chronology, ἃ third arrangement of the days of 
the week. in relation to the days of the month, for which there is no evi- 
dence whatever, is entirely arbitrary, it follows that John and the synoptics 
are in perfect agreement at this point. In xii. 2 we are not told that Jesus 
and the disciples ate supper at the end of their journey,—something indeed 
which would not have been worth telling, and which would have been men- 
tioned incidentally, like the supper in xiii. 2,—but that a feast was prepared 
in His honour (above, p. 287, n. 6), which probably did not take place 
immediately upon Jesus’ arrival on Friday the 8th, but'on the Sabbath, the 
9th (ef. Luke xiv. 1). If Jesus arrived in Bethany eariy in the afternoon 
of the 8th, when the usual preparation of the food for the coming Sabbath 
was made, the arrangements for the feast of the following day could still 
have been completed before sunset and hence before the beginning of the 
Sabbath. This would make the entry into Jerusalem take placeion Sunday 
the 10th. The time mentioned in xii. 12 can only be the day after the 
anointing, since vv. 10, 11 contain no indications as to time, This conclusion 
is not affected by the fact that in xii. 2 the relation of this event to the time 
indicated in xii. 1 is left indefinite. The same thing occurs, e.g.,in 1. 41 
in relation to i. 39, and yet the narrative is continued in i. 43 with 7; 
ἐπαύριον. John is not writing a journal, in which no day may be passed 
over, especially is he not doing so in the Passion history.’ He simply desires 
to call attention to the fact that on the day after the quiet anticipation’ of 
His burial in Bethany, Jesus entered Jerusalem amid universal rejoicing, 
which to His enemies seemed so terrible (xii. 12-19). The common view 
has been thought to have support in xix. 14, on the assumption that παρασκευὴ 
τοῦ πάσχα corresponds to the Jewish nopn Sy, which means literally evening, 
1.6. eve, οὗ the Passover, being also parallel to wy ya, the common. term for 
the whole of the 14th of Nisan (eg. Pesachim iv. 6), and, like naw ary, a 
designation of the day before the Sabbath, e.g. Friday.‘ John, according to 
this view, presents the case in which the 14th of Nisan, the “ereb happesacl, 
falls on a Friday, om ‘ereb: shabbath (Pesachim v. 1). But it must first be 
shown that παρασκευή is ever used as an equivalent for sy, and, like the 


296 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


latter term, came to be regarded as needing a modifying genitive, like σαββάτου 
or rod πάσχα. In the N.T. and Christian literature the word is complete in 
itself, and always used like the Aram. ΝΗῚ (xnany) for the sixth day of 
the week, namely, Friday. Where a qualifying word is found, it is not: the 
name of the following day in the genitive (Jos. Ani. xvi. 6. 2, ev σάββασιν 
ἢ τῇ πρὸ αὐτῆς παρασκευῇ). The word παρασκευή without any modifiers 
whatever is used of the day of Jesus’ death in Mark xv. 42 ; Matt. xxvii. 62; 
Luke xxiii: 54; John xix. 31, 42, consequently also in John xix. 14. John 
lays great weight upon the days of the week on which the crucifixion, the 
burial, and the resurrection took place, and upon the fact that this whole 
series of events took place during the time of the Passover (above, pp. 276 f., 
280f.). The two ideas are associated in the passage, xix. 14, where he men- 
tions the day and the hour when sentence of death was passed upon Jesus : 
“Tt was Friday at the time of the Passover, and about the sixth hour.” 
These statements serve at the same time as a preparation for what follows. 
Because the following day was a Sabbath falling within the Passover period, 
it was especially holy, and every desecration had to be avoided (xix. 31, 42), 
even more scrupulously than on other Sabbaths (v. 9, vii. 23, ix. 14), The 
fact that in the Bab. Sanhedrin 43a, 67a, it is thrice stated that Jesus was 
crucified “on the ‘ereb happesach” (fol. 43a, according to the Florentine MS., 
quoted by Dalman following Laible’s Jesus in Talmud, 8. 15*, “om “ereb 
shabbath and ‘ereb happesach”) contributes nothing to the understanding of 
the Fourth Gospel. The rabbis obtained their knowledge of the gospel his- 
tory mostly from uncertain hearsay and Christian tradition which had begun 
to fade; ef. GK, ii. 673 ff. If these statements were derived from the Hebrew 
or Aramaic translation of John’s Gospel, which was read by Jews at Seytho- 
polis in the fourth century (Epiph. Her. xxx. 6), the translation of John xix. 14 
could not have been very happy. Sh (in two MSS. against one) has xnıny in 
xix. 14, 31, 42; 51 has xnany in xix. 14, 31, but in xix. 42 renders quite freely 
“because the Sabbath had begun.” Ss has the same in xix. 42 with a 
different verb ; but xix. 14, 31 is lacking in Ss, and all three references in Sc. 

17. (P. 282.) Scuirur in his festal publication, Uber φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχὰ 
(Giessen, 1883), strongly opposes the interpretation briefly outlined above. 
It has recently been defended by J. van BEBBER (Zur Chronol. des Lebens 
Jesu, 1898, S. 5-81), partially on new grounds. Here discussion must be 
limited to bare essentials. Πάσχα means in the N.T. as in the O.T.—(1) The 
Passover lamb, as object of θύειν, φαγεῖν, etc. ; Ex. xii. 21; Deut. xvi. ΘΕ. ; 
2 Chron. xxx. 15, 18 ; Matt. xxvi. 17 ; Mark xiv. 12-14; Luke xxii.'7,11,15; 
1 Cor. v. 7; (2) the observance of the 14th of Nisan, te. the feast of the 
Passover, including the slaying of the lamb, which preceded, to: be dis- 
tinguished from the seven days’ festival which followed, called ithe ἄζυμα, 
generally used as the object of ποιεῖν, Ex. xii. 48; Lev. xxiii. 5f.; Deut. 
xvi. 1; Philo, De Septen. xviii. 19 ; Jos. Ant. ii. 14. 6, iii. 10.5; Bell. vi. 9. 
3: Matt. xxvi. 18; Mark xiv.1; Heb. xi. 28. In the case of ἐτοιμάζειν τὸ m., 
Matt. xxvi. 19; Mark xiv. 16; Luke xxii. 8, 13, we have the choice of either 
meaning. (3) The name ἄζυμα is also applied to the Passover which precedes, 
Jos. Ant. ix. 13. 2. 3 (Niese, §§ 263, 271); Bell. ii. 12. 1, iv. 7. 2,80 that the 
Azyma includes eight days (Jos. Ant. ii. 15. 1), and the 14th of Nisan could 
be reckoned as the first day of the Azyma (Matt. xxvi. 17 ;:Mark xiv. 12), or 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 297 


even more broadly, simply as the day of the Azyma (Jos. Bell. v. 3.1; Luke 
xxli. 7). (4) On the other hand, the name πάσχα is also made to cover the 
days of the Azyma, and the two terms are used quite synonymously, Jos. Bell. 
ii. 1. 3, vi. 9. 3 (where certainly uninformed readers could not infer that. the 
feast called the “ Passover” is only a part of the previously, mentioned feast 
of Azyma) ; Ant. xiv. 2.1, xvii. 9. 3, xviii. 2.2; Luke xxii. 1; cf. Acts xii. 3 
with xii. 4. This wider use of πάσχα is evidently found in John ii, 23; 
xviii. 39, perhaps also in'xix. 14; and there is clearly no intention, of dis- 
tinguishing the Passover proper from the feast of the Azyma in John ii, 13, 
vi. 4, xi. 55, xii, 1, xiii. 1; Luke ii. 41. (5) The rabbis also were quite 
familiar with this usage. The Mishnah tractate o'no» treats of the festival 
of the entire seven, days, which as a whole is there called por (i. 3) or 
nop7 (ii. 2-7). The latter term had entirely replaced the original name 
myon an. Consciousness of the divergence from the original usage betrays 
itself. In Pesachim ix. 5 we read: “What [is the difference] between the 
Egyptian Passover and the Passover of the generations (1.6. the yearly.Pass- 
over feast)? The Passover of Egypt: it [took place] beginning with ‘the 
10th [of Nisan] (Ex. xii. 3), and it was necessary to sprinkle the lintel and 
the two side posts of the door with a bunch of hyssop (Ex. xii. 22), and it 
was eaten in haste in one night (ns o5°52); but the Passover [οἵ the Genera- 
tions is customary (an)3, custom) for the whole seven [days].” From this. it 
follows not only that the learned rabbis used the term nos to include the 
Passover proper and the Azyma, but also that they spoke of the seven days’ 
celebration as “eating of the Passover.” The phrase, “whole seven days,” 
can stand in contrast to nothing save “in a single night.” Moreover, since 
no new verb takes the place of “eating” the Passover in the original celebra- 
tion, this same verb is to be supplied in the second instance 8180. This same 
usage is found in 2 Chron. xxx. 21f.: “ And the children of Israel . . . kept 
the feast of the Azyma seven days with great gladness . . . so they did eat 
throughout the feast for the seven days, offering sacrifices of peace-offerings 
and making confession to Jahweh, the God of their, fathers.” When Bleek 
(Beiträge zur Evangelienkritik, 1846, S. 111) suggests modestly, and Schiirer, 
op. cit. S. 12, claims confidently that, instead of ax" attested by the massorah 
and without the keri, by the Targum, the Peshito, and Jerome, the correct 
reading is 2» (LXX συνετέλεσαν), they fail, in the first place, to show that 
nba (“to complete”), followed by an object such as 1», ın, etc., means any- 
where in the O.T. or even in late Jewish literature, to celebrate a feast. In 
the second place, they have not given due weight to the fact that witnesses 
mentioned above forthe reading “they ate” are very much stronger for the 
usage of the Jews of Palestine among whom John belonged than for the 
usage of the Alexandrian translators, If this reading were a later correction 
of the original reading preserved in the LXX, then it only goes to prove that 
the expression “to eat the seven days’ feast” (7.e. the Passover, called a 
potiort a “seven days’ feast”) was much more familiar among the Jews than 
the expression “to complete,” 7.e. to celebrate a feast of seven days, which 
occurs nowhere else. The expression φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, ἴῃ this broader sense, 
is: no more peculiar than Josephus’ θύομεν ἑορτὴν πάσχα καλοῦντες, Ant. 11. 
14. 6; xvii. 9. 3, infra, and the corresponding θυσία for the entire observance 
of the 14th of Nisan, or also of the seven days, Bell. vi. 9. 3. The only 


298 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


difference is that the latter expression represents classical usage (θύειν τὰ 
Λύκαια, Xen. Anab. i. 2, 10; τοὺς γάμους, Philostr. Vita Apoll. vii. 7 ; see 
Bebber, S. 55, and the lexicons), whereas φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα represents Jewish 
usage, which John everywhere follows more closely than does Josephus. 
Jewish idiom is peculiar in a very broad application of the idea “to eat,” 
e.g. **to eat the years of the Messiah,” Bab. Sanhedrin 98); “eat up widows’ 
houses,” Mark’ xii. 40; “to taste death,” John viii. 52, ete. ; cf. Bebber,S. 55% 
and it was very natural to speak thus broadly of the Passover, because the 
act after which the whole observance was loosely called was a meal, and 
because the sacrificial meals as well as the eating of unleavened bread were 
characteristic of this feast. On the other hand, the regular technical expres- 
sion for the celebration of the 14th of Nisan is. not φαγεῖν but ποιεῖν τὸ 
πάσχα, Hx. xii. 48; Num: ix. 2,5, 6,10, 12-14; Deut. xvi. 1; Matt. xxvi. 18; 
Heb. xi. 28. In the celebration of the Passover, eating is only one feature 
along with the θύειν, and is never mentioned unless the more general expres- 
sion ποιέῖν or θύειν has preceded, or unless the Passover has been previously 
spoken of; Num. ix. 11; 2 Chron. xxx. 18; Matt. xxvi. 17 (ef. vv. 1,5; 
Mark xiv. 12b (ef. vv. 1, 2, 12a); Luke xxii. 11, 15 (cf vv. 1, 7, 8). 
The full expression φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα is found in the LXX, including the 
Apoerypha, only once; 2 Chron. xxx. 18 (ἔφαγον τὸ φασέκ, here, as the con- 
text indicates, xxx. 1-22, probably in the broadest sense); in Philo and in 
Josephus, so far as the present writer is aware, it never oceurs ;)in the N.T. 
(besides John xviii. 28) five times of the participation in the Passover’ meal. 
But it is very improbable that the Jews, t.e. the high priests and their ser- 
vants (xviii: 35, xix. 6), whose excuse to Pilate is given in John xviii. 28, had 
in mind only the evening Passover meal and not also the earlier slaying of 
the lamb, which on the morning of the 14th of Nisan had not yet taken 
place, when they spoke of being prevented from participation by defilement. 
(6) Of less importance is the question whether, in Deut. xvi.’ 9. (2 Chron. 
xxxv. 7-9, ef. 3 Esdr. i. 8f., are left out of account), the cattle for the 
Shelamim as well as the sheep or goats for the Passover meal are covered by 
the expression nop. Certainly here, where it is not a question of the usage 
of the time of Josiah or Moses, but of the time of John, it is wrong to say 
with Schürer, S. 14: “The fact simply is that according to the author of 
Deuteronomy not only smaller animals but also cattle could be used for the 
Passover proper.” Because for the Jews of the time of Jesus, who knew 
nothing of the modern criticism of the Pentateuch, Ex. xii, 3-5 made this 
interpretation of Deut. xvi. 2 “simply” impossible. In his account of the 
Jewish interpretations, Schürer, S.'17f., constantly confuses the manner in 
which the rabbis understand the word no» in the text, and the manner in 
which in their effort after exact interpretation they use the same word in their 
comments. Leaving out of account the merely hypothetical consideration of 
the possibility that, according to Deut. xvi. 2, it was allowable to use cattle 
for the Passover proper—naturally the possibility has not been considered 
seriously—all the above mentioned interpreters agree that in the text the 
word nop includes the animals for the Passover sacrifice and the Passover 
meal and the animals for the Chagigah ; but in order to make this’ clear, 
naturally it was necessary to employ the more definite expression and to say 
“small animals for the Passover, cattle for the Chagigah” Zr 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 299 


§ 68. PURPOSE AND METHOD, CHARACTER AND 
READERS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL, 


At the close of his book, John states very clearly its 
purpose, just as Luke does in his dedication ; at the same 
time, however, John goes on to speak of the means by 
which he endeavoured to accomplish this purpose (xx. 30f.; 
cf. xix. 35). As was unavoidable in a brief concluding 
sentence, both these statements are so general that it is 
necessary to seek in the book itself some more definite 
information, in particular, to draw certain conclusions from 
the means used with reference to the author’s purpose. 

From among a large number of σημεῖα which Jesus did 
in the presence of His disciples, John sets forth a few in 
order to lead the readers whom he addresses to ‘believe 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, to the ‘end that 
they, believing this to be the case, may have life'in the 
name of this Jesus Christ. We have already seen (above, 
p. 207 f.) that it was not His intention to convert Jews or 
Gentiles to the Christian faith through a written missionary 
sermon. The readers were already believers—confessors 
of the name of Christ (ef. 1. 12), a Church with which the 
author was acquainted and on intimate terms, or a group 
of such Churches who needed to be furthered and strength- 
ened in the faith which they already had; just as Jesus 
by constantly bearing new testimony to Himself endea- 
voured to strengthen His disciples and also such as had come 
to have a certain faith in Him and yet could not be called 
His disciples (viii. 30f., ef. ii 22, vii’ 31, x. 38, xiv 45, 
xii. 11) in the faith which they confessed when they first 
came into contact with Him (i. 41, 45, 49),'in order that 
this faith might become le fixed, and so to deepen 
this faith that it might develop into an independent and 
experiential knowledge of the truth revealed in Him (ii. 11, 
iv. 39-42, vi. 45 Ὁ, 69, viii. 32, x. 88) xi. 15, 42) xiii. 19, 
xiv. 1-11, xvi. 30-33, xvii. 8, xx. 8, 24-29). Only in this 


300 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


way do believers become disciples of Jesus in the full sense 
of the word (viii. 31; ef. xiii. 35, xv. 8) and win the free- 
dom, the ‘peace, the joy, in short, the life which is 
transmitted from the only-begottten Son of God to, those 
who become children of God (i. 12) through Him (vii. 32, 
25 fx iy 27 απ. a Veo tne ER 
xx, 29). , There is no greater human distinction than te 
become a disciple of Jesus’, and, through His mediation 
attain to God (vi. 46, xiii. 16, xiv. 6, xv. 5, 8), But this 
is also a goal which the believer can attain only step by 
step. It is the mission. of Jesus and of the Spirit whom He 
will send to further them toward this end (xiv. 26, xvi. 
12 ff., xvii. 26); the apostles also are called to share this 
teaching work (xv. 27). It is John’s purpose to fulfil this 
mission in the case of the believers for whom, he writes by 
giving his own testimony, in order that they may share 
the same blessed experience as himself (xix. 35, xx. 31; ef 
i. 16); \1,John ii. 3 £.). 

The fact that, the book was intended for believers, whom 
it is designed to confirm in this manner, gives it an esoteric 
character, which distinguishes it from the Synoptics, and 
especially from Luke. The detailed account. of the dis- 
courses. ab the Last Supper is not the most unmistakable 
evidence that John, is writing for the imstruction of 
believers. More significant is, the fact that he, chooses, as 
the subject, of his account a number of signs which Jesus 
did before the eyes of His disciples (xx, 30). It is.self- 
evident that, Jesus’ constant companions were eye-witnesses 
of all His miracles. In view.of this, it is all the more 
certain that the remark means that for the most, part the 
author contemplates the σημεῖα from the point, of view, of 
Jesus’ self-revelation to His disciples and for their sake. 
Naturally, however, this dogs not lessen, the significance of 
these onueia-—especially of those which, are not related, but 
only summarily mentioned--for all those. who witnessed 
them. and for the progress of the history, (11. 23, i. 12, iv. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 301 


45, ν 20) 36) vil Qy 14,1 vis 21 Bly χυ 25~3By xk: (47) χῇ. 
10, 37, xv. 24). 

The entire book, from i. 14 onwards, is in keeping with 
the emphasis laid in xx. 30 upon the significance of these 
signs for the disciples. The very first utterances of Jesus 
of which an account is given are wonderful proofs of that 
profound knowledge of the human heart, transcending all 
the limits of sense by which He won His first. disciples 
(1. 42-49), while as a title to all that follows stands the 
promise to Nathanael and to the entire group of the first 
six diseiples that in the companionship of Jesus they shall 
experience greater things, and learn from a multitude of 
deeds that God who rules in heaven has put at the disposal 
of the Son of Man upon earth all the angel powers by 
which He Himself rules the world (i. 50£.). The result of 

the first of these experiences is declared to be simply that, 
in consequence of this revelation of the glory of Jesus, His 
disciples believed on Him (ii. 11), notwithstanding the fact 
that there were other witnesses besides the disciples, e.g. 
the mother of Jesus, who certainly was not inditferent and 
must have witnessed the miracle. In other words, the 
disciples were confirmed in their faith. While it is true in 
the case of the second and third miracles which are related 
(iv. 46-54, v. 1-18) that the disciples are not mentioned, 
in the first case one who is already a believer is stimulated 
by a rebuke of Jesus’ to greater faith. In vi. 5 ff. again it 
is clearly described how the faith of those who believe in 
Jesus is tested and strengthened. While the multitude 
see signs and yet do not see (vi. 14, 26, 30, 36), the miracle 
of the feeding and of Jesus’ walking on the water make 
the disciples able not only to bear the discourse of the fol- 
lowing day, but in the light of its promises to rise to a 
joyful confession. With one sad exception this was true of 
the Twelve, while other disciples, who were not really dis- 
ciples, deserted Jesus (vi. 60-71). The healing of the blind 
man is introduced as ἃ means of instruction for the disciples 


302 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(ix. 1-5); and in the case of the man who was healed, it is 
to be observed how, under the impression of the deeds οἱ 
Jesus, his open-minded understanding is developed from 
stage to stage. At first the Lord isa man named Jesus 
(ix. 11), then a prophet (ver. 17), certainly not a sinner, 
but a man from God (vv. 25, 30-33), and finally the Lord, 
to whom he kneels in faith and prayer (vv. 35-38). 
While the raising of Lazarus is an important event in the 
concluding days of Jesus’ life (xi. 45-53, xu. 9-11, 17-19), 
the principal thing described is the significance of this 
deed and the circumstances accompanying it for the faith 
of His disciples (xi. 15; ef. the whole of vv. 4-16), the 
women who believed on Him (x1. 3, 20-40), and the larger 
group of those who were receptive (vv. 42, 45). Where 
the Lord is, who Himself is Resurrection and Life, sickness 
and death and the grave must lose their terrors (xi. 4, 11, 
23-27, xii. 1, 2, 9). He who makes the dead to live .can- 
not Himself remain in death. In chap. xx. it is not so 
much Christ’s own glorification that is described, as the 
convincing of two souls that He who was dead was alive. 
This helps to explain why John, more than any other 
of the evangelists, gives us character sketches of. Jesus’ 
disciples both of those who were intimately and those who 
were more remotely associated with Him (above, pp. 209, 
224, n.4). He gives accounts of conversions which have a 
wholly individual stamp, often with a few strokes of, his 
pen, sometimes, however, at length. The genuine Israelite, 
Nathanael, who comes to Jesus with mockery upon his 
lips, but who, when he perceives that his heart is known, 
pours forth words of earnest confession, with the result 
that he never leaves Jesus again (i. 45-50; cf, xxi. 2); 
Philip, cautious, slow of speech and understanding, (i. 43- 
45, vi. 5-7, xii. 21 f., xiv. 8-10; above, p. 224); Thomas, 
melancholy, disinclined to any easy optimism (xi, 16, xiv. 
5, xx. 24-29); Nicodemus, who at first comes to Jesus by 
night because he is afraid of the light, and, afterwards 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 303 


alone of all his colleagues has the courage in the Sanhedrix 
to demand fair treatment for Jesus; and at last, when the 
most trusted of Jesus’ disciples deny and desert Him, con- 
fesses himself a follower of the crucified Jesus (ii, 1-21, 
vii. 50-52, xix. 39); the Samaritan woman, who, in spite 
of her sinful past and the wilful spirit which she manifests 
at first, becomes an earnest believer (iv. 7-42); the para- 
lytic, whose own sin had evidently brought upon him an 
incurable disease (v. 5-15); and the man who without any 
fault of his own was born blind (chap. ix.); the two sisters 
in Bethany, so different in type (xi. 1-xii. 8); and Mary 
Magdalene, who made up for her lack of knowledge by her 
self-sacrificing love (xx. 1-18),—all of these are incom- 
parably described, and, without any express effort to bring 
out the fact, are instructive illustrations of the divine 
leading and of human development out of darkness into 
light, and from faith to faith. They were drawn, not by 
the herald of the gospel proclaiming his message to all 
peoples, but by the pastor devoting Himself to the human 
souls committed to Him, and who by these pictures de- 
signed to increase the faith of those who were already 
believers and to make them true disciples. 

It necessarily impresses one as peculiar that both in 
xx. 30 and in the retrospect of the whole of Jesus’ public 
testimony in xii. 37, His deeds are the only recognised form 
of His testimony to Himself, and that these are declared 
to be the contents of this book ; whereas in reality the dis- 
courses not only occupy much space, but in many ways are 
emphasised as important. Although on the authority of 
i. 50 f. it is possible to reckon sayings like i. 48, iv. 16 (29) 
or prophecies like 11.19, vi. 70, zii. 32f. (xviil. 32) among the 
σημεῖα, the author understands the word as applying only 
to the miracles (11. 11). Consequently it is evident from 
xx. 801 that he does not regard the deeds as a sort of 
customary adornment of the Redeemer, or as an occasion 
for profound discourses which are really the more import- 


304 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ant things. There are only a few deeds to which long dis: 
courses are attached (namely, v. 17-47, vii. 19 ff. attached 
to v. 1-16, and vi. 26-71 attached to vi. 3-13); while 
other deeds of Jesus no less striking are left to speak for 
themselves (ii. 1-11, ix. 1-38, xi. 1-44). ‘This is true not 
only of the few which are formally related, but also of the 
many which are summarily mentioned. These works, as 
they are often called by John without any further quali- 
fication (n. 1), distinguish Jesus from the Baptist, who was 
the witness by water and word (x. 41). Since Jesus 
works only in dependence upon God, in fellowship with 
God, and ‘by means of the angel-powers at His command 
(v. 19, 30, xi. 41 f., 1. 51), these works are a work of God 
Himself (xiv. 10), or a participation of Jesus in the work 
of God (v. 17-23, ix. 3 f.). To the extent, however, that 
God permits these works to happen through Jesus and 
through Him alone (xv. 24, x: 41, vil. 31), they are God's 
own testimony concerning Jesus (v. 36 f., x. 25, 37 f., xiv. 
11), which renders unbelief without excuse (xii. 37, xv. 24). 

John’s use of the O.T. and Jewish word σημεῖα to 
designate the miraculous deeds of Jesus regularly and 
much more frequently than the other evangelists (n. 1), is 
not intended to indicate that they are regarded by him 
either exclusively as symbols or as prophecies. The con- 
ception is broader. The onueia are events which point be- 
yond themselves to the cause of which they are the effect, 
to the person of whom they are the acts, to the unseen 
events of which they are the symbols, to the future events 
of which they are the prophetic preludes. In these strik- 
ing acts of Jesus the entire work of God, itself invisible— 
in the completion of which Jesus has become an active 
participant—is visibly manifested (ix. 3 f., ef. iv. 34, v. 36). 
The healing of the blind man, just before which Jesus 
makes the statement of ix. 3, He Himself transforms into 
a symbol, a real allegory which He afterwards interprets 
(xi. 39-40). In the same way the miraculous feeding 
becomes to Him a prophetic symbol of a still more wonder- 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 305 


ful feeding (vi. 27 ff.). The healing of the sick foreshadows 
the subsequent awakening of the dead, and the cases where 
Jesus raised the dead during His earthly ministry are at one 
and the same time symbols of the awakening by the word 
of Jesus of the spiritually dead to spiritual life and intima- 
tions of the general awakening of the physically dead by 
Jesus at the last day (v. 20-26, vi. 39, xi. 23-27). 

Along with this high valuation of the miraculous deeds 
of Jesus are found other words which seem to lessen their 
value. In order that faith in Jesus, and the blessings, 
primarily invisible, which are mediated by Him, may 
strike root at all among men, faith must be preceded by a 
vision of the witnessing of Jesus to Himself through 
deeds, which show Him to be the “ Saviour of the world” 
sent from God (iv. 42), 2.e., by a θεωρεῖν, θεᾶσθαι, ὁρᾶν 
(i. 14, 32-34, 39, 46, 51, ii. 11, iv. 19, vi. 36, 40, xii. 45, 
xiv. 9, xx. 6, 8, 20, 27). To those, however, who have 
not lacked this opportunity, and who, nevertheless, de- 
mand a sign so as to be exempted from the act and the 
work of faith (vi. 26-31), the sign is denied (ii. 18, vi. 
30). With those who through the signs have obtained a 
certain faith, but do not receive the testimony concerning 
the moral and religious conditions of salvation, it is im- 
possible for Jesus to enter into more intimate relations 
(11, 23 ἢ, ii, 11, 32). Moreover, persons otherwise well 
disposed, but who constantly demand new signs as if 
they had a right to do so, are earnestly reproved (iv. 48, 
xx, 27). The conception of the sign is such that it is 
designed to render itself unnecessary. The Gospel, which 
is intended for readers who have seen none of the signs of 
Jesus, concludes with the blessing of those who have not 
seen, but nevertheless have believed (xx. 29). But the signs 
are not without value even for those who have not seen. 
They need to be related. If the discourses oecupy more 
space in the Fourth Gospel than the signs, it is to be 
remembered that as a rule the commentary is longer than 


the text, which nevertheless remains the more important 
VOL, III. 20 


306 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


thing. The author’s written testimony concerning the 
σημεῖα which Jesus did in his presence, is designed as a 
substitute for what the readers lack, as compared with the 
author, and is intended to enable them to believe as he 
believes (xix. 35). Since, however, he was writing for 
Christians who already had considerable knowledge of the 
gospel history, and who, of the Gospels which have come 
down to us, were certainly familiar with Mark, probably 
also with Luke, and perhaps also with Matthew, although 
only throuch oral translation (§ 67), it was only natural 
for John to choose from the abundance of reminiscences at 
his command such σημεῖα with the corresponding dis- 
courses as the readers had not yet become “acquainted 
with through the other Gospels. 

Nothing could be more incorrect than to attribute to 
the author, as his principal design, instead of the purpose 
mentioned in xx: 31, the supplementing of the Synopties. 
But the circumstances under which he wrote were such as 
to make it natural for him actually to supplement the 
earlier Gospels by the insertion of parallels to their 
accounts, by explanatory remarks which corrected mis- 
understandings to which these accounts were naturally 
open, by formal corrections (above, pp. 256 ff., 270 f.), but 
primarily by such entirely new information as was caleu- 
lated to render more intelligible the picture, obtained 
from the Synoptics, of the course of the gospel history as 
a whole and of many of its details. With reference to 
the first point, from what the Synoptists relate from the 
last days of Jesus’ life, it is impossible historically to 
understand the origin of the deadly hatred of the Jewish 
authorities toward Jesus, which led to His crucifixion. 
John explains the catastrophe. Such accounts as the 
official embassage from Jerusalem to the Baptist (i. 19), 
the visits to Jerusalem with the attendant constant con- 
flicts with the Jewish authorities (ii. 13 ff, v. 1 ff, vi. 
1 ff., x. 22), the repeated resolutions of the Sanhedrin and 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 307 


of the Pharisaie party, which in some instances led tc 
attempts upon Jesus’ life (v. 16, 18, vii. 1, 13, 25, 30, 
45-52, viii. 28, 37, 59, ix. 13, 22, x. 39, xii 8, 46-50, 57, 
xii, 9-11, 19), the raising of Lazarus and the retrospec- 
tion of the entire public testimony in Jerusalem in xii. 
37-43, give the idea of an intelligible development which 
it is impossible to derive from the Synopties. The ποσάκις 
of Luke xiii. 34, Matt. xxii. 37 (above, p. 173, n. 3) is 
elaborated by John. There are single points also in which 
John’s narrative serves to explain the synoptic account. 
The call of the fishermen to become fishers of men (Matt. 
iv. 18 ff; Mark 1. 16 ff.) is psychologically incompre- 
hensible without the assumption of previous familiarity 
on the part of those called with the person and intentions 
of Jesus. How they obtained this acquaintance we read 
in John i. 35-51. The treachery of Judas, which in the 
Synoptics falls like a thunderbolt from heaven, we learn 
from John vi. 70, xii. 4-6, xiii. 2, 11, 18-80, xvii. 12, 
xvill. 2-5, was long in preparation, and connected with 
Judas’ earlier attitude among the disciples. The reference 
of Isa. xl. 3 to the Baptist in all the Synoptics is intel- 
ligible if he applied the saying to himself (John 1. 23), 
and it is not strange that the disciples of John understood 
the figure in Matt. ix. 15, Mark 11. 19, if their master had 
used it to represent his relation to Jesus (John iii. 29). 
The historical occasion for the accusation of Jesus in Mark 
xiv, 58, xv. 29, Matt. xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40, Acts vi. 14, is 
to be found only in John 1. 19. This and other things 
are the incidental, if not altogether unintentional, results 
of the method which circumstances compelled the author 
to use, especially of his eclecticism in the choice of 
material. The purpose of his book is proved to be that 
already noted, namely, the confirmation and furtherance 
of the readers in the faith which they have confessed. 

But this faith in which it is John’s purpose to confirm 
his readers he states in the terms of the common Christian 


308 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


confession, namely, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of 
God (xx. 81). It is the old message which the readers 
have heard ever since their first contact with the gospel 
(1 John 1. 5, iii. 11), and which stands at the very fore- 
front in all the gospel testimony concerning Jesus. Even 
the Baptist testifies, “I am not the Messiah, ‘but Jesus 
is” (iv 20, 25 Ὁ, 58 ἢ; ii. 28:8} Those who were the 
first to: leave John in order to become disciples of Jesus 
used this title to express their new faith (1. 41, ef. vv. 45, 
49); and the author, who was one of these disciples, in the 
passage where he gives the account of this event, retains 
the form which the title had in’ his native language, 
although it is necessary for him to translate it for the 
readers (n. 2).: John uses also the archaic titles “ The 
Chosen One” and ‘the Holy One of God,” which had 
hardly yet been taken up into the language of the Church, 
and hence disappeared from the text in the common tra- 
dition (n. 2). Τὴ the same way Jesus maintains the con- 
nectiom with: the O.T. and the people of Israel. Although 
Jesus is the Saviour of the world (iv. 42, ef. 1.29, i. 14 ff, 
xii. 47, xvil. 2, 17 ff.), nevertheless salvation is of the 
Jews (iv. 22). Not until after His death and exaltation 
is it possible and is it His desire to exercise His world 
calling in its full compass beyond the boundaries of Israel 
(x. 14-16, xii. 23-32). For this reason He quickly 
withdraws from the Samaritans who willingly "receive 
Him (iv. 40, 43), and refuses to receive the Greeks (xii. 
20 ff.). Although His enemies taunt Him with being a 
Samaritan (viii. 48), and believe it possible that He may 
seek safety in the Greek diaspora and preach to the 
Greeks (vü. 35), which would be equivalent to ‘self- 
destruction (vill. 22), nevertheless He remains a Jew 
(iv. 9, 22) and faithful unto death to His own people, 
the race of Abraham. For He is the one promised in 
the O.T. (i. 45, v. 39, 46f.), the King of Israel (i. 49, 
xii. 13), the: Good Shepherd predicted by the prophets 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 309 


(x. 1-10), 2.e. the Sovereign of His people, to be distin- 
guished from the usurpers of the throne,—the Herodian 
family, foreigners who obtained their power through craft 
and. violence,—and from such bandits as Judas the Gali- 
lean (x. 1,8, 10), and from other false. Messiahs who 
were yet to come (v. 43). His kingdom, like Himself, did 
not originate in the world, and in the realisation of the 
same He makes use of no earthly powers (xvii. 33-37). 
The scorn, »however, with which Pilate, notwithstanding 
this avowal of Christ, that His kingdom was not of this 
world, calls Him the King of the Jews (xviii. 39, xix. 8, 
14, 19 f.), represents the full truth. Tle Jews themselves 
were compelled to confess that He had so spoken. of Him- 
self (xix. 21), and only by the betrayal of their Messianic 
idea to the heathen (xix. 15) was it: possible for them to 
destroy. Him in whom this idea: was fulfilled. «In spite of 
the protest of the Jews, it is proclaimed to all the world in 
the language of the people from whom Jésus, sprang, in the 
language of the world-ruling Romans and in the language 
of the Greeks,—the common bond: between all civilised 
peoples,—that the crucified Jesus is) the king of thesJews 
(xix. 19 £.). The confession.to which “all flesh,” we the 
entire world, is to be brought in order that: they may receive 
eternal life from Jesus, is, besides the acknowledgment that 
the Father of Jesus.is the only true God, the confession: of 
Jesus whom He hasısent as the Messiah (xvii. 2.1)... © 

When in xx. 51 (ef. xi, 27) we find, in addition, to the 
Messianic title, the expression ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, it is nothing 
new.) Neither’ in the Synoptics nor in John is this title 
synonymous with 6 Χριστός. Just as the combination of 
these two titles in. Matt. xvi..16- presupposes. the. con» 
fession of Matt. xiv. 38, which is based upon an experi- 
ence of the supernatural greatness of Jesus, so the -con- 
fession of John. i.,49, in) which mention, of the divine 
sonship precedes that of the Messiahship, is based upon 
the overwhelming experience which had come:te!one of 


310 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the first disciples of Jesus through the wonderful witness 
of Jesus to Himself. 

This confession of the divine Sonship is capable of 
being deepened ; not, however, by the use of ὁ μονογενής, 
a title which John uses both with and without vios to 
describe Jesus (n. 3). For this simply aftirms that Jesus 
is the Son of God in the full sense of that word. » Like 
ὁ vids alone (iii. 35f, v. 19 ff., vill. 35, cf. Matt. x1.027 ; 
Luke x. 22, ef. Matt. xxi. 38) or ὁ vids τοῦ θεοῦ (John ix. 
35, xi. 4; Luke xxii. 70), it serves to distinguish Him 
from the children of God who become such only through 
His mediation (i. 12, xii. 36) and through a second‘ birth 
(iii. 3-8). Although in xx. 17 Jesus makes parallel His 
original Sonship and the derived sonship of His disciples 
with a definiteness not to be found in the Synoptics, 
calling them His brethren in the same context, neverthe- 
less the specific distinction remains. This is true also’ in 
the Synoptics, which, to put the matter briefly, never 
represent Jesus as combining the ideas of “ my Father” 
and “ your Father” in an “our Father,” for the Lord's 
Prayer is'not'a prayer which Jesus prayed Himself, but 
one which He taught His disciples. Since John uses the 
word μονογενής for the first time in the sentence in which 
he declares that the Logos became flesh (i. 14), and in 
very close connection with the sentence which, according 
to the. éommon text, deals with the divine sonship 
wrought by Jesus in those who believe on Him (1.12 f.), 
but according to the original text treats of the begetting 
and birth of Jesus without the assistance οὗ ἃ man (1. 13, 
above, pp. 266, 288, π. 7), there is no doubt that “ohn 
calls Jesus the wovoryevjs, the Son of God 'in a unique sense 
because of ‘this wonderful entrance into human life. 
Jesus ois from birth what other men’ become ' through 
regeneration, and by nature what they are by ‘grace—a 
thought which finds expression in various ways elsewhere 
in the Fourth Gospel (n. 3). ΒΥ i. 13, even according to 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 311 


the Textus receptus, the physical fatherhood of Joseph is 
excluded ; but, according to John as well as the Synoptics, 
during Jesus’ lifetime His divine Sonship as opposed to 
His descent from Joseph was not the subject either of 
teaching or confession... Those who first confessed that 
He was the Son of God regarded Him at the same time as 
the son of Joseph (i. 45). To others, who, because they 
are acquainted with Him, think they know all about His 
origin, it is simply said that they are in error (vi. 42, vil. 
26 ἢ, vill. 14, 57f.). As is proved by the prologue of 
John and the birth stories of Matthew and Luke, at the 
time when all these Gospels were written it was com- 
monly believed by the Church that Jesus was not the son 
of Joseph ; but neither John nor the Synoptics make this 
a part of the teaching of Jesus. 

John does, however, show an advance upon the other 
evangelists when he represents the Baptist and then Jesus 
as testifying with constantly increasing clearness His’ pre- 
existence and His eternal being with God, His sending 
forth, origin, and descent from heaven to earth. The ἐκ 
θεοῦ “γεννηθῆναι, without which no man can become a child 
of God, took place also in: Jesus’ case, since He entered 
into the human estate; but for Him it was an ἐξέρχεσθαι 
παρά or ἐκ τοῦ πατρός (xvi. 27 f.), the incarnation of one 
who was eternal and whose divine Sonship involves His 
being God. It does not follow, however, that what the 
Baptist recognised prophetically (1.15, 30) was recognised 
by Jesus’ disciples from the beginning. It is a long way 
from the confession of the sincere Nathanael, od ei ὁ υἱὸς 
τοῦ θεοῦ, who at first mocked, to the confession of the 
sincere Thomas, ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου, who at first was 
unwilling to believe. ‘What heretofore had escaped from 
Jesus’ heart in excited and often in obscure language He 
did not state in unmistakable terms to His disciples until 
on the last evening (xvi. 24-30). The development of faith 
from the first (i. 45-49) to the final confession (xx. 28) of 


312 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the diseiples is proof of the truth of such sayings of Jesus 
as iii. 21, xviii. 37. It is the way, the goal of which John 
desires that the readers of his Gospel shall not fail to 
attain (xx. 31). How anxious he is that this shall be the 
case is evidenced in the prologue, which begins with the 
affirmation of the eternal being of Christ with: God. 
Moreover, in the course of this prologue he represents the 
Baptist as bearing testimony (i. 15) in the same words as 
are used in i. 30, where they are recorded for the first 
time in their historical connection, and the prologue con- 
cludes with a confession of Jesus as the ‘‘ only-begotten 
God” (i. 18, n. 3), an expression which seems self-eontra- 
dictory. This and not “ the Logos doctrine” is the thing 
peculiar to the Fourth Gospel, and indeed the only new 
thing in the representation of the person of Jesus as com- 
pared with that of the Synopties (n. 4). 

It would be possible to speak of John’s Logos doctrine, 
or of a Logos doctrine in the Gospel of John, only in case 
John formally identified the Logos which was familiar to 
the readers (i. 1) with Jesus the Christ (1.117), or in: case 
he formally stated that Jesus Christ whom the readers 
know is the divine Logos, or an incarnation of it, and if by 
the unfolding of the conceptions involved in one or the 
other of these propositions he went on to» make some 
further statements about either the Logos or Christ. 
But nothing of this kind is found in the prologue (nv 5). 
Although the historical name of the Redeemer does not 
occur until i. 17, any reader at all acquainted with the 
gospel history would understand when he read 1.06-13, if 
not before, that the author was speaking of Jesus; sinee 
the Baptist’s testimony was concerning Jesus the Ohrist, 
not concerning a being called “ Logos” or “ Light” (4. 7), 
and since the name on which the children of God believe 
is none other than the name of Jesus Christ (i. 112, ‘ef. 
ii, 23, 1. 18, xx. 31). In 1. 445 also the only) possible 
subject is Jesus. When and while He dwelt upon the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 313 


earth He and He alone was the light of men (i. 4, ef. viii. 
12, ix. 5, xii. 35f., 46, ii. 19). » Although He may not be 
the light now in the same sense, nevertheless the light 
which He was is not entirely lost, but continues to be 
manifested in the children of heht (xii. 36), inowhom He 
lives by word and spirit and who are in Him (xv. 5, 7, 
xvi. 7-15, xvu. 8, 17, 23). Nor has the dark world in 
which this light has long been shining (1 John ii. 8) and 
in which it still shines, been able to overcome and extin- 
guish it (i 5). Throughout the passage, ὁ λόγος like τὸ 
φῶς is a name applicable only to the historical Christ. 
Even assuming that the proposition, ‘ Christiis and is 
called the Logos,” may contaima logos doctrine,—in: the 
nature of the case a Christian Logos doctrine,—this doctrine 
is not expounded but presupposed in the prologue.) From 
the simple designation of Christ as Logos, even if this be 
found in an independent statement (n. 5), the existence of 
a Christian Logos doctrine cannot be inferred any more 
than a Christian doctrine of light can be:inferred from 
John viii. 12, ix. 5, xii. 46, or from the: numerous sug- 
gestive designations of Christ)an equal number of doctrines 
bearing these distinctive names (John vi. 35, 48, 51, 
11,—xi. 25,—xiv. 6,—xv. 1,—Col. 1. 27,1. 2,—2 Cor. ivo4; 
Coli. 15). Such an inference would be justified only if 
it were known that the Christians of that time derived 
further propositions from the identification of the Logos 
with Christ, or of Christ with the Logos, which! would 
then likewise be silently taken for granted in the prologue. 
Certainly in: the prologue nothing is deduced from. this 
identification only presupposed of Christ: with the. Logos. 
The original existence of the Logos with God and_ its 
divine nature are not derived through a definition: of 
development of the Logos idea ; they are simply affirmed. 
Since essentially the same expressions (viii. 58, xvii. 5, ef. 
xi. 41) recur as utterances: of Jesus concerning Himself 
without any connection with the name of the Logos, the 


314 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


statements of i. 1 would have exactly the same meaning, 
if their subject were ὁ Χριστός instead of ὁ Adyos. This is 
the language Paul would have used (n. 5). The idea of 
the creation of the world through Christ (i. 3) 1s expressed 
in the Fourth Gospel only in this one passage, but. is 
found elsewhere in the N.T. without any discernible 
dependence upon the Logos idea (1 Cor. vii. 6; Col. i 
15-17 ; Heb. i. 2; Rev. iii. 14). Consequently, there 
is no basis for assuming that John derived his statement 
from the Logos idea, or, on the other hand, that he called 
Christ the Logos because this was one of the articles of 
the common Christian faith. He does not in any way 
intimate that this was the case; and if this thought had 
been in his mind he would certainly have repeated the 
name of the Logos in i. 3, in order to direct the readers’ 
attention to Gen. 1. 8; Ps. xxxili. 6;9... That John does 
not regard the name of the Logos as a mine of speculative 
ideas is evidenced by the fact that the prologue does not 
contain any such ideas, and more especially by the fact 
that from i. 4 onward the Logos idea is replaced by that of 
light, and the former idea does not recur until 1.14, and 
then nothing is said which could have been derived from 
the Aoyos conception. 

We conclude, then, that in the prologue no Chöistikaie or 
non-Christian Logos doctrine is expounded or presupposed, 
but that shin omthior assumes that the readers are familiar 
with the term λόγος as a designation of the Christ. The 
question then arises how this usage originated, and why 
John employs it in the prologue. He does not represent 
Jesus as using it, nor is there any obvious basis for it 
anywhere in the’ Fourth Gospel (n. 5). | On the» other 
hand, we do find the term used in two other writings of 
John’s which confirms what is apparent from the pro- 
logue, namely, that the name was in more or less common 
use in the Church circles where these writings originated. 
In 1 John i. 1 the term ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς is used to describe 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 315 


not the gospel preaching, but the personal centre of that 
preaching—the person of Jesus, who, on the one hand, is 
without beginning, and, on the other hand, one whom the 
disciples heard speak, whom they saw walk and act, a man 
whom it was possible to touch, whom they perceived with 
all their senses. This eternal person is the eternal life, 
and as such has existed eternally with the Father. | But 
because this life has issued from its silent’ abode with 
God, appeared in tangible form among’men and become 
manifest to them, it can be called the “ Word of. Life.” 
In His own person Christ is the eternal life (John xiv. 6), 
and eonsequently the life which became visible and which 
could be heard is ‘‘the word of life.” Hence o> λύγος is a 
designation, not of the pre-existent Christ as sul but of 
‚the incarnate Christ (n. 6). 

In Rey. xix. 11-16 John is represented ‘as . seeing 
Christ coming from heaven to judgment with the insignia 
of royal and judicial power (n.‘7)..:In this’ vision He 
bears one name related to the work He had come to do at 
this time (ver: 16) ;: also another, inscribed apparently. on 
His diadem, which no one knew but Himselfi(ver. 12, ef. 
ii; 17). John saw this name inscribed on the diadem, but 
could not decipher it, hence was «unable to: express. it. 
This means that) for human thought and speech there: is 
no term suited to express the entire significance of ‘Christ 
and His being which is fully known only to Himself.) But 
it is impossible for men not to give Him names, in which 
the attempt is made to express this thought. The name 
ὁ Noyos τοῦ θεοῦ (ver. 13) is one such attemptio It will: be 
observed that John does not see or hear the: namein the 
vision, but that he simply remarks at the close of the 
description of the personal appearance of Christ that this 
name was given to Him. Jt was the name used for Christ 
in) the Church, and He was so called when it was: desited 
to express in a comparatively comprehensive way what 
He is and-'what He signifies. He is the Word of God 


316 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


expressed in the world. His person represents completely 
what the numerous revelations of God by word are in 
part. The attributes of truth and trustworthiness belong 
to Him, just as they do to these revelations (xix. 9; 
xxi. 5); but because He is a person they are expressed by 
a proper name (xix. 11, ef. 1 John i. 9, v. 20). The 
fact that Christ revealed the Word of God as a faithful 
witness (Rev. i. δ, iii. 14) is only one way in which He 
proved Himself to be the Word of God: He Himself>is 
“the Amen,” or, as we should express it, “the Amen in 
person,” 1.6. God’s solemn declaration of His will and of 
His thought toward men (Rev. iii 14, n. 8). | Heads not 
an amen or @ word, but, since God has revealed Himself 
finally and definitely in Christ (Heb. i. 1), the Amen and 
the Word of God. This thought is: not without analogies 
in N.T. writings other than those of John (n. 8). ἡ 

This is the conception which we have in the Fourth 
Gospel. The general presuppositions and analogies are 
found here in the words of Jesus Himself. Jesus) is the 
life, but also in His own person the truth!(xiv: 6, χἱ 25), 
the visible manifestation of Godi(xi. 45, xiv. 7-10), and 
He supplies men with the knowledge of God necessary to 
life, not simply through the words. which He speaks asa 
teacher, but also through His deeds, 1.6) during His earthly 
life He is the light of men (ix. 4-5, vu 12, xi 385f., 46): 
He distinguishes Himself from all the official representa- 
tives and mediators of divine revelation who came before 
Him by affirming that, whereas they became what they 
were for other men through some word of God that came 
to them from without, He in the whole compass of His 
life is the one consecrated by God for His mission to:men 
and sent by Him to fulfilit (x. 35 f.). 

If, as the prologue taken in connection with 1 John 
i. 1, Rev. xix. 13 proves, 6 λόγος had come to be used 
along with other terms to designate Christ in the region 
where John lived, manifestly not without his influence, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 317 


the comprehensiveness of the term made its use parti- 
eularly appropriate in the prologue which deseribes in 
large outlines the history of Christ and the revelation 
accomplished by Him ; from the eternity out of which He 
sprang to the present when He has returned again to God, 
when, however, the body of those who believe on Him, 
the heirs of His grace, the guardians of the knowledge of 
God brought into the world by Him, continue to exist in 
a world which is without this knowledge. Christ is here 
represented as throughout the Gospel and in Revelation 
as the indispensable witness of the truth and revealer of 
the knowledge of God which no man can derive from him- 
self (i. 18, of. 1.11, v. 37f., vi. 46, xviii. 37). . But His 
relation to the God whom He reveals is different from 
that of all other bearers of the divine revelation. Not 
only had He seen God before He appeared as His only- 
begotten, Son; He is Himself θεός (1. 18). While the 
revelation of the law was transmitted through the hand of 
Moses to other men, the grace and truth of God with 
which Jesus Himself was filled has become through Him 
an historical reality (i. 17, cf. xiv. 16). His person isthe 
complete revelation of God to men, consequently “the 
Word” per se. 

The question how the term ὁ λόγος (τοῦ θεοῦ, τῆς ζωῆς) 
came to be used as.a general expression, gathering up the 
early Christian conceptions of Christ which otherwise were 
unconnected, and how it came to be used as a proper name, 
we are unable to answer by tracing its history, just as we 
are unable to answer many similar questions; for the 
reason that we know practically nothing of what was 
taught in the Church. | It is conceivable historically that 
the apostle John may ‘have become familiar in Jerusalem 
with the Greek speculation, the first representative of 
which, so far as we know, was Philo; since there was a 
synagogue of the Alexandrians in Jerusalem, and many 
Hellenists in the membership of the mother Church 


318 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(vol. i. 60f. n. 8). It is also possible that Alexandrian 
Jews, like Apollos, brought such ideas to Ephesus (Acts 
xviii. 24). "If only someone could sueceed in showing’a 
real connection between Philo and’ John! John’s con- 
ception of Christ is not Philo’s conception of the Logos, 
the Platonic idea of’ ideas, the plastic world-soul of the 
teachings of the Stoa. It would be more natural to 
suppose that the teaching concerning the memra eurrent 
among the rabbis was utilised by the Christian teachers 
in expressing their ideas concerning Jesus. But apparently 
this term could be! used only if the pre-existent Christ 
were thought of ‘as’ the mediator’ of the Old Testament 
revelation as well as of the New.‘ But no traces of this 
ideh ave to be found in John, even ‘where it’ might be 
expected (v. 37-47, viii. 52-58, ΧΙ. 37-41). Probably, 
therefore, the expression is to be explained as one which 
orew'up in the late apostolic age out of the above-men- 
tioned roots embedded in the soil of the Christian Church, 

If John had applied to Christ a Logos ‘speculation de- 
rived from non-Christian sources, and under its influence 
had attempted a higher conception of Christ, inevitably 
the clear figure of the man Jesus would have faded away 
like a shadow and been distorted into ghostly form. In 
reality the opposite is the case. No one of the Gospels 
presents a picture of Jesus which in all essential respects 
is so entirely human as that of John. Jesus is weary with 
His journey (iv. 6); confesses that He is thirsty (iv. 7, 
xix. 28); weeps at the grave of His friend (xi. 35); 
cherishes friendships with individuals, which can have ‘no 
direct connection with His redemptive work (xi. 3, 11, 36, 
xiii. 23, xx. 2). When dying He made provision for the 
temporal well-being of His mother (xix. 26). Justias He 
is deeply stirred and even moved by a feeling of anger at 
the desolation which death had been permitted to bring 
into the ‘home of a friend, especially because He Himself 
by His delay had been responsible for this victory of death 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 319 


(xi. 38, 38), so He is profoundly shaken by the thought of 
His own approaching death, and in a state of doubt and 
uncertainty seeks to be assured of the divine will regard- 
ing it (xii. 27), which he had long known (viii. 21-29). 
He can do all things only as He depends upon God (v. 19, 
30); the Son of Man requires the aid of God’s angels, in 
order miraculously to testify that He is the Son of God 
(i. 51). All His miracles are done in response to prayer 
(xi. 41). He is and continnes to be the studious pupil of 
His Father (v. 30, viii. 26, 40, xv. 15). However far and 
deeply He is able to see into human hearts and into the 
dark recesses of the future (n. 10), this is no proof ofa 
native omniscience, but is a gift of God in accordance with 
Jesus’ vocation, a manifestation of the Spirit which He has 
received for His work (i. 32 f.). Like other men, He is in- 
formed of things which He Himself does not witness (iv. 1,xi. 
3-6), or draws inferences from what He does witness (vi. 15). 
He asks questions, not simply in order to test others (vi. 6), 
but in order to find out what He does not know (xi. 34). 
Even in the case of His official work, His knowledge is sub- 
ject to growth, and thus (temporarily) limited, with the re- 
sult that His decisions to act are subject to change (n. 9). 

Nor can this thoroughly human representation of 
Christ—in comparison with which there is little in the 
Synoptics which gives so naive and so clear an impression 
— be explained as the remnant of an older view, which 
the author himself had transcended. On the contrary, 
this is the image of Jesus which lives in his thought, and 
which with loving devotion he pictures before the eyes of 
his readers. However important he may regard it that 
they believe the Jesus to be the Christ and the Son of 
God, he does not, like Matthew, picture the Christ (n. 10), 
indeed very seldom calls Him “ Lord,” as is frequently 
done by Luke (vol. ii. 476 ; above, pp. 91, n. 21, 249), and 
in all his statements about Him makes the subject the man 
Jesus. That this is not only the natural reflection of his 


320 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


view of Jesus, but his conscious purpose in the Gospel, 
is evidenced by 1.14. , The language is strong. He who 
from eternity was God (i. 1), and who in every aspect did 
not cease to be God (i, 18, 33-36, n. 3, xx. 28), became 
flesh—appeared as flesh. It is clear, even without the 
light thrown upon the passage by the Epistles, that this 
language, which, in comparison with Phil. i. 7, Rom. viii, 
3. is so very harsh, can, be explained only in the light of 
another and contrasted view of Jesus. Just as the 
humanity of Christ is emphasised here, where His entrance 
into the human estate is described, so in the account of 
the end of His life strong emphasis is laid upon the reality 
of His death. It is true that the two details, namely, 
that Jesus’ legs were not broken, and that He was pierced 
with a spear after His death, are important in the eyes. of 
the author as fulfilments of prophecies (above, p. 217); 
but in comparison with the earlier accounts of the eruci- 
fixion these facts are in themselves new and significant. 
The legs were left unbroken, only because the soldiers 
were convinced that Jesus was already dead, and it was 
the doubt of one of the soldiers as to this fact that led to 
the piercing of the side. Even if the soldier's doubt, were 
well grounded, the piercing of the side with a spear would 
have caused death.‘ Apparently both to the soldier and 
to the narrator the issue of blood and water was evidence 
of the disintegration of the blood which had taken place 
after death. It is in connection also with this entire trans- 
action that the narrator introduces the solemn assurance 
that he is an eye-witness whose account is in accordance 
with the truth (above, p. 219 ff)... When it is further 
remembered that no other Gospel gives such circumstantial 
historical proof that the graye was empty (xx. 1-13), or 
records the way in which, Thomas was convinced ofthe 
reality of the body of the risen Jesus, and of the identity 
of this body with the one which was crucified (xx. 24-29), 
it becomes clear beyond question that John’s purpose js to 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 321 


fortify the faith of his readers against doctrines which 
questioned the reality of the 'incarnation and death of 
Jesus. According to Irenzeus, this was the teaching of 
Cerinthus. But the Epistles must be investigated before 
definite conclusions can be reached on this point. 

There is still another direction in which John seems 
to show a polemical purpose. If the author is the un- 
named companion of Andrew in 1. 35 ff., there is nothing 
peculiar about the fact that he reports in detail and with 
strong emphasis the Baptist’s testimony concerning Jesus 
which brought Andrew to Jesus (1. 6-9, 19-36, ili. 27-36, 
v. 33-36, x. 41). Nor is it strange that outside the 
narrative, in a form other than that of an historical 
notice, he should represent this asa testimony given in the 
present, and thus valid for the readers, as he does when he 
puts it among the statements regarding the experience of 
himself and of his fellow-disciples who companied with 
Jesus (i. 15). This would all be satisfactorily explained 
by the purpose indicated in xix. 35: ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς πισ- 
τεύητε. In other words, that you as well as I and my 
fellow-disciples may believe, you as well as the μαθητής 
(xix. 26) and his συμμαθηταί (xi. 16), who were disciples 
as well of the Baptist as of Jesus. But this does not 
explam the marked emphasis with which from the very 
beginning of the Gospel both the author and the Baptist 
himself deny that John is the Messiah or the Light of Life 
(i. 8, 20-27, 30-33, in. 28-30). ‘The temptation which 
John had to represent himself as the Messiah he honourably 
and steadfastly resisted (1. 20), and rejected all other 
titles which in the confusion of Jewish ideas about the 
person of the coming Messiah might be interpreted as 
implying a claim to the Messianic dignity, or equality with 
the Messiah (i. 21, 25, n. 11). The only office which he 
claims is that which Isaiah represents under the figure of 
a voice, the subject of which remains entirely undefined 
(i. 23). His work is great, but is entirely in the service 

VOL, III, 21 


322 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of his incomparably greater successor, whose origin is from 
eternity, and of the greater work which He came to do. 
They are related to each other as water to spirit, word to 
deed. Hence John must recede into the background, as 
Jesus, the bridegroom of the bride, the Messiah of the 
Church, comes into prominence. He does it without envy 
and willingly, even with profound joy as the friend of the 
bridegroom (iii. 27-36); while Jesus in His turn fully 
recognises John’s calling (v. 35), classes him with Himself 
as a true witness (iii. 11), declares that for the time being 
John’s baptism with water is just as necessary as the future 
baptism with the Spirit (iii. δ; ef. the contrast 1, 33), for a 
time practises it through His disciples (ii. 22, iv. 2), and, 
in order to avoid the appearance of rivalry, even gives up 
this work as soon as He sees that it may interfere with the 
activity of the Baptist (iv. 1). While, therefore, perfect 
harmony existed between John and Jesus, and not a few 
of John’s disciples, accepting his testimony concerning 
Jesus and following his suggestion, left him in order to 
become henceforth disciples of Jesus (i. 35-51), and while 
many who heard John believed on Jesus later (x. 42), 
there were other followers of John who remained with 
him, refused to join themselves to Jesus, and in the spirit 
of envy endeavoured to stir the jealousy of their master 
against Jesus (iii. 26). But He who came from above, and 
so is above all (iii. 31), has no rival. Although John was 
a lamp which burned for a long time but was finally 
extinguished (v. 35), he is not @ light of the world to be 
compared with the only one who is the Light of the World. 
Rather is he one of those who in obedience to a divime 
command exercised a calling limited both in time and seope 
(x. 35); nor has he any of the glory of the σημεῖα (x. 41) 
which distineuished Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God 
(xx. 30f.). Just as John declares his entire subordination 
to Jesus, so Jesus also, when He has occasion to point out to 
the Jews their hostile attitude toward Himself from the be: 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 323 


ginning of His ministry as contrasted with their favourable 
reception of John, states clearly that by the divine witness 
He is declared to be greater than John (v. 36 ; see §69, n. 1). 
Not taking into account at all the Synoptics, in which scarcely 
any of this historical material is to be found (Luke iii. 15 ἢ, 
v. 33-39, xi. 1; Matt. ix. 14-17 ; Mark τ. 18-22), from 
the manner in which the relations between John and Jesus 
are set forth—strongly emphasised even in the prologue— 
one is compelled to infer a polemical purpose on the part 
of the author. Among those in the circle about! John 
there must have been some who attached overmuch import- 
ance to the personality of the Baptist; and who denied the 
definite distinction between him and Jesus. We have not 
sufficient historical knowledge to set forth, concretely, de- 
finitely, and with entire certainty, this fact which appears 
_ from the Fourth Gospel. But it is natural to assume that 
the after effects of the wrong attitude which some of the 
Baptist’s disciples took toward Jesus were connected with 
or helped to give rise to the movement which the author 
opposes by his strong emphasis upon the incarnation, the 
truly human life and death of Jesus, and His bodily resur- 
rection. ‘I'here are also indications that it was in Ephesus 
especially, where, according to all the tradition, the Fourth 
Gospel originated, that the influences of the work of the 
Baptist continued to be felt, the connections of which 
with apostolic Christianity were ambiguous (n. 12). 

This leads us to consider, finally, the question as to 
the nationality and home of the original readers of the 
Fourth Gospel. That they were familiar only with the 
Greek language is evidenced by the fact that) the writer, 
who is fond of retaining the Hebrew or Aramaic form of 
the names of persons and things, translates them into 
Greek regularly at least the first time they are used, 
sometimes also in the second instance—i, 38 (cf. i, 49, iii, 
2, 26, iv. 31, vi. 25, ix. 2, xi. 8), 1. 41,(the second time in 
iv, 25), 1.42, ix. 7, xi. 16 (again in xx:.24, xxi. 2), xix, 13, 


324 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


17, xx. 16. In only one instance does he leave the name 
of a place untranslated, and this name is of significance tc 
himself because of the meaning of the word (v. 2, vol. i. 
28, n. 15). Names of feasts and holidays like πάσχα, 
σάββατον did not need to be translated, because they had 
long since passed over into Christian usage ; others, like 
ornvormyla (vii. 2), ἐγκαίνια (x. 22), are given directly in 
their Greek form, the meaning being clear from the 
words themselves. With words like ἀμήν (i. 51), ὥσαννά 
(xii. 13) the readers were likewise familiar from their own 
cultus or the earlier Gospels. ‘They are not familar with 
Jewish customs and cultus practices, nor with the 
geography of Palestine. The author tells them that the 
usual route from Judea to Galilee led through Samaria 
(iv. 4, n. 13). The readers do not appear to know that 
Cana is in Galilee (11. 1, 11, iv. 46, 54), nor are they 
familiar with the location of Bethany on Jordan (i. 28, x. 
40), and of the other Bethany near Jerusalem (xi. 1, 18). 
Ephraim in Judea (xi. 54) is quite as unknown to them as 
Sychar in Samaria (iv. 5). He informs them for the first 
time that there is a pool in Jerusalem called Bethesda 
(v. 2). To designate the Lake of Gennesaret, John uses 
ἡ θάλασσα τῆς Γαλιλαίας, which was to be found in Matt. 
iv. 18, xv. 29; Mark i. 16, vu. 31, and was therefore, 
perhaps, familiar to his readers. However, out of regard 
for them, who, because of their unfamiliarity with the 
geographical situation and the Jewish custom to call an 
inland lake also a sea, might have misunderstood his 
reference, he adds the other name of the Lake, ἡ Τιβεριάς 
(vi. 1,n. 14). Because the readers are accustomed yearly 
to celebrate a Christian Passover lasting for one day, and, 
on the other hand, know that the Jews, some of whom 
must have resided in their vicinity, celebrated the feast 
for several days, John uses the expression, “ Passover of 
the Jews” (ii. 13; ef. vi. 4, xi. 55) in order to call their 
attention to the fact that Jesus’ first sojourn in Jerusalem 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 325 


covered an entire week (ii. 23, iv. 45). With the feast of 
Tabernacles they may have been familiar (vu. 2). It is 
necessary, however, to inform them that the last day was 
celebrated in Jerusalem with special solemnity (vü. 37); 
likewise that the Sabbath which fell within the Passover 
period was observed with special strictness (xix. 31). It 
is necessary at least to remind them that on Friday 
evening, just before the beginning of the Sabbath, Jews 
were unable to take an extended journey, even in 
order to bury a corpse (xix. 42). The presence of the 
large water jars in Cana he explains by reminding the 
readers of the custom of the Jews as to purification, with 
which perhaps the readers were familiar, but which they 
did not practise (ii. 6). Special attention is called to 
the particular manner in which the Jews bury their dead 
(xix. 40), in part at least because one feature of this 
description is to be noticed again in xx. 6. Probably it is 
John himself and not some glossator who remarks in iv. 9, 
in explanation of the conversation which there takes place, 
that the Jews and Samaritans are accustomed to hold no 
friendly intercourse with one another (n. 13), which makes 
the meaning of vii. 48 clear without any comment. 

In a word, then, we conclude that the original readers 
of John were Greek Christians remote from Palestine. 
There is nothing which contradicts the tradition that they 
lived in the province of Asia. Assuming that the Gospel 
was written by the apostle John, this is proved with cer- 
tainty by the date of the composition of the supplement 
(§66) and of the entire Gospel (§ 69), for at this time 
John was resident in Ephesus. This was also the seat of 
the unsound tendencies against which we have seen the 
Fourth Gospel to be directed (n. 9; cf. also § 69, n. 9). 


1. (P. 304.) John uses σημεῖον regularly only ‚of the deeds of Jesus 
(indirectly also in the negative statement of x. 41). He has the word 18 
times : whereas in Matt, it is found only 6 or 7 times, in Mark only in viii, 
11-12, and in Luke, omitting the parallels (xi. 16, 29-30), only in xxiii, 8; 
Paul uses it more frequently. It is appropriately used in the sense of mx, in 


326 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Ex. iv. 8f., 17, for the demand of the Jews for some miraculous evidence ΟἹ 
God’s approval of Him whom He sent (John ii. 18, vi. 30; ef. 1 Cor. i. 22). 
John never uses δυνάμεις, so common in the Synopties, and in addition to the 
word σημεῖα (once connected with repara=prodigia in a passage where Jesus 
reproves the half faith which seeks confirmation by miracles, iv. 48) uses only 
ἔργα in an equivalent sense, v. 20, 36, vii. 3, 21, x. 25, 32, 33, 37, 38, xiv. 10- 
12, xv. 24. The only other passage where ἔργα is used in this sense is Matt. 
xil 2. 

2. (P. 308.) Concerning Μεσσίας, John i. 41, iv. 25 (nowhere else in the 
N.T.), see vol. i. 20f. There is nothing peculiar about the use of the word 
by the Samaritan woman. For even if the Samaritan title for the Messiah 
3770 (the “ Converter” ; cf. Cowley in the Expositor, 1895, March, p. 165, in 
opposition to Merx and Hilgenfield) does go back so far, this woman who 
remarks upon the religious differences between the Jews and the Samaritans 
must have known the Jewish name, and could have employed it in conver- 
sation with the Jews. Concerning ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, i. 34, see above, 
Ρ. 384 π. 2. Both this title and 6 ἅγιος τ. θ., vi. 69 (NBC*DL), have been 
replaced by 6 υἱὸς τ. θ. (Se and the old Latin versions), more frequently 
preceded by ὁ Χριστός (so also in Ss) and followed by τοῦ ζῶντος. Matt. xvi. 
16 was preferred to Mark i, 24; Luke iv. 34 (cf. Acts iii. 14, iv. 27, 30). Cf. 
also John x. 36, xvii. 19. John uses also ὁ Χριστός 14 times, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός 
twice (i. 17, xvii. 3), once Χριστόν (ix. 22), as a predicate. Mention may be 
made also of ὁ βασιλεὺς. rod Ἰσραήλ or τῶν Ἰουδαίων (above, p. 309), and 
ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, viii. 24, 28, where ὁ Χριστός, or a synonym, must be supplied. 

3. (Pp. 310, 312.) The stately tone of the English phrases “ The only- 
begotten” (John i. 14) and “ The only-begotten Son of God” (iii. 16, 18; 1 John 
iv. 9) is lessened when we remember that every only son is spoken of in this 
way (Luke vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 38; Tob, iii. 15; Clem. 1 Cor. xxv. 2 of the 
Pheenix). The word is used to translate wm and wn ja in Judg. xi. 34; Ps. 
xxii. 20 LXX ; Gen. xxii. 2; Jer. vi. 26 Aquila ; Heb. xi. 17 (ὁ ἴδιος υἱός instead 
in Rom, viii. 32). But since the same expression is usually translated in the 
LXX by ἀγαπητός (Gen, xxii, 2,12, 16; Zech. xii, 10 ; Jer. vi. 26, see also the 
variant reading in Judg. xi. 34 (it follows that ἀγαπητός in Matt. iii. 17, xvii, 
5; Mark i. 11, ix. 7, xii. 6 (ἕνα. . . υἱὸν. ay.) ; Luke iii. 22, xx. 13; 2 Pet. i. 
17 (ef. Col. i. 13), is synonymous with μονογενής in John. It may be con- 
sidered as proved that the correct reading in John i. 18 is μονογενὴς Beds 
without 6 (not ὁ μονογενής vids) ; ef. Hort, Two Dissertations, 1876 ; GK, 1. 736, 
Forsch. i. 122. The following is the sense of the two affirmations of i, 1 and 
i, 14; One, who was God, and therefore One who in His essence is and ‚con- 
tinues to be God, since He cannot.cease to be God, and who at the same time 
by reason of His incarnation is God’s only Son, has revealed to us men the 
God who otherwise cannot be known. In x. 33-38 also the conception of the 
Son of God is such as to include His divine being. Not only the accusation 
of the Jews, but also the scriptural proof adduced by Jesus, show that He 
called Himself God—a claim which the Jews repudiated, but which Jesus 
held to be justified. When in x. 36 Jesus calls Himself “ Son of God” 
instead of God, the title is in accord with His matter of fact method of speech ; 
but is so much the Jess to be regarded as an intentional weakening of what 
He has just proven from the Scriptures, namely, His right to call Himself 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 327 


God, since in Ps. Ixxxii. 6 “gods” and “sons of the Highest” are used inter- 
changeably. Because His consecration to His calling coincides with His 
sending into the world or even precedes it, He is in person and vocation the 
Son and the Holy One of God (x. 36, ef. vi. 69). But since the consecration 
and the sending presuppose His existence, that is to say, His supramundane 
and ante-historic existence, His Sonship of God includes His deity. Every- 
thing He possesses, even life itself, is a gift of God, and yet possessed by Him 
as God Himself possesses it ; in other words, He does not, like created beings, 
find the conditions and means of life outside Himself, but in Himself. For 
this reason also he has the Godlike power to impart His life without Himself 
losing it, v. 26, vi. 57. 

4. (P. 312.) Valentinus, the Gnostic (above, Ρ. 176), and Justin, “the 
philosopher,” were the first to discover in the prologue a Logos doctrine, or 
rather they were the first to read the doctrine into the prologue. That this 
was not the way in which the original readers understood the prologue is 
evidenced by Ignatius, earlier than either Justin or Valentinus, and the first 
clear witness for the Fourth Gospel, when, in Magn. viii. 2 he writes : “God 
is one, who has revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, His Son, who is His 
Word proceeding out of the silence, who in all things was well-pleasing to the 
one who sent Him” (Patr. Ap. ii. 36, 201, also editions of Lightfoot and 
Funk). Consequently the man Jesus is called the Word of God, because, after 
a long silence, in Him, His Son, God finally spoke clearly and audibly to 
men, revealing Himself not:only through Jesus’ teachings, but equally 
through His deeds (ef. Ign. ad Eph. xv. 1). As to His person, Jesus is “the 
infallible mouth, by which the Father has truly spoken” (ad Rom. viii. 2), 
the γνώμη of the Father (ad Eph. iii. 2), the γνῶσις of God (ad Eph. xvii. 2); 
cf. Zahn, Ignatius von Ant. S. 382f., 472f. Traces of this early Christian 
“Logos Doctrine” are found le aloe e.g. in the “Kerugma of Peter” in 
Clem. Eel. Proph. 58 (νόμος καὶ λόγος αὐτὸς ὁ σωτὴρ λέγεται), and in later 
writers ; cf. the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, δ. 147f. The one-sided tendency 
to consider only the name of the Logos and not the many similar titles found 
especially in the Fourth Gospel, such as Truth, Light, Life, ete., is appropriately 
condemned, especially by Origen, in his Commentary on John, tom. i, 21-39) 
The opinion which, notwithstanding this protest, has remained prevalent no 
one has expressed more unfortunately than Keim: (Gesch, Jesw 1. 1295}: 
“Cannot all the flesh and blood in this history be explained from the: philo- 
sophy which sits at the entrance and distributes the admission tickets and the 
programmes ?” 

5. (Pp. 312, 313, 314.) To be compared with the lack of all explanation of 
the readers’ familiarity with the use of ὁ λόγος as a name for Christ, which 
familiarity is presupposed in the prologue, is the manner in which Paul 
connects with Christ ideas not directly derived from the gospel history or 
from current ecclesiastical usage (1 Cor. x. 4; Col. 1. 27, ii. 2), or lets such 
ideas appear as predicates in sentences where Christ is the subject (1 Cor. 
1. 30; 2 Cor. iii. 17, iv. 4; Col. i. 15 ; Eph. v. 23), and this peculiarity of 
John may also be compared with Ignatius’ procedure in similar cases) (see 
preceding note). In addition to analogies and foreshadowings of the use of 
the name “Logos” noted in the text and in notes 6-8, special attention is 
called, to x. 35 (cf. n, 3, and Luthardt, Das joh. Ev.-i. 278). Where the O.T. 


328 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


worthies are spoken of as those to whom the word of God came (Jer. i. 4, 
Luke iii. 2), and Jesus likewise is represented as having to do with the word 
of God (John vii. 16, viii. 26, xiv. 10, xvii. 6-8, 17), it would seem almost 
necessary that the distinction between them and Jesus should be brought 
out, namely, that this connection with the word of Ged is original, involving 
His entire personality. But even in x. 35 the author does not attribute these 
thoughts to Jesus. The use of the term in i. 1 and i. 14 is mainly responsible 
for the opinion that ὁ λόγος in the prologue is a specific name for the pre- 
existing Christ, or for His eternal and unchangeable essence. But it must be 
remembered, first, that the apostolic Church had no specific name for Christ’s 
essence apart from His human manifestation. Even when speaking of Him 
as pre-existing the Church used names applicable to men—Jesus, Christ, the 
Son of God, the Lord, Eph. i. 3f.; Phil. ii. 5f.; Col. i. 13-20; 1 Cor. viii. 6, 
x. 4, 9. In a sentence like John i. 1, Paul would have used ὁ Χριστός ; 
according to xii. 41 (ef. ver. 32, viii. 58; Jude 5 (vol. ii. 252 f.)), John might 
have used even Ἰησοῦς instead of ὁ λόγος ini. 1, just as well, however, ἡ ζωή 
(1 John i. 2) or τὸ φῶς, ἡ ἀλήθεια κτὰ. It showed better taste to put the more 
general name at the beginning, and not to employ the common historical 
names until the passage where Moses, through whom the first revelation 
came to Israel, is contrasted with Jesus, through whom the final revelation 
was made (i. 17). Consequently the use of λόγος in i. 1 indicates nothing as 
to the source whence Jesus derived this name, and as to the length of time 
He had borne it. In the second place, it is just as impossible to infer from 
the use of this name in i. 14 that Jesus was so called apart from His incarna- 
tion and in contrast to it. The name is used here again appropriately because 
in vy. 14-18 the author is about to show fully how far the historical Jesus is 
the complete and final revelation—i.e. the Word—of God. Further, the 
reappearance of 6 Adyos in these verses is for the sake of reference to and 
connection with ver. 1. Just as ev τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν in ver. 10 stands in contrast 
to ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν in ver. 1, 80 the σὰρξ ἐγένετο in ver, 14 stands in contrast 
to θεὸς ἦν in ver. 1. No contrast exists between the subject and predicate of 
ver. 14a ; but between the predicates in ver. 1 on the one hand and ver, 14 
on the other hand, given the one and the same subject called ὁ Adyos, there is 
a sharp and intelligible contrast. For the concept of the word does not at all 
involve immateriality ; the word is rather thought become perceptible to the 
senses ; the spoken word is audible, it can sound loud or soft, pleasant or 
harsh ; the written word is visible, and when it is cut in stone or printed in 
the blind-alphabet, may be perceived even by the sense of touch. On the 
contrary, the spirit is contrasted to the flesh in John (iii. 6, vi. 63) as every- 
where in the Bible (God, however, is spirit (iv. 24, ef. xxxi. 3)). He, who im 
the beginning was God, and therefore spirit, became flesh, 7.2. man of flesh 
and blood. He became a member of the human race, which John also calls 
πᾶσα σάρξ (xyil. 2). It isself-evident that He was not changed into flesh, as 
the water into wine (ii. 9) or the stones into bread (Matt. iv. 3); for He, who 
is God without beginning, cannot in that sense cease to be such a being. 
The correct text of i. 18 states this to excess (above, n. 3) ; accordingly, there- 
fore, there is meant only an exchanging of the one mode of being and form of 
appearance with another, a metamorphosis in the essential meaning of the 
word (cf. Phil. ii. 6f.), by which the identity of the ego is not destroyed. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 320 


Still less are we to think of such a transformation of the Logos into flesh, by 
which He would cease to be the Logos. For, whatever may be included in 
the name ὁ λόγος, it must, however, at any rate be predicated of the one whe 
became flesh ; indeed, strictly taken, it may first be predicated of the one 
who has become flesh. One principal reason for the continued misinter- 
pretation of ver. 14 lies in the untenable opinion, that finally at this point 
the transition is made from the representation of the being and activity of 
the pre-existent to the description of the one appearing as man, whereas 
from ver. 4 onwards reference is made only to the one who has become man. 
If one accepts as genuine the text of ver. 13, presented above, p. 288, n. 7, 
it must be fully admitted that this transition is not first made with ver. 14. 
Rather the statement concerning the begetting of Jesus by God without the 
aid of a man is extended by the sentence, that in and with this begetting the 
Logos—which in the beginning and from the beginning until His miraculous 
begetting as man was God—became flesh. 

6. (P. 315.) Since in 1 Johni.1 τὸν λόγον τῆς ζωῆς in the sense of gospel 
(Phil, ii. 16; Acts v. 20) could very easily be connected as a loose apposi- 
tional phrase (cf. Acts x. 37, τὸ γενόμενον ῥῆμα) with the four relative clauses 
which are the objects of ἀπαγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, the use of the construction περὶ 
τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς is a positive proof that this connection is intentionally 
excluded. Not the word of life which the apostles proclaim, but the person 
about which their preaching centres, namely, Jesus, is meant (1 John v. 9, 
10; John i, 7, 15, v. 31-46, x. 41, xii. 41, xv. 26; Rom. i. 3, xv. 21; Acts 
viii. 12). In the preceding relative clauses also, this person who always 
existed, all the manifestations of whose life and whose physical qualities were 
sensibly perceived by the apostles with ears, eyes, and hands, is meant, but 
described impersonally and by a paraphrase. All that was audible, visible, 
and tangible which the disciples were able to perceive in their intercourse 
with Jesus, is summed up in the ὁ λύγος τῆς ζωῆς, and, as the change in the 
construction shows, referred back to its centre. The ἀπαγγέλλειν τὰ περὶ τοῦ 
Ἰησοῦ (vol. ii. 377, n. 3)-ε ἀπαγγέλλειν and μαρτυρεῖν περὶ Ἰησοῦ. But the 
personal Logos is not called ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς because He gives life, but because 
He has life in Himself (John i. 4), 2.e. is living ; or, as the substitution of 
the idea 7 (on in ver. 2 shows, by means of an appositional genitive, He 
is Himself described as the one who is in person life; cf. John xi. 25, xiv. 6. 

7. (Ρ. 315.) In Rev. xix. 12, ἔχων ὄνομα γεγραμμένον 6 has the strongest 
MS. authority (to which S? has been recently added), The reading ὀνόματα 
γεγραμμένα ἅ is due to the mention of many diadems in the same verse, In 
BS® the two readings are confused. ‚In ver. 13 the present writer considers 
κέκληται to be the correct reading. The testimony of the versions as such for 
καλεῖται has no great weight. Although in xix. 16 we have the names directly 
connected with the judgment, the name ὁ λύγος rod θεοῦ, which is outside of 
the vision, is not without reference to the coming of Christ to judgment. 
If Christ did not come, or if He did not conquer and administer judgment, 
then He would not be, what He as the Word of God must be, truthful and 
reliable (cf. xix. 9, 11, iii. 14). 

8. (P. 316.) Although originally an adjective, ἸῸΝ is never so used either 
in the O.T. (where joxı and poxsare used instead) or in the N.T. Conse- 
quently, it is not so used in Rey, iii, 14, where it would be a mere parade of 


330 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


learning, since ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός immediately follows. The readers were 
familiar with ἀμήν only as an adverbial exclamation. Elsewhere, when 
used substantively, τὸ ἀμήν (1 Cor. xiv. 16; 2 Cor. i. 20) occurs, but ὁ ἀμήν 
1s used here because it is the name of a man. Practically the same thought 
is expressed by the synonym vai in 2 Cor. i. 19. The primary reference is to 
Christ as preached (cf. Rom. x. 5-8). As such He is not at the same time 
both Yea and Nay, but in Him is a Yea which cannot be contradicted. 
Moreover, in relation to the promises of the O.T., Christ Himself is found the 
confirming Yea to all the questions contained in and suggested by prophecy. 
According to Paul, therefore, Christ is a word of God spoken unto the world 
at the end of days, an affirming word, itself in turn confirmed by the Amen 
of the Church. . 

9. (Pp. 319, 325.) The contradiction between John vii. 8 and John vii. 10 
early led to a change of the reading οὐκ avaß. (ND Sc Ss, etc.), which could 
not have been invented into οὔπω avaß. (BL Sah. etc... Appealing to this 
passage, Porphyrius (in Jerome, ὁ. Pelag. ii. 17) accuses Jesus of inconstantia 
et mutatio. Schopenhauer (Grundprobleme der Ethik, 2te Aufl. S. 225) in 
proving that falsehood is not unconditionally wrong, eites the fact that on 
one occasion “even Jesus Christ intentionally told an untruth.” Something 
of the same contrast is to be observed between ii, 4 and ii. 7f. 

10. (P. 319.) Reference to the fulfilment of O.T. prophecy in the gospel 
history is more frequently made by John (i. 23, 45, ii. 17, 22 [τῇ γραφῇ], xii. 
14 f., 38-41, xix. 24, 36, xx. 9) and by Jesus Himself in the Fourth Gospel 
(v. 39, 46f., vi. 45, xiii. 18, xv. 25, xvii. 12) than by Mark and Luke. The 
point of view, however, is entirely different from that in Matt. In Matthew 
the purpose is apologetic, namely, to prove to the Jews that in the very 
respect in which Jesus was an offence to His people, He fulfilled prophecy 
—when this is rightly interpreted (vol. ii. 560f.) ; on the other hand, John 
does not attempt to refute formally and in detail the objections raised by the 
Jews on the ground of the apparent lack of correspondence between prophecy 
and fulfilment (i. 46, vi. 42, vii. 27, 41 f., 52, xii. 34). This contradiction is 
met by the fulfilment in Jesus of God’s plan of salvation foreshadowed in the 
O.T. by example and by word (i. 14, 16, 17, 23, 33, 41, 45, iti. 14, iv. 26, 42, 
v. 39, 46f., vii. 31, ix. 37, x. 11, 35, xii. 37-41), which general position the 
Christian readers of the Gospel accepted, and which is frequently attested’ 
in the Fourth Gospel without detailed instances. On Him as the agent of 
salvation, God has set His seal (vi. 27), and whoever believes in Him, becomes 
by the change thus wrought in himself a confirming seal of the truthfulness 
and loyalty of God in the fulfilling of His promises (iii. 33, ef. vi. 35; 
1 Cor. ix. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 2). So that the agreement between prophecy and 
fulfilment which catches the eye, becomes a matter of great significance for 
the faith of believers. Just as the first disciples were strengthened by the 
discovery of this agreement even after the death and resurrection of Jesus 
(ii. 22, vii. 39, xii. 16, 37-41, xiii. 18, xv. 25, xix. 24, 36 ἢ" xx. 9), so here 
references to it are designed to strengthen the faith of the readers. The same 
is true also of the predictions of Jesus Himself (ii. 19-22, vi. 70f., xii. 32 f., 
xiii, 19-29, xiii. 38, xvi. 4, xviii. 9, 32) ; to which for this reason the solemn iva 
πληρωθῇ is applied (xviii. 9, 32), as it is likewise to the prophetic téstimony 
of the Baptist'(x. 41), and even to the unintentional prophecy of Caiaphas 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 331 


(xi. 51). This is the significance also of the prophetic utterances dealing 
with the past and bringing to light the hidden things of the present. Jesus 
is a “seer,” who does not need human intervention in order to know things 
most secret, when His calling demands such knowledge (ii. 24f., iv. 16-18, 
29, 39, 50, 52, vi. 64, 70, xiii. 10 f., 18, xxi. 15-17). Although Jesus rejects the 
dogma that every affliction suffered by the individual is punishment for his 
personal sins (ix. 2f.), in a particular case He does recognise this to be the 
relation of sin to suffering (v. 14). It is the inexplicable manifestation of 
such deep, prophetic insight that overwhelms Nathanael and the Samaritan 
woman (i. 47-50, iv. 16-19, 29,38). It was this insight which qualified Jesus 
to be the Good Shepherd, who knows every member of His flock, calling it 
by name and dealing with it in accordance with its individual character- 
isties (x. 3, 14, 27; cf.i. 42, xx. 16). The way in which John treats prophecy 
and prediction throughout the Gospel proves that he is not like Matthew an 
apologetic historian, much less a speculative religious philosopher, but the 
pastor and spiritual guide of his readers, 

11. (P. 321.) The negative answer in John i. 21, 25 to the question as to 
whether John is Elijah, which in the light of Matt. xi. 10, 14, xvii. 10-13; 
Mark i, 2, ix, 11-13; Luke vii. 27, seems remarkable, is no absolute answer ; 
since in John iii. 28 John speaks of himself as the one prophesied in Mal. 
iii. 1, hence as Elijah (Mal. iii. 23). Moreover, the principal mission which 
in i. 31 he aseribes to himself is, according to the doctrine of the Jewish schools, 
that of Elijah ; ef. Just. Dial. viii. 49 ; Goldfahn, Justin und die Agada, 8.34 f.; 
better Weber, Jüd. Theol. § 77. There is also a strong resemblance between 
John v. 35 and Sirach xlviii, 1. In John 1. 21, therefore, the question is 
answered in the negative only in the superstitious sense in which it was asked 
(ef, Matt. xvi. 14, xxvii. 47, 49 ; Mark vi. 15, viii. 28, xv. 35f.); on the other 
hand, it is affirmed in the sense of Luke i. 17. John was also obliged in 
i. 21, 25 to answer in the negative the question as to whether he was the 
prophet ; because this idea was used in connection with that of the Messiah, 
without a clear distinction being made between them, and might easily be 
confused with the latter (vi. 14f., vii. 40). 

12. (P. 323.) It is true that in Acts xix. 1-7 nothing is said about 
“diseiples of John,” simply disciples being mentioned, te. according to the 
usage of Acts, believing worshippers of Jesus, ae. Christians. But, since 
prior to the time when Paul came to Ephesus they had not received. the 
baptism of the Church, and knew nothing of a baptism followed by the gift 
of the Holy Spirit, their Christianity was independent of the Church and 
preceded it. They could have received the baptism of John only from John 
the Baptist himself, or possibly, since we are informed in John iii. 22-iv, 2 
that the baptism of John was used by the disciples of Jesus, from the latter ; 
they had not prior to this time been members of a Christian Church, into, 
which no one was received without Christian baptism at the hands of the 
Church. It is not distinctly stated in xviii. 25 that Apollos likewise had 
received the baptism of John, and hence it is not expressly stated that he 
afterwards received the baptism of the Church. But he also represents a 
form of Christianity earlier than the Church, (vol. i. 262), When he came 
to Ephesus, he was familiar only with the baptism of John, and therefore 
knew nothing of the Church and its baptism. Moreover, his knowledge of 


332 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the Christian teaching needed to be completed by Aquila. If these state 
ments of Luke be correct, then faith in Jesus and a relatively accurate 
knowledge of His history (Acts xviii. 25, ἀκριβῶς) must have reached Alex- 
andria (xviii. 24) and Ephesus prior to the time of Acts ii. 1, 38, and possibly 
even before the death of Jesus, through Jews who in Palestine had come to 
believe the preaching of John the Baptist and the testimony of Jesus to 
Himself, perhaps through visitors at the feasts from the Diaspora (Luke 
xxiii. 26, xxiv. 18; Acts xxi. 25). The danger, which lay in this form of 
Christianity unrelated to the Church, was averted by Paul and his friends 
in the case of the twelve disciples at Ephesus and of Apollos. We do not 
know whether this was true also in the case of all those at Ephesus and 
elsewhere related in the same or a similar manner to Jesus and His Church. 
Whether this happened in the case of the disciples of John in Palestine, who 
in Jesus’ own time kept themselves separate from Him (Matt. ix. 14ff.; 
John iii. 25ff.), is even more uncertain. Reference may be made here to 
1 John ii. 19, according to which the connection of certain errorists with 
the Christian Church seems from the first not to have been beyond question. 
Furthermore, it is not at all impossible that the confused statements con- 
cerning a connection between the followers of the Baptist and the semi- 
Christian adherents of Simon Magus and Dositheus have some basis in fact 
(Clem. Hom, ii. 22-24 ; Recogn. 1. 54, 60, ii. 7-12). Moreover, the Mandeans 
or Sabians, with their worship of the prophet John, the son of Zachariah, 
and their anti-Christian system are probably only the Eastern descendants 
of a Palestinian gnosis which appealed to the authority of the Baptist, and 
rejected the Messiahship of Jesus, although they may have adopted many 
Babylonian elements into their system. This is'not the place in which to 
dispute the assertions of Baldensperger, which overshoot the mark, Der Pro- 
log. des 4 Ev. sein apologetisch polemischer Zweck, 1898. 

13. (Pp. 324, 325.) In John iv. 4, ἔδει (ef. Luke xi. 42, xix. 5, xxii. 7) 
means little more than ἔθος ἦν in Jos. Ant. xxii. 6. 1, referring to the same 
route; cf. Bell. ii. 12. 3; Vita, 52 (ἔδει for those who desired to travel 
rapidly), also the remarkable parallels to John iv. in Bereshith Rabba, 
chaps. xxxiii. and Ixxxi. (trans. by Wünsche, S. 141, 398). Jesus Himself 
would have travelled through Samaria on His last journey to Jerusalem, if 
the Samaritans had been willing to furnish Him lodging’ (Luke ix. 51-56, 
above, p. 89f. n. 19). The strong expression in John iv. 4, which is not, 
however, to be pressed too far, is chosen, in order to emphasise the faet that 
Jesus travelled through Samaria without any intention of working there, 
and met with unexpected success, which astonished even Him. It is uncer- 
tain whether οὐ yap συνχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρείταις in iv. 9 is to be omitted, 
with 8*D abe, or to be retained, as in all other MSS. (including the eontem- 
porary first corrector of N, also Se Ss, and probably therefore also Tatian, 
Forsch. i. 159). The classical brevity of the insertion is in favour of its 
genuineness. Strong evidence to the effect that John continued to live entirely 
under the influence of home surroundings and opinions, is to be found in 
the fact that he sometimes omits an explanation, where it would seem to be 
very necessary. To John himself the name Bethesda (v. 2, ef. ver. 42) is 
important, because of the meaning of the word (vol. i. 28, n. 15), and he 
recalls the connection between the ceremony of the seventh day of the feast 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 333 


of Tabernacles and the words spoken by Jesus on this day, vii. 37 f.; but in 
neither case does he take the trouble to make these relations clear to his 
readers—who were not familiar with them. 

14. (P. 324.) From the fact that τῆς Τιβεριάδος (xxi. 2) is alone given as 
the name of the Lake, it is probably to be concluded that outside of Pales- 
tine this name was already the better known. When Jos. Bell. iii. 10, 1 
writes, ἡ λίμνη. . .,» ἣ καλεῖται Γεννησὰρ πρὸς τῶν ἐπιχωρίων, and Pliny, 
Historia Naturalis, v. 71, Pacum quem plures genesarum vocant, it is equiva- 
lent to saying that alongside of this name another, or many such, were used 
According to Pliny, loc. eit., the Lake bore among other names also that of 
the town Tarichea. Matthew and Mark use only ἡ θάλασσα τῆς TaXıXaias, 
although they know Tevvnoaper as the name of the country (Matt. xiv. 34; 
Mark vi. 53). Of the Gospels, only Luke in v. 1 has ἡ λίμνη Tevvnoaper ; 
Jos. with or without λίμνη, regularly ἡ Tevvnoap (Bell. ii. 20. 6, ini. 10. 1, x. 
7 and 8), and in the later writings the Hellenised form ἡ Τεννησαρίς or 
Γεννησαρῖτις, Ant. vy. 1. 22, xviii. 2, land 3; Vita, 65 (Niese, 349). With 
this, however, we read in his Bell., published between 75 and 79 (iii. 3. 5), 
μέχρι τῆς πρὸς Τιβεριάδα λίμνης, and (iv. 8. 2) twice ἡ Τιβεριέων (sc. λίμνη), 
corresponding to the Talmudic na» Sv mx. The translation of John is more 
exact than the circumlocutions of Josephus. 


8 69. INTEGRITY, DATE OF COMPOSITION, AND 
GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 


One of the principal causes for the degeneracy of the 
text of the earlier Gospels is practically non-existent as far 
as the Fourth Gospel is concerned, namely, the irresistible 
tendency to make similar accounts resemble one another 
yet more closely. The thoroughly distinctive character of 
the Gospel prevented confusion of its text with that of the 
Synoptics. It is more natural to suppose that such details 
as the inscription over the cross in three languages (xix. 20, 
xxiv. 34), the notice of the casting of lots for the coat, and 
the piercing of Jesus’ side with a spear, were inserted in 
the Synoptics (Matt. xxvii. 35, 49; Luke xxi. 38) from 
John, than that John’s Gospel was enriched by citations 
from them, although early changes in the text of John 
made on the basis of the Synoptics are not wanting (6.0. 
i. 34, vi. 69) More frequently changes in the original 
text are due to the boldness of John’s thought or the 
awkwardness of his language (n. 1). There are also early 


334 INTRODUCTION ΤῸ THE NEW TESTAMENT 


glosses which became widely eurrent (n. 2), and one 
undeniable interpolation which came to be almost uni- 
versally regarded as a part of the Fourth Gospel (vil. 53- 
viii. 11, n. 3). The main reason why the work of the 
original author has been preserved praetically intact is the 
fact, it was intended originally for the Church, and so was 
read in the congregations. In this respect it had the ad- 
vantage of the letters sent by the apostles to the Churches 
(vol. i. 159), to which the two addresses to the readers 
which it contains give it a certain resemblance, The 
attempts to distinguish the later elements in the Gospel 
have proved illuminating only to those who have under- 
taken their separation (n. 4), while the assumption that 
disorder of sequence has been created in the Gospel through 
the accidental misplacing and loss of leaves, presupposes 
so many unlikely accidents (n. 5) that attention need only 
be called to it in a text-book. | 

The investigation of the supplement ($ 66) has shown 
that this, and consequently the entire Gospel, could not 
have been written after the year 100. With this con- 
clusion agrees the entire Church tradition, which even the 
ancient deniers of the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel did 
not venture to reject (above, pp. 177 f., 180). On the other 
hand, the supplement could not have been written before 
the death of Peter, and we saw that it seemed probable 
that a number of years elapsed after 64 and 70 before it 
was written (above, p. 240f.), a Terminus a quo deter- 
mined wholly on exegetical grounds, but, like the Terminus 
ad quem, confirmed by the unanimous tradition. Now, it 
is possible that, while the composition of chap. xxi. certainly 
belongs later than the year 70, chaps. i._xx. were written con- 
siderably earlier. But the history of the book shows that 
prior to the addition of the supplement it was confined to 
a very small group of readers, so that only a short interval 
could have intervened between the composition of ehaps. 
i._xx. and chap. xxi. This conclusion is confirmed by the in- 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 335 


vestigation of the relation of chaps. 1—xx. to the Synoptics 
(§ 67), as a result of which we were compelled to bring the 
composition of the entire book down to the year 75, 
probably to some time between 80 and 90. This state- 
ment may be regarded as proved, until the representatives 
of other views discuss more fundamentally than they have 
done heretofore the proofs for the statement derived from 
tradition, the book itself, and comparative criticism. "The 
attempt has been made frequently, but manifestly without 
warrant, to prove from the present tense in v. 2 that the 
Gospel of John was written before the year 60 (n. 6). 
Much more frequently a later composition of the Gospel 
has been assumed, always in consequence of the denial of 
its composition by the apostle John. 

That for a hundred years the question of the genuine- 
ness of this Gospel should have been discussed zealously, 
even heatedly, without any resulting agreement among 
otherwise capable critics, is comprehensible and almost 
self-evident (n. 7). The contents of the book and its 
demands upon the reader are too great for it to be other- 
wise. Since the second century we have had exaggerated 
representations of its peculiarities ; speculations and mys- 
teries foreign to it have been found in it; though there 
are not lacking more sober treatments of the Gospel, which 
establish beyond question its unique place among the 
books of the N.T. In this Gospel alone do we find an 
historical scheme of the work of Jesus, which enables us to 
arrange the material supplied by the other tradition, and 
which gives us a picture of the development of events in 
the history of the world of the utmost significance for 
religion, and so for mankind. And this scheme is filled 
out with detail, which to the intelligence limited to the 
things of ordinary experience must seem a priorz to be 
merely fantastic inventions, but which through all the 
centuries of the Gospel’s existence have been received by 
multitudes of both wise and foolish men as disclosures. of 


336 INTRODUCTION TO 'THE NEW TESTAMENT 


truth essential for life and death, and held to with glowing 
love. Here are deeds which defy every attempt to bring 
them under the laws of action which are daily observed 
and commonly accepted ; sayings of Jesus which cannot 
be derived by inference from other sayings attributed to 
Him by tradition. And all this makes a stronger claim 
to historical trustworthiness than does any other account 
of Jesus’ life. The Gospels of Mark and Luke were put 
forth as the writings of disciples of the’ apostles, repro- 
ducing not what the authors themselves had experienced, 
but the accounts of others. There is nothing in Matthew 
which indicates a direct personal relation between the 
author and the contents of his book, and not only does his 
book lack clear personal testimony of the author, but there 
is no witness of contemporaries which can be traced back 
to its origin. On the other hand, the Fourth Gospel 
contains the personal testimony of its author in the solemn 
form of an oath (above, p. 217 f.), and at its close is found a 
testimony to his authorship and truthfulness written in the 
author's lifetime by friends of his, and made an inseparable 
part of the original Gospel. 

So long as and wherever Christianity is conditioned by 
what Jesus was, and did, and taught, it will be conditioned 
also by the answer given to the question concerning the 
genuineness, and consequently the trustworthiness, of this 
Gospel. Among thoughtful persons there are only a few 
who admit that the book was written by an eye-witness 
and apostle, and yet deny its trustworthiness in essential 
points (n. 8). A writer who makes truthfulness the con- 
dition of all knowledge of the truth and of the possession 
of eternal life (1. 47, ii. 20f., iv. 16-18, xv. 17, 
xviii 37), and declares the Devil to be the father of lies 
and deceits (vi. 70, viii. 44, xiii, 2, 27), by every attempt 
made to confirm the personal testimony of i. 14, especially 
by the tragie retrospect in xii. 37-43, by words of Jesus, 
xy. 24, and the solemn assurance in xix. 35, would call 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 337 


down upon himself almost unutterable eondemnation, if 
he declared to be deeds and sayings of Jesus things 
which he knew better than his eritics Jesus had never 
done or said. It is not on purely scientific grounds, 
therefore, but out of pure necessity, that the majority of 
those who distrust the historical testimony of the Fourth 
Gospel on internal grounds deny also its composition by 
an eye-witness and apostle, and that others, not so de- 
cided in their opinions, seek ambiguous compromises in the 
question of the Gospel’s genuineness, by a reinterpretation 
either of the tradition or of the internal evidence of the 
Fourth Gospel. The scientific grounds for the denial of 
the genuineness of the Gospel, either wholly or in part, 
have been discovered after it has been determined to seek 
them. The arguments derived from the relation of 
John to the Synopties, on the presupposition that the 
latter are essentially trustworthy, have been answered in 
$ 67 (cf. also $ 63). Other arguments based upon a 
comparison of the Gospel with Revelation, on the pre- 
supposition that this is a work by the apostle John, 
cannot be discussed until Revelation has been investigated. 
All the other arguments consist of very questionable 
observations. 

It is true that in many sections the narrative lacks the 
clearness and definiteness which we should expect from an 
eye-witness. While John shares Mark’s tendency to retain 
the Aramaic form of names and addresses (vol. 11. 502, n. 1, 
and above, pp. 307 f., 323; below, n. 13), he lacks Mark’s 
pictorial gift. Scenes which begin with a certain amount 
of definiteness have no conclusion; eg. the passages 
iii. 21, vy. 47, xx. 23, 29, xxi, 22 (cf. also 11. 20, iii, 36) 
end with a saying of Jesus instead of a narrative statement, 
although there is no lack of definiteness in the beginning 
of these narratives (cf. Matt. xxviii. 16-20). In xiv. 31 
nothing is said which indicates that the disciples followed 
the bidding of Jesus to rise from the table and leave the 
meal, or the manner in which they did it ; but in xvii. 1 

VOL. III. 22 


338 INTRODUCTION ‘TO THE NEW ‘TESTAMENT 


(cf. xi. 41) we notice that at that moment Jesus was in 
the open air. Only by a careful reading of xi. 21-36 do 
we learn that the request of the Greeks was not granted 
(xii. 20). The representation of the course of events in 
vi. 21-24 is very awkward. Where and under what 
circumstances sayings like xii. 44-50, the beginnings of 
which (xi. 44, ἔκραξεν) show that they are not unrelated 
sayings thrown together like Matt. i. 2, Mark i. 15, were 
spoken, we are not informed. In other instances, where 
the beginning lacks the desired definiteness, the name of 
the place is given farther on in the narrative (1. 28, vi. 59, 
viii. 20). In this the author does not seem to have any 
special purpose, e.g., to answer the question which one who 
heard an oral narrative might ask afterwards as to where 
the event narrated took place. At the same time, we 
notice an accuracy of details and a clearness in the delinea- 
tion of things secondary and unimportant (n. 9) which 
reveals the vividness of the author’s underlying conception. 
In clear characterisation of the persons who appear (above, 
pp. 224 f., 302), and in brief original sayings, which are not 
without a touch of delicate humour and bitter irony (i. 46, 
iv. 15, vii. 8, 28,35, 48 f., 52, viii. 19,-22, 48, 57, ix. 20f, 
24-34, xi, 11, 16, xviii. 31,35, 38, 39, xix. 5/4030 OtaeD 
the incidents and conversations in 1. 46-50, iv. 6-26, 
ix. 1-41, xi. 1-44, xviii. 29-xix. 22 are without parallel 
in narrative literature. The numerous elements which were 
accustomed to mingle on the occasion of the great feasts 
in Jerusalem (xviii. 20) are clearly delineated : the natives 
of Jerusalem (vii. 25); the multitudes of festival pilgrims 
(vii. 12, 31, 40), who disappeared again (viii. 12—x. 21) 
when it was over (ef. vii. 37); those non-Jews who came to 
the feast (xii. 20); the Pharisees who, notwithstanding their 
contempt for the multitude ignorant of the law (vii. 49, 
n. 10 end), mingle with it, observing the people’s expression 
of feeling and motives, and dispute with Jesus (1, 24, above, 
p. 283 f.; iv. 1, vii. 32, 47, vill. 13, ix. 13, 40, xi. 46, xi. 19), 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 339 


in clear distinction from the ruling aristocracy, the high 
priests, who hold themselves aloof (especially vii. 48, 
xii. 42). John is aware that the Pharisaic party is prac- 
tically identical with the guild of the scribes, and dominates 
in the synagogue (i. 10; ef. vil. 49, xii. 42), although he 
never mentions the scribes (n. 10). He also knows that 
they are represented in the Sanhedrin along with the 
ruling party (iü. 1, vu. 47, 50). They have an interest in 
the religious movement set on foot by the Baptist and 
Jesus, which is prompted by religious motives, but they 
are able to take practical steps to regulate this movement 
only by bringing the observations which they have made 
among the people before the Sanhedrin, which then takes 
action, issues orders for arrests, and gives other directions 
(vil. 32, 45, ix. 22, x1. 46-53, 57, xii. 10, xviii. 3, 12-28). 
The moral influence of the Pharisees is greater in the 
Sanhedrin than that of the high priests (xii. 42), but the 
latter have more political courage. It is the ruling high 
priest who suggests that Jesus be got rid of, and how this 
may be done (xi. 49). In similar decisions with reference 
to Lazarus (xii. 10), and in the prosecution of the matter 
before Pilate, in which all law and all of Israel’s religious 
hope were trampled under foot, the Pharisees do not seem 
to have had part. Only the high priests and their servants 
are represented as speaking (xix. 6, 12-15, 21). It needed 
only the skill of an historian, which John lacks, to create 
out of such material a monument of. historical art; and it 
needed only a slightly poetic temperament, which John also 
lacks, to transform narratives like chaps. iv. ix. xi. into 
engrossing romances, and to make out of the material in 
chaps. vil. Xvill.—xix. a thrilling drama. It is just this lack 
of art, along with accurate knowledge of innumerable small 
details and a correct historical view, which proves that the 
author is a Jewish Christian from Palestine and an eye- 
witness. 

It would require learning, which none of the critics of 


340 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the Fourth Gospel can claim, to convict of ignorance on 
these very points the author, who occasionally informs his 
readers who are not Jews and who do not live in Palestine, of 
the location of places in his native land and of the customs 
of his people (above, p. 324). The opinion that he is 
not well informed with regard to geographical matters (n. 
11) and political conditions in Palestine in the time of 
Jesus (n. 12) cannot be established. It is likely to become 
gradually more and more clear that it is better for us to 
learn from John with regard to these matters, rather than 
to criticise him without knowledge superior to his own. 
As evidenced by the Hebrew and Aramaic words and 
names which he retains, he, like Mark, is familiar with the 
language of his people. Nor does he, in translating these 
terms, make such mistakes as are to be found in the Greek 
Matthew and even in Luke (n. 13), e.g. in his translation 
of the name of Iscariot (n. 11). In his use of the Greek 
language also he betrays his Hebrew origin. While the 
book in respect of vocabulary, grammar, and style has a 
thoroughly unified character, and shows nothing of the 
patchwork of both of Luke’s books (above, pp. 79, 104), 
the character of the language of the Fourth Gospel proves 
with complete certainty that it cannot have been written 
(n. 14) either by a Greek or by a Hellenist in the narrow 
meaning of the word (vol. i. 39 f.). Only a very one-sided 
and short-sighted comparison with certain stylistie peeuli- 
arities of the Book of Revelation, such as Dionysius of 
Alexandria made (Hus. H. E. vii. 25. 25 f.), could lead to a 
misunderstanding of this fact. The author's knowledge of 
the O.T. is not confined to the LXX, which he generally 
follows (n. 15). The peculiar use of the term οἱ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι 
has been thought to betray the non-Jewish character of 
the author. However, (1) those passages must be left out 
of account in which the Jewish author informs his non- 
Jewish readers concerning Jewish customs, conditions, and 
feasts which are unknown to them, or which are feasts 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 341 


and customs foreign to their usage (i. 6, 13, v. 1, vi. 4 
vii. 2, xix. 40, 42). Mark, who was a native of Jerusalem 
(vii. 3), and Josephus uniformly use the same expression. 
Furthermore, (2) those passages must be left out of account 
where the author or those whom he represents as speaking 
contrast Jews with Samaritans or Romans (iv. 9, 22, xviii. 
35, and throughout the entire section xvii. 31-xix. 21). 
More peculiar is (3) the use of the term for the political 
organisation of the Jewish people and their official repre- 
sentatives. In many passages Sanhedrin might be sub- 
stituted for of ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, or it might be replaced by τὸ κοινὸν 
τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, as in Josephus. This is clearly possible in 
weh9 ivi 135.4x.1229 avi: 19,014, oxrx..(31,0 88 xx 19: 
Then connected therewith are (4) other passages where not 
the whole Sanhedrin, but members of it and official persons 
of high rank, such as the commandant of the temple, must 
be understood: ii. 18, 20, v. 10, 15-18, vii. 1, 11, 15 (ef. 
vil. 19? vii. 35, vui 22-81, ef. vv. 40, 48, 52, 57, x24, 
31, 83, xi. 87%). Finally, (5) there are’ ἃ number of 
passages where the term is used to designate the majority 
of the people who do not yet believe on Jesus, or who are 
already pronounced unbelievers, as contrasted with Him- 
self and the group of disciples gathered about Him, the 
future Church. In addition to the passages placed in 
brackets above, which evidently belong here, are to be 
reckoned in this class x. 19, xi. 19, 31, 33, 36, xii! 9, 11, 
also vi. 41, 52, where in the course of the narrative, Gali- 
leans, who are increasingly irritated with Jesus, are called 
Jews; likewise vill. 48-57, where after viii. 30, 31 the 
occurrence of the term is surprising, and ix. 18 where it 
seems to be equivalent to Φαρισαῖοι. In all these instances 
the narrator is speaking from the point of view of himself 
and his readers, just as the Jew, Paul, does when writing 
to Gentile Christians (2 Cor. xi. 24; 1 Thess. ii. 14; ef. 
1 Cor. ix. 20), and the Jew, Matthew, writing in Palestine 
(xxvii. 15). The first passages which are really peculiar 


342 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


are those in which John represents Jesus as using this 
term in speaking to the disciples (xiii. 33; with regard te 
xviii. 20, 36, seen. 16). Evenif it could be proved, which 
is not the case, that for the sake of clearness John repre- 
sents Jesus as using a term for His enemies which was not 
used by Christians of Jewish and Gentile origin until after 
the organisation of the Church, it would not at all follow 
that the author was not a thorough Hebrew. Even 
according to the Synoptics, one of the inevitable results of 
Jesus’ contest with Pharisaism and official Judaism was 
His treatment of His disciples as a body of men separated 
from Israel (Matt. v. 11f., x. 16-42, xvi. 17-21, xvi. 24-- 
27, xviii. 15-20, xxi. 40-46; Luke xii. 32). But inas- 
much as John sets forth the entire development of the 
contest with official Judaism in Jerusalem, intimating it 
in i. 19 and entering into it fully from ii. 13 onwards, we 
find in his Gospel severe words which do not occur in the 
Synoptics. John also represents Jesus as acknowledging 
the absolute authority of the Scriptures, which justify His 
claims (x. 35, v. 39, 46, xi. 18, xv. 25); Jesus never 
admitted that He had broken the law of Moses (v. 17—47, 
vil. 19-24); it is not simply among Samaritans that He 
feels Himself a Jew (iv. 22). He delights in true Israel- 
ites, whose king He is (i. 47, 49), and is faithful to His 
own people (i. 11) even unto death (above, p. 308). But 
when in opposition to Him who holds the law to be sacred, 
they appeal to their law, or plead their descent from 
Abraham against His religious and moral demands, or 
meet His offers of grace with declarations of what Moses 
gave to their fathers (v. 45, vi. 31, vii. 33 ff.), He gives 
them back their own language, and says, “ your father” 
(vi. 49), “your father Abraham” (viii. 56), and “ your 
law” (vill. 17, x. 34, xv. 25). All this is in keeping with 
the prophetic announcement from the beginning. Anyone 
who is unable to comprehend historically such words 
spoken by a messenger of God in the struggle with His 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 343 


people must necessarily regard Isaiah as opposed in prin- 
ciple to the whole temple cultus (Isa. i. 10-20), and must 
explain such words as those of the Baptist in Matt. iii 
7-9, Luke iii. 7-8 as inventions of the Gentile Christian 
Church. 

The naive manner in which John mentions the 
friendly relationship between himself and Jesus, and sub- 
stitutes it for his personal name, which is never employed, 
has been criticised. With reference to this point, it is to 
be observed that the modesty characteristic of modern 
writings is no more a certain guarantee of the correctness 
of their contents than the naiveness of ancient writings is 
of theirs. There is not a word in the Fourth Gospel that 
gives the impression of self-exaltation, such as Paul does 
not seriously attempt to avoid in 1 Cor. xv. 10 and else- 
where. What the author as briefly as possible says of 
himself in ΧΙ]. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2, could have been said 
equally well by Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, who were not 
distinguished persons (xi. 3, 5, 11, 36). Such a personal 
friendship is not conditioned by an exceptionally high 
grade of moral and religious qualities. There is no 
evidence of any prominent position occupied by John 
among the disciples. Apart from the statement of his 
call in i. 35 ff., unnoticed by many, John does not let him- 
self appear until xii. 23, whereas reference is made to the 
future significance of Peter for the Church as early as i. 42 
(ef. xxi. 15-27). In vi. 68f. Peter is the great confessor, 
as in the Synopties. It is true that John represents him, 
as do the Synoptists, as the impetuous disciple, whose zeal 
outruns his discretion, and who is deeply penitent for his 
failings (xii. 6-10, 36-38, xviii. 10-11, 15-27). But it 
is not sound critical judgment which finds in the race 
between Peter and John, in which the younger disciple 
outruns the older one (xx. 1-8), an expression of rivalry 
between these two apostles. That there were such. rival- 
ries among the apostles to the very end is proved by 


344 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Matt. xviii. 1, xx. 20-28; Mark ix. 33 ff., x. 35-45 ; Luke 
xxii. 24-32. There is only a hint of it in John xii. 12- 
17 and in the πλέον of xxi. 15. Moreover, it is this very 
supplement, added with John’s knowledge and consent, 
which proves that after the death of Jesus all petty 
jealousy was banished from the apostolic circle. 

The question as to the literal trustworthiness of the 
discourses of Jesus which are contained in the Fourth 
Gospel—a question which cannot be answered categori- 
cally even in the Synoptics—is to be distinguished from 
the question as to the origin of this Gospel. If the book 
was written between the years 80 and 90 (above, p. 334 f.), 
it seems hardly likely that one who heard the longer dis- 
courses of Jesus should retain an exact recollection of them 
for so long. Here, in the first place, due weight must be 
given to those considerations which explain in a general 
way the persistence of gospel traditions for decades (vol. 
ii. 418 1). In the second place, a man who between the 
ages of twenty and twenty-five years received impressions 
which determined the whole eourse of his life, would know 
just as much about them at eighty, if he remains in full 
possession of his faculties, as twenty years earlier, 
particularly if it had been his vocation for fifty years to 
testify orally concerning what he had seen and heard when 
he was with Jesus (1 John 1. 1-3). The difference between 
the discourses in John and in the Synoptics, and the 
resemblance of the former to the language of 1 John, do 
not prove that John’s report of them is unfaithful. . The 
latter merely shows that in him more than in others the 
“words of eternal life,” which bound the author to Jesus, 
especially those words which Jesus spoke to His disciples, 
had been transformed into flesh and blood. With reference 
to the comparison between the discourses in John and in the 
Synopties, there are sayings in the latter which no one would 
feel to be out of place in John (n. 17). Moreover, by cor- 
rect exegesis there is much that can be discarded from the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 345 


discourses of Jesus, such as speculative ideas and colourless 
generalities, which false interpretation has introduced into 
them. Finally, regard must be had to the esoteric char- 
acter of this book, due to the fact that the Fourth Gospel 
was written for persons who had long been believers, and 
manifesting itself in the choice of the discourses to be 
recorded. How much freedom John allowed himself in 
the reproduction of the discourses it is not possible to 
determine exactly and in detail (n. 18). Whoever assumes 
that John used a large degree of liberty, must remember 
that this is more natural in the case of one who has heard 
and who feels certain that he is in possession of the essen- 
tial historical truth, than in the case of one farther removed, 
who is dependent upon the accounts of those who heard, 
i.e. that it would be more natural for the apostles John 
and Matthew than for Mark and Luke, who were disciples 
of apostles. 


1. (P. 333.) Examples of early and widely current alterations in the 
text are found in i. 18 (above, p. 326, n. 3), 1. 34 (above, p. 284, n. 2), 
ii. 3 (there is no reason why the critics should question for an instant the 
originality of the genuine Semitic text, 8* [D defective] S? [cf. also Adler, 
de Verss. Syr. p. 57; Se Ss are defective], and of the best Latin MSS.); iii. 34 
(all changes from x, such as the addition of 6 θεός and the omission of 
πνεῦμα, the complete alteration of the text found in Ss, are due to the failure 
to recognise that τὸ πνεῦμα is the subject); v. 36: μείζων ABE, etec., 
is harsh and hard to invent; even if μείζω (cf. i. 50), which superficially 
considered seems more satisfactory, or μείζονα be the correct reading, on 
account of the article before μαρτυρίαν and the contrast between ἐκεῖνος, ver. 35, 
and ἐγώ, ver. 36, the passage cannot mean: “1 have a greater witness than 
that which John gave concerning Me,” but must signify, “I possess the 
(requisite) witness for Myself in greater measure than did John for himself,” 
Jesus refuses to appeal to the testimony of John in ver. 33f.; and in ver. 35 
John is not regarded as a witness for Jesus, but with Jesus is treated as a 
medium of revelation. Accepting the reading μείζων, the passage means ; J, 
a greater personality than John, possess the (one, the only witness to be con- 
sidered) witness (of God)” (see above, p. 322 f.). 

2. (P. 334.) Whether iy, 9) is an interpolation or not is uncertain (above, 
p. 332, n. 13). This is certainly true of v. 3b, ἐκδεχομένων---κίνησιν, and 
vy. 4. In addition to the strong external evidence against both additions is 
the fact that this must have been a welcome explanation of ver. 7, and contains 
nothing out of harmony with ideas about angels held by the early Church, 
On the other hand, the additions certainly go back to an early date. Ver.) 4 


346 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


was already part of the Greek text used by Tertullian (de Bapt. v.), and he 
explained κατὰ καιρόν to mean “one each year”; cf. Didymus and Cyril in 
Tischend. 785, and Theophil. (Lat.), Forsch. ii. 81, 215, the last having also 
τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν from ver.3. Moreover, the gloss is thoroughly Jewish ; 
ef. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., ad loc.; Weber, Jud. Theol. §34; Rev. xvi. 5. Pos- 
sibly it is one of Papias’ comments ; cf. note 3. 

3. (P. 334.) With regard to vii. 53-viii. 11 the following remarks will 
suffice: (1) a distinction is to be made between witnesses for the existence of 
the story and witnesses which make it part of the Fourth Gospel. To the 
first only belongs the Didascalia, chap. vii. end (Syr., ed. Lagarde, p.31; Lat., 
ed. Hauler, xxiv. 15-22= Const. ap. 11. 24); because this third century work 
contains much apocryphal material and the length at which this story. is 
reproduced (in the Greek recension even more noticeable because of the 
brevity with which a reference to Luke vii. 36 f. is here inserted) shows that 
it was not derived from one of the canonical Gospels. The story is very old, 
and could be read in various books not directly dependent upon each other. 
Unless all signs fail, it was to be found in Papias and in the Gospel to the 
Hebrews (Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 16; GK, ii. 703 f.). In and of itself, and because 
of the analogy to Mark xvi. 9-20 (vol. ii. 478), it is very probable that the 
passage was inserted in the N.T. from Papias. Probably it is one of those 
apostolic traditions which Papias inserted in connection with his interpre- 
tations of the sayings of Jesus, most likely in connection with John vii. 24 
and viii. 15, so that those who gave it its present place in the Gospel were 
perhaps influenced by their source, the work of Papias. This location would be 
also favoured by the fine contrast between this passage and the illegal proceed- 
ings of the session of the Sanhedrin in vii. 45-52. There is no reason why 
the story itself should not be regarded as historical. (2) The earliest witnesses 
for the location of the passage before viii. 12 are Lat. MSS. from the fourth 
century onwards; of the Greek MSS. the earliest witness is D. (sixth cent.). 
The Syrians (Tatian, Se Ss S! S*) for a long time knew nothing of the passage. 
It was not until the sixth century that it was made accessible to them by 
various translations ; ef. Forsch. i. 190; Gwynn, Transact. of the Irish Acad. 
(1886) xxvii. 8, pp. 17-24; Nestle, PR#®, iii. 174. The passage is certainly 
no part of the Fourth Gospel; in the first place, because the Gospel to the 
Hebrews, in which it oceurs, contains no other material in common with 
John ; and, in the second place, it is not likely that Papias would have 
repeated an entire story of this kind if it were already in the Fourth Gospel 
(above, p. 196), which was known to him. Moreover, the possible moral 
danger arising from the story is not 'suflieient to explain its disappearance 
from the oldest Greek MSS., and the fact that it was wanting originally in all 
the forms of the Syriac versions. Direct evidence of the spurious character 
of the passage is to be found also in the fact that its position is very uncertain. 
In the early MS., now lost, represented by the Ferrar group of cursives (13, 
69, 124, 346, ete.), it was inserted after Luke xxi. 38, where the location indi- 
cated in viii. 1,2 made it seem natural ; in other cursives and Armenian MSS. 
it is appended to John xxi. Even if the latter position be due to the fact 
that it was found before John viii. 12, recognised as suspicious or spurious, 
and removed to the end of the Gospel because of unwillingness to omit it 
altogether, this does not explain its location following Luke xxi. 38. Finally, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 347 


the language shows that the passage is not Johannine. The Synoptic 
expression of γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι in Vill. 3 is entirely foreign to the 
Gospel of John, notwithstanding the frequent occasions when it might have 
been used. Also em’ αὐτοφώρῳ, ἀναμάρτητος, ἐλεγχόμενοι ὑπὸ τῆς συνειδήσεως 
are likewise not Johannine. The opinion advocated by Spitta (note 5), 
S. 197 f., following the suggestion of other writers,—that a genuine passage 
has fallen out between vii. 52 and viii. 12 and has been replaced by an 
apocryphal story, is untenable. For how does it happen then that the 
earliest MSS. NABC, ete., Origen, Eusebius (who if this were known to him 
could not have written as he does regarding Papias), certainly also Tertullian 
and the Syrian writers until the sixth century, know nothing of either the 
genuine or the spurious passage? The situation is practically the same as 
in Mark xvi. 9-20, save that the connection between John vii. 53-viii. 11 
and the Gospel of John cannot, as Spitta maintains, be traced back into 
the second century, but only into the fourth. The oldest witness for 
this passage is Ambrosius ; to counterbalance the Verona MS. b, in’ which 
the passage was written by the first copyist, and crossed out by a later hand, 
there is the Vere. MS. a (fourth or fifth cent.) of equal age, which does not 
have it. 

4. (P. 334.) DeEnrr’s interpolation hypothesis (above, p. 230) follows in 
part that of ScHwEIzEer (Das Ev. Jo. nach seinem inneren Wert unters. 1841), 
who likewise cuts out the Galilean sections and with these the erudest of 
the miracles. 'TOBLER (Ev. Jo. nach dem Grundtext, 1867) demonstrates ad 
oculos an extremely brief ur-John. H. H. Wenpr (Lehre Jesu, 1886, i. 
215-342 ; in a more extended and improved form, Das Johannesev. 1900) 
has attempted to eull out an original writing of the apostle John, which 
in essentials was a collection of sayings to be compared with the mythical 
“Logia.” In a way similar to that in which the authors of our first and 
third Gospels compiled their books out of the “Logia” and an original 
writing of a more historical character, a Christian of Asia Minor (circa 100- 
125) prepared the Fourth Gospel out of this Johannine colleetion of sayings by 
means of an independent and comprehensive recasting of the material, namely, 
by the insertion of stories of miracles, which were drawn partly from narra- 
tions of the apostle John which had been misunderstood, and partly from 
the earlier synoptic tradition (ii. 1-12, vi. 1-26, ix. 2-3, 6-38, xi. 39-xii. 19). 
The additions of the editor are not to be called interpolations, and one igs not 
to be provoked with him on account of the awkward interpretations and the 
bold transpositions. We are rather, even to-day, to be grateful to him, that 
by means of the awkwardness of his recasting of the material he has made it 
possible for the eritie to free the alone trustworthy witness of the ‘apostle 
John from the deceptive covering. 

5. (P. 334.) Spipta, Zur Gesch. u. Lit. des Urehristent. i. (1893) S. 155-204, 

“Uber Unordnungen im Text des 4 Ev.,” discussing disarrangements in the 
text of the Fourth Gospel, believes that such disarrangements can be proved; 
(1) xviii. 12-28, he thinks, should be arranged as follows: verses 12, 13, 19- 
23, 24, 14, 15-18, 255, 27,28. In a measure this agrees with Ss, 1.6. probably 
Tatian (Thlb, 1895, col. 20 £.), whose order is verses 12, 13, 24, 14-15, 19-23, 
16-18, 25-28, and the motives for this rearrangement are in part the same as 
those which clearly influenced the first harmonist. (2) According to Spitta, 


348 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the section xiii.-xvii. was originally arranged as follows :—xiii. 1-3la, xv.-xvi., 
xiii. 31b-xiv. 31, xvii. Moreover, after xiii. 3la a passage dealing with the 
institution of the Lord’s Supper has been omitted. (3) A page has been 
omitted between xii. 52 and viii. 12 (see above, note 3). (4) vil. 15-24 belongs 
after v. 47. Furthermore, inquiring how these disarrangements arose, Spitta 
reaches the conclusion that the book restored by the removal of these dis- 
arrangements was itself the alteration of an original work (S. 184, 185, 202), 
differing from its original, for example, by the insertion of vi. 51-59 (S. 218 
in the essay on the Lord’s Supper). The observations upon which this 
hypothesis is based are attractive only in the case of chaps. xiii—xvii. But 
the explanation of the disarrangements in the text is not satisfactory. In 
xviii. 12-28 we are supposed to have the mistake of a copyist, whose eye 
skipped from the end of ver. 13 to the end of ver. 24, between which in the 
original stood vy. 19-23. Without noticing his mistake, he copied ver. 14 
which stood after ver. 24, and what followed in the original, namely, vv. 15- 
18. Inthe midst of the story of the denial he discovered his mistake and 
added the omitted verses, 19-24. In other words, he consciously inserted 
them in the story of the denial, the conclusion of which he was able to record 
only by inserting ver. 25a which he himself composed. This writer did not, 
therefore, belong to the familiar species of librarit oscitantes, but was an ex- 
tremely smart and devil-may-care sort of fellow. To such a man as this was 
intrusted the production of the archetype of all later copies of the Gospel, the 
fair copy of a book intended for the use of the Church, and no correction of 
the text was deemed necessary. The displacement of vii. 15-24 was due to an 
equally bold procedure, only here the disarrangement was not due, as in the 
case of xiii.—xvii., to the wandering of a scribe’s eye from one passage to another 
on a sheet before him, but to the displacement of the sheets, which the seribe 
subsequently noticed and tried to conceal. This might readily happen, if it 
were a case of the original construction of the book, the transcription of the text 
from the schedule and plagule of the author toa roll, although one is astonished 
at the carelessness of a writer who permitted his work to be thus misborn. 
But, according to Spitta, the scribe to whom the Church owes the Fourth 
Gospel had before him a book which from a literary point of view was already 
complete, this work being in its turn the working over of an earlier original. 
Even Spitta is not able to assume that the copy which the seribe used had 
accidently fallen apart (S. 182f.). Neither has he succeeded in showing that 
published books were circulated in separate sheets not yet fastened together 
in a roll, which were intrusted to scribes for copying. Ulpian (Dig. xxxii. 52. 5) 
certainly means by libri nondum conglutinatt vel emendati, books in the process 
of being made, 7.e. manuscripts more or less complete, which, however, must 
first be fastened together, and have errors of the copyist corrected, before they 
could be published. In such an instance it is necessary to make peculiar 
negligence on the part of the emendator (διορθωτής) and on the part of the 
author himself the basis of the entire literary history of the Fourth Gospel ; and 
in the other very improbable case, assumed by Spitta, we are met by the strange 
circumstance that all correct copies of the book have disappeared, and that all 
the copies used in the church were based upon a eopy as carelessly and as 
boldly constructed as his assumption calls for. A commentary would be neces- 
sary in order to set forth the internal reasons for this and similar hypotheses. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 349 


6. (P. 335.) Bengel in his Gnomon on ἔστιν in v. 2 says: Scripsit Joannes 
ante vastationem urbis. This is the position taken earlier by Lampe and 
recently by Wuttig, S. 28. In the first place, we are by no means justified 
in coneluding from the brief deseription in Jos. Bell. vii. 1. 1 that no build- 
ing remained standing in Jerusalem. In the second place, it would be just 
as reasonable to conclude from John xi. 18 that Bethany and Jerusalem had 
disappeared when John wrote, especially in view of the fact that this 
information is not, like iv. 6, xvili. 1, xix. 41, a part of the narrative, 
introduced in the past tense after the fashion of popular story-telling, not- 
withstanding the continued existence of Jacob’s well and of the two gardens 
near Jerusalem ; but asa matter of fact it is a paranthetical remark of the 
author, intended to make xi. 19, 31, 45f., xii. 9-11 clear to the readers. In 
the third place, as a general rule such conclusions are not to be drawn from 
remarks of this kind (vol. ii. 340, n. 13 on Heb.). Josephus (Bell. v. 1-4) 
regularly uses the imperfect with reference to buildings and even localities 
not affected at all or not essentially changed by the destruction of Jerusalem 
(e.g. the towers Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamne, which Josephus himself 
tells us, Bell. vii. 1. 1, remained undamaged, τετράγωνος ἦν, etc.), the imperfect 
tense is used in the entire account (τρίτος jv λόφος, περιείχοντο, ἐκαλεῖτο [not 
only ὑπὸ Aaßidov but also πρὸς ἡμῶν], ἐκαλοῦμεν, ἐκάλουν). But he uses also 

ὃν καλοῦσιν ’OcbAäs (Niese, § 145), ὃς καλεῖται Beleda (8 149), and again ἐκλήθη 
δὲ ἐπιχωρίως Beleda. Gebhardt (Die Abfassungszeit des Joev. 1906), who is of the 
opinion that John i.-xx. were written in Ephesus about 65, and chap. xxi. about 
67, uses the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned (8. 21, 32 f.) 
as proof for so early adate. As if Matt. and Luke give “detailed descriptions” 
of this event, and as if the destruction of the temple were not just as surely pro- 
phesied in John ii. 19 as in the Synopties (see above, p. 156). With reference 
to the unsupported assumptions of Delff and Cassell, see above, pp. 228, 230. 

7. (P. 335.) A review of attacks upon the genuineness of the Fourth 
Gospel is to be found in LUTHARDT (Der joh. Ursprung des 4 Ev. 1874, 8. 
6-34). A more detailed review, complete to 1890, is to be found in WATkıns’ 
Modern Criticism in tts relation to the Fourth Gospel, Bampton Lectures, 1890, 
especially pp. 187-413. Sanpay, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905 
(Lectures delivered in the autumn of 1904 in New York). Among the latest 
opponents of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel may be men- 
tioned: KREYENBÜHL, Das Ev. der Wahrheit, i. ii. 1900, 1905, who has used 
about 1600 pages to prove the statement that the Fourth Gospel is nothing 
other than the evangeliwm veritatis of the Valentinians (Iren. iii. 11. 9), 
and that its author is Menander, the disciple of Simon Magus, in Antioch 
(Just. Apol. i. 26); also GrILL, Untersuch. über die Entstehung des 4. Ev.; 
1 Teil, 1902, who, to be sure, has not gotten beyond an “ Analysis of the Pro- 
logue on the basis of a history of ideas,” but thinks (S. 384) that he has already 
made clear to his readers that Baur’s date for the Gospel appears to him 
hardly less tenable than that of Harnack. Finally, Wrepr, Charakter und 
Tendenz des Johannes ev. 1903. J. DrummonD, An Inquiry into the Character 
and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel; and Sanday, in the above mentioned 
lectures, 1905, calmly give apologies for the genuineness of the Gospel, which 
weigh the arguments pro and con. 

8. (P. 336.) Baur’s remarks in Krit. Unters. 8. 388, that even if the apostle 


350 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


John were the author of the Fourth Gospel, “ We should still have to assume 
that he had no intention whatever of writing a purely historical Gospel,” 
has little weight, since Baur was of the conviction that John did not write 
the Gospel. Moreover, none of the four Gospels claims to be ‘ purely his- 
torical.” They are all writings containing historical material having a 
religious or didactic purpose. LAGARDE, Verhältnis des deutschen Staats zu 
Theol., Kirche u. Rel. 1873, S. 31), declares himself convinced that the author 
of all the Johannine writings in the N.T. “can be none other than the 
apostle John,” and describes this apostle and Peter as the only importanv 
disciples of Jesus (S. 30); but at the same time he holds (5. 28-30) the state- 
ment that Jesus is the Messiah to be unhistorical and without meaning, 
declaring John, who by his Gospel desired to convince his readers of the truth 
of this statement, guilty of “ gross exaggerations” (S. 31). WurricHEen, who 
in his first work (Der gesch. Charakter des Ev. Jo. 1869) is far from accepting the 
contents of the Gospel as historically true, nevertheless admits that the book 
was written between 70 and 80 a.p. by the apostle John. Later, however, he 
gave up the apostolic authorship of the Gospel (Leben Jesu, 1876, 8. viii). 

9. (P. 338.) Accurate details are given in i. 35-39 (above, p. 226, n. 8); 
i. 44 (where mention is made of the home, not of Peter and Andrew and 
Nathanael, but only of Philip, which may serve incidentally to show how 
the gospel reached Philip from Jesus, since subsequently Bethsaida is de- 
clared to be also the home of Peter and Andrew. In xii. 21, on the other 
hand, this is not the purpose of the remark, but it is probably intended to 
distinguish this Philip from the evangelist Philip of Hierapolis, who was 
known to the readers), ii. 6 (numbers, which do not submit of any symbolical 
interpretation), ii. 15f., 20, iii, 23, iv. 18, 28 (the leaving behind of the 
water-pot), iv. 30 (the picturesque imp. ἤρχοντο, which prepares the way for 
the parable in iv. 35), iv. 52 (where the mention of the hour as in ver, 53 
would have been sufficient), v. 2, vi. 3-12 (above, p. 286, n. 5), vi. 19, 23, 
vi. 71 (cf. xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26, xiv. 22, the name of the father of Judas and ex- 
planation of Iscariot, see n. 11), viii. 48, 57, xi. 30, 44, xii. 1-8 (above, p. 286 £,, 
n. 6), xviii. 1, 10 (ef. ver, 26), xix. 39. 

10. (P. 339.) Speaking with reference to the relations of the Jewish 
parties, Wellhausen (Pharisäer und Sadducäer, 1874, S. 124) says of the 
Fourth Gospel: “The writer cannot be accused of ignorance of pre-Tal- 
mudie Judaism,” and rightly emphasises the fact, that John’s combination 
“high priests and Pharisees” (elsewhere only in Matt. xxi. 45, xxvii. 62), 
while technically incorrect, really describes the facts, and quite agrees with 
the views and representation of Josephus (S. 42, cf. S. 8, 30). For the dis- 
tinction between the Pharisees, i. 24, and the embassy of “Jews of Jeru- 
salem,” 1.6. of the Sanhedrin (i. 19, ef. iii. 28, v. 33), see above, p. 284. The 
representatives of the Sanhedrin performed their duty without taking any 
deep interest in the matter, i. 22. The Pharisees inquire as to the basis and 
justification of the Baptist’s work, i. 25. They hate Jesus because in their 
judgment He is a Sabbath-breaker and a sinner, ix. 16, 24. Back of His 
miracles, which they carefully examine (ix. 16-34) and do not deny (xi. 47), 
they suspect some ungodly magic. They speak of political dangers (xi. 48) 
only in order to win the alliance of the Sadducees, who are indifferent re- 


[4 


ligiously. Especially noteworthy is vii. 49, where ὁ ὄχλος κτλ. reproduces 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 351 


exactly the Jewish pra oy; ef. Weber, Jüd. Theol. 8. 11; Schürer, ii. 387, 400 
(Eng. trans. 1. ii. 8. 22). 

11. (P. 340.) The present writer must reserve an exhaustive investiga- 
tion of the geographical statements for his Commentary. Furrer, ZINTW, 
1902, S. 257-265, has given a brief survey. In respect of John vi. 1, where 
Furrer, 8. 261, would cross out either τῆς Τιβεριάδος or τῆς Γαλιλαίας, see 
above, p. 333. In addition the following is repeated from the second edition 
of this work: Heracleon as early as 160 A.D. read Βηθανία in i. 28, and this 
is the reading of nearly all the MSS. of Origen’s time, and also of our earlier 
MSS. But exception was taken to the reading by several writers before 
Origen, and especially by Origen himself, because there is no place of this 
name on the Jordan. They read instead Bndaßapa, because the traditional 
place where John baptized was said to have this name (Orig. tom. vi. 40 in Jo. ; 
Bus. and Hier. De Situ et Nomin. Loc. Hebr., ed. Klostermann (Griechisch- 
Christliche Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte), p. 58. 18, also Se Ss, but 
not Sh). Too much dependence is not to be placed upon local traditions of this 
sort, as, e.g., the traditions concerning non and Salim in John iii. 23 ; perhaps 
Bethany could not be located because it was looked for in the wrong place. 
It need not necessarily have been situated directly on the Jordan, although, 
according to the Synoptics, John baptized in the Jordan. Possibly it is iden- 
tical with Betonim, Jos. xiii, 26 (Eus. op. cit. (ed. Klostermann) 48. 11, Borvia 
ἡ καὶ Horeeiv, πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου. . . Kal εἰσέτι νῦν ὁμοίως ἐν τοῖς τόποις χρημα- 
τίζει. Jerome (ed. Klostermann), 103. 14, Bothnin trans Jordanem civitas . . . 
que usque hodie similiter adpellatur). The form of the name seems to have gone 
through all sorts of changes. Furrer, S. 257, has also come to this conclusion, 
which he thinks he was the first to discover. Συχάρ, John iv. 4, is ποῦ ἃ copyist’s 
mistake for Συχέμ or Σίκιμα (02%, so Ss in this place) ; this would have been 
rendered by John as by Josephus (Bell. iv. 8. 1), Neapolis or Marbatha. Nor 
is the name an intentional alteration on John’s part (Hengstenberg, Komm. 8. 
244 f.=“ Liigenstadt,” town of lies), The place is 20 (so in Sh, which shows 
acquaintance with localities) half an hour east of Sichem (Shechem) on the 
road from Jerusalem to Galilee, a place still in existence in the fourth century, 
and plainly distinguished from Sichem (Shechem) by the geographers (Rus. 
op. cit. 150. 1, and 164. 1); a distinction not essentially modified by Jerome, 
although in another place Interpr. Hebr. Nom., ed. Lagarde, 66. 20, and Quest. 
Hebr. in Gen. xlviii. 22, he explains Sychar as an early scribal error in John iv. 5. 
Cf., further, the Pilgrim of the year 333, Itin. Hierosol., ed. Geyer, p. 20. 7; 
Sechar, 1000 paces from Sechim ; Epiph. De Gemmis, Dindorf, iv. 209), prob- 
ably identical with the Talmudic 10; ef. provisionally Delitzsch, Z/LTh, 
1856, S. 240 ff., in later times written by the Samaritans with the variant 
forms 730°, 209, maoy. The present name is Asker or Askar; cf. Socin- 
Bädekert, S. 245, 251. Because of his familiarity with language and 
localities, John knows that the synoptic Ἰσκαριώθ, Ἰσκαριώτης means the 
“man of Kerioth,” and that this was the home of Judas’ father, Simon, 
whom John alone mentions. The reading ἀπὸ Kapvorov is to be recognised 
as original either wherever it occurs, vi. 71, xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26, xiv. 22, or in 
some one of these passages whence it has found its way into the others. 
Who could have invented it? The place is either Kerioth, Jos. xv. 25, the 
modern Kureitein (ef. Buhl, Geogr. 182) in Southern Judea, or Kopéa (Jos. 


352 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Bell. i. 6. 5; Ant. xiv. 8.4, 5, 2) in the northernmost extremity of Judea. 
the modern Kuriyät or Küriyät ; ef. Robinson, Palestine, iii, 301 ; Wellhausen. 
Pharister, 8.152. With the latter location would agree the tradition recorded 
by Eusebius (on Isa. xxviii. 1 (Migne, xxiv, col. 284), that Judas belonged to 
the tribe of Ephraim. 

12. (P. 340.) If in xi. 49, 51, xviii. 13, John expressed the idea that the 
office of high priest changed yearly, and that Caiaphas, who held the office 
from about 18 to 36 A.p. officiated only during the year of Jesus’ death, he 
would show gross ignorance. But, (1) John does not say that Caiaphas was 
“the high priest of that year,” which especially in this passage, xi. 49, would 
have to be expressed by 6 apy. τ. ἐν. ἐκ. without ὥν (cf. Matt. xxvi. 57; 
John xviii. 33, xix. 19, 21). (2) Nor have the critics shown that Greeks 
spoke of officials, like consuls and archons, who changed office yearly in the 
familiar modern fashion (“the champion shot of last year,” “the hero of 
the day,” and the combinations with du jour). The years were named after the 
consuls and archons, not vice versa. (3) One of the most absurd rules is the 
one given, for example, by A. Buttmann, Ntl. Gr. S. 148 [Eng. trans. p. 170], 
that the genitive is used to denote only general determinations of time (νυκτός, 
ἡμέρας, ἅπαξ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ). Some examples to the contrary are to be found 
in Kühner-Gerth. i. 386; Winer, $ 30. 11. The present writer is able to add 
the following twenty cases: Gen. xi. 10; Isa. xiv. 28, xx, 1, xxxvi. 1; Jer. 
i. 2; Dan. i. 1, vii. 1 (LXX, not Theodotion); 1 Mace. iii. 37, vi. 16, 20, 
vii. 1; Just. Dial. eiü. n. 22; Leucius (Acta Jo. p. 222. 5); Artemid. 
Oneiroer. v. 12 ; Herodian, ii. 14. 3, iv. 15. 4, vi. 9. 2, vii. 3. 3,5. 3, viii. 1. 3 
(cf. also Rohde, Griech. Roman, S. 462, A, 2). This temporal genitive does 
not, like dates with cardinal numerals (ἑπτὰ ἡμερῶν, Herodian, iv. 2. 4; 
Clem. Hom. iii. 72, vii. 5) denote the period of time within which the state- 
ment is to be limited, but means merely that at the time of the event 
recounted, Caiaphas was high priest, with no implication as to the terminus 
a quo and terminus ad quem of his high priesthood. John uses τοῦ ev, ἐκ, 
instead of the equally permissible τότε or ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ, etc., because he 
has in mind the fact that the only specific function performed by the high 
priest took place but once a year (Heb. ix. 7). It was necessary that the 
man, upon whom devolved the official duty of offering in that same year 
in his capacity as high priest on the Day of Atonement the legal sin-offering 
for God’s people (Heb. ii. 17, v. 3), should unconsciously prophesy the propitia- 
tory death of Jesus for the salvation of His people and of all children of God 
in the world, Jesus is the true sin-offering for mankind (1 John ii. 2, iv. 10), 
just as He is the true Passover lamb (John i, 29). If in John xix, 13 it 
were said that Pilate placed Jesus on the judgment-seat in order to mock 
Jesus, or the Jews, or both, the idea expressed would be historically impossible. 
In all probability the Acts of Pilate, which belong to a very early date, so 
understood or rather misconstrued the passages from which Just. in Apol. 
i. 35 confesses that he derived this idea upon which the Gospel of Peter is 
likewise certainly dependent (cf. the present writer’s article on the Gospel of 
Peter, S. 42-45, 79 f.). The tendency to represent Pilate as practically inno- 
cent of the execution of Jesus, evidenced by the way in which Justin and 
the Gospel of Peter make the Jews, not Pilate, the subject of καθίσαι, which 
is taken transitively, is the governing idea in all the stories associated with 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 353 


the name of Pilate, and is derived, therefore, from the Acts of Pilate. But 
it is perfectly clear that in John xix. 13 ἐκάθισεν is not to be taken transi- 
tively but intransitively, as in Jos. Bell. ii. 9. 3, 6 Πιλᾶτος καθίσας ἐπὶ 
Βήματος ; for (1) In John as in the Synoptics and Acts the word is used only 
intransitively and reflexively (36 times in the Synoptics and Acts, often in 
the connection, ἐπὶ @pdvov, βήματος, καθέδρας). (2) Any writer who wanted 
to make his meaning clear, especially any one using the style that John does, 
would necessarily have added αὐτόν or ᾿Ιησοῦν, as in Justin and the Gospel of 
Peter, if this were really the object of ἐκάθισεν. (3) Historically it is quite 
impossible that Pilate should have desecrated the judgment-seat which symbol- 
ised his dignity by enacting with his own hands such a farce; for, since the 
reading is not ἐκέλευσεν καθίσαι, ἐκάθισεν if taken transitively must mean, 
like the ἐκάθισαν of Justin and the Gospel of Peter, a forcible elevation to 
the judgment-seat. (4) There is nothing in John’s Gospel which necessitates 
our attributing to him the bad taste of inventing such an absurdity. The 
mocking of Jesus, which belonged to an earlier stage of the trial, xix. 2-5, 
Pilate left to the soldiers, and merely utilised the result of it to mock the 
Jews. In this passage, on the other hand, he is acting as the supreme judge 
of the land. The mention of the hour, the description of the place, the 
statement of the outcome of the trial in xix. 13-16, show that John here 
intends to deseribe the imposition of a very seriously intended death sen- 
tence by the judge who alone could impose such a sentence (xviii. 31, xix. 
10f., 19-22). 

13. (P. 340.) Heb. and Aram. words and interpreted names are as 
follows : pai, 1. 38, 49, iii. 2, vi. 25, ix. 2, xi. 8 (Matt. and Mark 7 times 
together, Luke none) ; paßßovvi, xx. 16 (cf. Mark x, 51, vol. i. 20); Μεσσίας, 
i. 41, iv. 25 (vol. 1. 20f.); Κηφᾶς, 1. 42 (vol. i. 16); ἀμήν, ἀμήν, i. 51 (only in 
John, 25 times, vol. i. 18) ; Βηθέσδα, v. 2 (which is not translated, but inter- 
preted in accordance with the literal meaning of the word (see vol. i. 28) ; 
μάννα, Vi. 31,49; Σιλωάμ, ix. 7 (vol. 1. 29); Θωμᾶς, xi. 16, xx. 24; ὥσαννά, 
xii. 13 (vol. i. 21); Taßßada, xix. 13 (vol. i. 29) ; ToAyodä, xix. 17. Cf. also 
the explanation of the name Iscariot above, note 11. Concerning σάββατου 
πάσχα, see above, p. 324. 

14. (P. 340.) Cf. SCHLATTER, Die Sprache und Heimat des 4 Evangelisten, 
1902. In addition to Heb. and Aram. words (n. 13) and the form of O.T. 
eitations (n. 15), evidence of the Hebrew origin of John is to be found not so 
much in single Hebrew phrases like ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων -- Φαρισαῖοι τινες (above, 
Ῥ. 284), and expressions like ἔρχου καὶ ide, i. 46, cf. 39 (= m an) ; Heb. (nxn mn) ; 
ἀπῆλθον eis τὰ ὀπίσω, Vi. 66; ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, XVii. 2; ὁ υἱὸς τῆς 
ἀπωλείας, xvii. 12, as in the character of the style as a whole, which is in 
need of special investigation, John hardly ever attempts ἢ periodic sentence, 
and when he does he fails, e.g. vi. 22-24. It is noteworthy how often καί is 
used in an adversative sense (i. 10, iii. 19, vi. 70, viii. 20, 49, x. 25, xvii. 11). 
Its use with the imperative or future to express sequence, 1. 39, 46, vii. 52, xiv. 1, 
xv. 7, is likewise to be noted (cf. ZKom. Matt. 303, 442). In continuing an 
account καί is frequently replaced by δέ, also by οὖν, which is used over 
frequently, and by the omission of a connecting particle altogether, e.g. 
i. 40, 41, 42 (twice), 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, frequently in conversation by 
the unconnected λέγει αὐτῷ foal il. 591, n. 7 on Matt.). It is as if there were 

VOL, II. 23 


354 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


writing a Jew, to whom someone had said : You must not always say “and. 
The rhythm of the language, while impressing the reader with a certain 
solemnity, shows on the other hand a monotony due to poverty of expression. 

15. (P. 340.) Cf. Franke, Das AT. bei Jo. 1885, ὃ. 255-316. The 
freedom with which John everywhere makes his eitations (e.g. ii. 17, κατα- 
φάγεται instead of κατέφαγε, xii. 15, μὴ φοβοῦ, variations which suit the 
situation) renders it difficult to determine the relation of the passages to the 
original text and to the LXX. In i. 23, cited from Isa. xl. 3, εὐθύνατε corre- 
sponds to εὐθείας ποιεῖτε (LX X and Syn.) in the second part of the verse not 
quoted by John, but is an exact translation of nw» independent of the LXX. 
If i. 29 were based upon Isa. liii. 4, which is very questionable, αἴρων would 
be a new translation of xs. The citation in vi. 45 from Isa. liv. 13 could be 
changed into an independent sentence very easily if taken from the original 
text, but with difficulty if taken from the LXX. The abridged citation in 
xii. 15 from Zech, ix. 9 does not contain a word which shows its dependence 
upon the LXX; on the other hand, πῶλον ὄνου is a translation from the 
Heb., independent both of Matt. xxi. 5 (ef., however, Matt. xxi. 2) and of the 
LXX. The citation in xiii. 18 from Ps. xli. 10 shows no resemblance to the 
LXX, and is an exact translation of the Heb., especially if we read pod with 
BCL, not per’ ἐμοῦ with NAD; ef. Matt. xxvi. 23; Mark xiv. 20. The same 
is true of the citation in xix. 37 from Zech. xii. 10, where the LXX has 
ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο (the LXX MSS,, e.g. Cryptoferr. 
rescr., and others in Field, Hexapla, ii. 1026, which have also εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν, 
some of them before, others after ἀνθ᾽ ὧν xar., are, of course, interpolated from 
John xix. 37). Only in the later Greek versions, all of which seem to have 
retained ἐπιβλέψονται πρός pe (this is proved in the case of Theodotion), is 
the text corrected : Aquila, σὺν ᾧ ἐξεκέντησαν ; Theod. eis ὃν ἐξεκ. ; Symm. 
ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεξεκέντησαν. Cf. also Rey. i. 7, οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν ; 
Barn. vii. 9, ὄψονται αὐτόν... κατακεντήσαντες, ; Just. Dial. xxxil. ἐπιγνώ- 
σεσθε cis ὃν ἐξεκεντήσατε. In view of these examples, the supposition that 
in the Gospel and Rey. John is dependent upon some unknown Greek 
version, in which was found the characteristic forms ὄψονται (only in John 
and Barn.) and eis ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν (Just., Theod., only partially in Aqu.), 
only serves to prove that there are some who refuse to recognise what is per- 
fectly evident, namely, that John is citing Zech. xii. 10 in the Gospel and 
Rey. from his own knowledge of the original text, and that Barnabas and 
Justin are dependent upon John. 

16. (P. 342.) Once, in xviii. 36, Jesus speaks to the Romans of the Jews, 
who have cast Him out (cf. Acts xxv. 10, xxvi. 2, 4), which is less strange 
than the remark in xviii. 20, where before the high priest Jesus says “all 
Jews,” instead of “ our entire people.” Yet the present writer is not disposed 
to consider this impossible historically, after Jesus has been called a Samaritan 
(viii. 48), charged with the intention of going to the Gentiles (vii. 35), and 
arrested with the help of the heathen cohort (xviii. 12). In Acts xxi, 21 
Luke represents the presbyters of Jerusalem as speaking in the same way to 
the Jew Paul. 

17. (P. 344.) Matt. xi, 25-30= Luke x. 21f.; Matt. xii, 12 (Mark iii. 4; 
Luke vi. 9 (cf. John x. 32, ἔργα καλά); Matt. xv. 13, xvii. 26 (John viii. 35 f.), 
xviii. 3 (John iii, 3-5), xviii. 7 (τῷ κόσμῳ), xvili. 14 (John vi. 38f.), xix, 11 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 355 


xxvi. 38f. (Mark xiv. 34 fl. ; ef. John xii. 27, v. 30, vi. 38), xxviii. 18 (John 
v. 27, xvii. 2), have a Johannine sound. 

18. (P. 345.) In opposition to the view that John sometimes permits a 
speech of Jesus to shade off into theological expatiations of his own, instances 
to the contrary may be cited. John iii. 19-21 is a fitting conclusion of 
the address to Nicodemus, who was still afraid of the light (iii, 2, xix. 39, 
νυκτός). In John v. 2 the relation is manifest between the place (Bethesda) 
and the character of action which suggested the discourse (vol. i. 28, n 15). 
There is no discourse where it is difficult to imagine the source of John’s 
information. If the gradual acceptance of the gospel by Nicodemus, which 
John describes, terminated, as it undoubtedly did, in his reception into the 
membership of the Chureh, John could have learned from him what he 
recalls in iii. 1-21, vil. 45-52, xi. 47-50. The contents of iv. 7-26 were 
probably repeated more than once by the Samaritan woman, and John had 
abundant opportunity both at the time (iv. 40) and later (Acts viii. 25) to 
hear her tell it on the spot. 


§ 70. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Both of the smaller writings which have come down 
to us under the name of John bear the stamp of genuine 
Epistles, in spite of the fact that the author calls himself 
simply “the Elder”; but the larger writing, which we 
are aceustomed to call 1 John, lacks almost all the 
elements that constitute that form of composition. Not 
only is the greeting wanting, as in Hebrews, but in the 
course of the letter, and notably at the close, there is an 
absence of all that otherwise marks Hebrews as an Epistle. 
In this respect it is comparable rather to James, which, 
however, is introduced as an Epistle by its opening 
greeting. That 1 John has not lost its epistolary form 
by accident or design, is proved by the opening words 
(i. 1-4); as is the case in Hebrews in so far as its 
beginning might give occasion for a similar suspicion. 
Even after a greeting supposedly lost, an Epistle could 
not begin with such phrases as 1 John presents to us 
(vol. ii, 312f). On the other hand, it does not repre- 
sent a speech put into writing before or after delivery ; 
for the author indicates everywhere throughout the docu- 
ment (i. 4, and twelve times from ii, 1 onwards) that 


356 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


writing is the form of the communication he is making 
Only once does he allow a λέγω (v. 16) to intrude in place 
of ypabw—a change which Paul often makes. 1 John is 
then, like James, —except that it lacks the form of a 
pastoral Epistle which is peculiar to the latter,—a written 
address to a circle of Christians, all, or the majority of 
whom, live at a distance from the author. Furthermore, 
inasmuch as there is wanting in this Epistle, just as in 
James, and even to a greater degree than in the latter 
Epistle, all regard for special, personal, or locally con- 
ditioned relations between the author and the readers, 
there can be no doubt that a somewhat large cirele of 
congregations—as, é.g., the Christians of a district or of a 
province—are here addressed. The warning against idols, 
v. 21, which, as the last word of the writing, leaves all 
the deeper impression, indicates that these Churches have 
grown up on heathen soil. If we may trust the tradition 
and the first impression made by the comparison of 
1 John with the Gospel of John, which would lead us 
to suppose that both writings have the apostle John for 
their author, we may assert even upon this basis that the 
author in this address has to do with the Churches of the 
province of Asia. The author who does not find it neces- 
sary to introduce himself personally to the readers—for 
i. 1-4, in which he does not speak of himself alone, is not 
a substitute for the introduction—possesses the authority 
of a father among them. Although he uses the name of 
“brother” often enough, he employs it only once in 
addressing the readers (iii. 13). On the contrary, he 
addresses them seven times as texvia, and twice as παιδέα, 
with which ἀγαπητοί, occurring six times, is almost equiva- 
lent, because of the frequent combining of ἀγαπητός with 
υἱός or τέκνον (n. 1). Despite the differentiation between 
old and young in their company, which occurs twice, he 
admonishes them all as a father would his children. Such 
language befits only an old man. This seems so much the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 357 


more certain when one notices that this fatherly relation 
is not such as would be based upon the fact that the writer 
was the missionary who had instituted their religion among 
them (ef. 1 Cor. iv. 14-17 ; 1 Tim. i. 2, 18; 2 Tim. iz. 1; 
1 Pet. v. 13). He declares repeatedly and emphatically 
that he has nothing new in the way of doctrine or ex- 
hortation to offer them, but only that which they have 
heard and adopted from the very beginning (ii. 7, 18, 
20f., 24, 27, 1. 11). Im none of these passages is there, 
however, any hint that the author had taken a personal 
part in this original evangelisation and fundamental in- 
struction of the readers; ef. per contra 2 Pet. i. 16; 
1 Cor. xy. 1; Gal. i. 8f. If, therefore, despite this, he 
adopts toward the readers the attitude of paternal 
authority, he must have been active in these com- 
‘munities for a considerable period of time, as a teacher 
and a leader, though they had been founded by another. 
But this is not true of him alone. Since he per- 
sistently uses “I” when he speaks of himself as the 
author of this writing, it is clear that the “ we ”— where 
it is not used as a general term for all Christians—(i. 6-10, 
111. 1 1, 14-16), comprehends, besides the author, a number 
of persons who, in distinction from the readers, share in 
some way the author’s position (i. 1-5, iv. 6, 14, 16). 
What they possess in common is, first of all, the fact that 
they have heard with their ears, seen with their eyes, and 
touched with their hands, the Son of God, sent by Him to 
be the Saviour of the world—the life which had existed 
from eternity, but which had been revealed in this 
historical personage—the personal Word of ‘a (above, 
p. 329, n. 6) in all its manifestations (i. 1, 8, 5, iv. 14). 
In words which cannot fail to remind us of John i ag 
14-16, vi. 68 ἢ, the author reckons himself as one of the 
personal disciples of Jesus. But with this experience is 
given the commission to preach and bear witness regard- 
ing what he has seen, heard, and experienced, to those 


358 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


who have not enjoyed such an advantage (i. 2, iv. 6, 14: 
ef. John xv. 27). Even if this preaching (i 2f, 5) is 
spoken of as directed toward the readers, the absence of 
an ὑμῖν in iv. 14 reminds us of the evident fact that the 
mission of the disciples of Jesus to testify to others of the 
revelation of the eternal life in Jesus, which they had 
experienced, was not limited to the circle of readers of 
1 John. More than this, it is very emphatically stated 
ini 3 that John and those whom he includes with him- 
self, announce to the readers (καὶ ὑμῖν) also, what they 
have seen and heard (n. 2). In other words, what they 
here proclaim they announce or have announced to others. 
The purpose of the proclamation is that the hearers may 
be in fellowship with the preachers, which is at the same 
time fellowship with the Father and with Jesus Christ. 
Inasmuch, however, as this purpose, 88. regards the 
readers, is expressed by the words ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς κοινωνίαν 
ἔχητε μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, it is thereby stated that John and the 
other. disciples—with whom he here includes himself— 
have at some former time preached to others, outside their 
circle, and with the same purpose and success, what they 
have experienced in their intercourse with Jesus. | 

John speaks, then, in the name of several of the dis 
ciples of Jesus, who formerly in other places and in other 
communities pursued their calling as witnesses, and wh 
are now carrying it on among those congregations to whic 
1 John is directed. If we turn to history we shall fin 
that, from about’ the year 68, besides John several othe 
disciples of Jesus who had formally been at work i 
Palestine, had settled in the province of Asia. We car 
name with certainty Aristion and Philip ; but there isn 
lack of support for the assumption that still other member 
of the apostolic eirele—whether understood in the narrowe 
or wider sense—lived there for a more or less extende 
time (n. 3). Of himself and of these companions of his 
John says, “ And these things (which we have announce 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 3.50 


ard still announce to you as well as to others) we write, 
chat our joy may be made full.” It should be self-evident 
that this does not refer solely to the letter he is writing or 
solely to the Gospel he had written. That it does not 
refer to the letter is evident: (1) Because ‚John, as has 
been remarked, always speaks of himself as the author of 
this letter, in the singular only. The other disciples, who 
likewise live and preach in Asia, have not the smallest 
share in this letter. It is the address of John the 
individual, who assumes toward this eirele of readers the 
entirely unique position of a father. Whether it is his 
age, or apostolic dignity, or both which raises him above 
the other disciples in Asia, we cannot gather from the 
letter; but we may conclude that he probably did not 
share his peculiar position in the circle of readers with 
the companions mentioned in 1, 1-5, iv. 6, 14, 16. (2) 
In ver. 4, according to the genuine text (n. 2), no reference 
is made to any connection existing between this literary 
work and the present readers—a reference which could not 
possibly have been wanting at the place where the author 
would first have had in mind his authorship of the 
letter. Ver. 4 does not refer to the satisfying of some 
need of the readers (cf. per contra 11. 1, v. 13), but to the 
joy and satisfaction which it affords the eye-witnesses to 
set forth in writing what they have heralded by word of 
mouth. Similarly the reference in ver. 4 cannot be to the 
Gospel. This would not agree with the tense nor with 
the plural number of γράφομεν (cf. per contra, John xix. 
35, xxi. 24, above, p. 239). It is rather a statement 
without reference to time, embracing all of the literary 
work of the eye-witnesses, both past and future. This 
general statement refers, therefore, quite naturally to the 
writing in which it occurs, as well as to others. With 
these words the apostle expresses the joy with which he 
paw resorts to writing as a means of conveying to the 

“ his testimony to the “ Word of Life”—his message 


360 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to them upon many former occasions having been delivere} 
orally. It affords him pleasure to employ writing also as 
a means to the fulfilment of his mission. Whether he has 
employed it often before, either in letters to his present 
readers (n. 4) or to others, or in the composition of a 
Gospel, cannot be ascertained from this passage, since it 
does not refer to the writings of John alone. 

If he had at that time written the Gospel,—which is 
more likely than 1 John to have been the writing referred 
to by the object (ταῦτα) of ypadew,—or if he was then busy 
with its composition, or even with the project of its com- 
position, he must have had this also in mind; we do not 
know. But as far as the others are concerned, who like 
him not only testify, but also write, ver. 4, which does not 
speak of any connection between the γράφειν and the pre- 
sent readers, therefore does not compel us to think of the 
other writers as just these disciples in Asia. Further, the 
lack of any element of time in γράφομεν gives us no occasion 
to think solely of recent writings or of writings which are 
about to be made. From the literature which has come 
down to us we must exclude the Epistles of Paul, who was 
not an eye-witness, as well as the Epistle of James, which 
contains nothing of the object of γράφειν, as it is summed 
up in the ταῦτα of ver. 4. On the other hand, we must 
remember that Peter, the witness to the Passion and 
exaltation of Jesus (1 Pet. v. 1; 2 Pet. i. 16-18), toward 
the end of his life recognised it as his duty to supplement 
his oral testimony by writings of various kinds, and so to 
give his teaching permanent form. One of these letters 
has not come down to us. We do not know whether any 
further literary purpose which he may have had was ever 
realised (vol. ii. 200f.).. We learn of this same desire on 
the part of Jude, who wrote his Epistle after the year 70 
(vol. ii. 241 f.). Moreover, before this year the Apostle 
Matthew, and Mark, the disciple of Peter, had writt“ | 
their Gospels, and at the time John was living in ppnieste 


| 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 361 


both books were known in the Churches of the province of 
Asia. The close relation of Mark’s Gospel to Peter, which 
John discussed with his disciples, justifies our considering 
this Gospel also as part of the literature referred to, al- 
though Mark himself had been only in a very limited 
sense an eye-witness. Briefly, it is the Christian litera- 
ture which since the sixties had been in process of forma- 
tion and which had not yet reached completion, written 
directly and indirectly by the eye-witnesses of the gospel 
story, which John includes with his own written testimony, 
By this address John wishes to strengthen the readers as a 
whole in that Christianity which has been brought to them 
not by him, but by others before him. He wishes to 
write, not that they may believe, nor that their present 
belief may be strengthened (cf. John xix. 35, xx. 31), but 
that they may become thoroughly conscious of the posses- 
sion of eternal life, which they have as believers on the 
name of the Son of God (v. 13, ef. 1 Pet. v. 12). They 
have received forgiveness of sins and the anointing of the 
Holy Spirit (ii. 12, 20, 27); they have known the Son of 
God who is from the beginning ; and through the faith in 
Him which is common to all Christians, they have over- 
come the World and the Evil One in whose power the 
present transitory world is held (ii. 12-14, v. 4f., 18f.). 

From the very beginning they have heard the whole 
truth, which alone is the important thing for them to hold 
fast (ii. 7, 24, 27, i. 11). Moreover, as to the prediction 
of the end of the world, they need only to be reminded of 
what they have formerly heard (ii. 18); they all possess 
truth not recently received through the anointing (ii. 20f., 
27), but truth which they have always possessed (ii. 7, εἴχετε 
not ἔχετε), 1.6. before John became connected with them. 
But the old truth must again and continually be preached, 
and taken to heart, and its consequences followed out; and 
this is to be done in two ways: as regards morality, and 
as regards appreciation of the person of the Son of God. 


362 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


A superfieial survey gives one the impression that 1. 5, 
17 inclines toward the former, that ii. 18-iv. 6 leans at 
least predominantly toward the latter, and that iv. 7-v. 12 
or to v. 21 unites both lines of thought. But the division 
cannot be strictly carried out. Even in the first two 
divisions the ethical is inseparably connected with the 
religious. The demands for purity of life in God’s light, 
which includes the confession of sin (i. 5-10); for the 
observance of the commands of Jesus in emulating His 
holy life (1. 4-6, cf. 11. 3), especially for brotherly love 
(ii. 7-11, i. 11-18), as well as for the forsaking of the 
love of the world (ii. 15-17 ),—are everywhere derived from 
the highest truths of faith and religious experience. The 
one and only will of God, the fulfilment of which brings 
to man eternal life, embraces both: belief in the Son of 
God, and brotherly love according to the standard of the 
command of Jesus (ili. 23, cf. u. 7f., 17). Nevertheless, 
it must be recognised that the ethical admonitions are 
occasioned in a different way from the Christological state- 
ments. In the first section 1. 5-11. 17, in which the 
purpose assigned for the discussion is the very simple one, 
that the readers may not sin (ii. 1), there appear as 
occasions for the exhortation only the undeniable facts 
that the Christians also are still burdened with sin, and 
that they still live in a world which exercises a seductive 
influence upon those who live in it and in the flesh (i. 8- 
10, ii. 1b, 16). Even in the further injunctions as to 
moral requirements, i. 3f., 9-18, iv. 7-21, we meet 
everywhere only such motives for sinning as lie in the 
general depravity and weakness of human nature, and 
never a theoretical support of immorality, such as Paul— 
and Peter and Jude in a much more developed form—had 
to combat (vol. ii. 279f.). The warning against being led 
into error (ili. 7), which oceurs only in a single: isolated 
instance among the ethical discussions, and in a later 
passage, points unquestionably to the fact that there were 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 363 


persons in the cirele of the readers who spoke as though 
one could be righteous without practising righteousness 
and avoiding sin. With an eye to such false teachers (ii. 
29-iii. 12), the contrast between the righteousness which 
has its origin in the righteous Jesus, and which has as its 
goal the future perfecting of the children of God in like- 
ness with the Son of God, and sin, which is rebellion 
against God’s law, and which makes one a child of the 
Devil, is described as an unreconcilable antagonism, ex- 
tending from Cain and Abel down through human history. 
Perhaps one may here adduce the likewise isolated and 
exceedingly brief, but by reason of its position at the 
close, very effective warning in v. 21. Inasmuch as it is 
directed to the readers, who are here again tenderly 
addressed, and who in the whole letter appear in a very 
favourable light, it cannot mean that they are not to fall 
away to formal idol-worship, but that they are to avoid 
that dangerous approximation to the heathen cult against 
which the apostolic decree was directed (Acts xv. 20, 29, 
Xxl. 25, φυλάσσεσθαι), and against which Paul had so 
insistently warned (1 Cor. viil.—x., especially x. 14, vol. 
1. 296, n, 2). Living in a land where there was a high 
degree of culture (ii. 16) and a flourishing cultus (v. 21), 
the readers do not want for enticements, and there is no 
lack of Gentile Christians who take lightly the duty of 
keeping oneself unspotted from this world. | But. still 
there is no trace of any libertine theory. Neither is there 
any hint of a connection between the phenomena by which 
John felt himself led to his treatment of ethical matters, 
and those phenomena which led him to very definite, 
positive and negative statements in regard to the person 
of Jesus. The first section which has this purpose in view, 
ii. 18 ff.; closes formally at 11. 26, and is followed in ii. 27 1. 
by a peroration, by means of which the ethical section ii. 
29-1. 18 is separated from the first warning against the 
false teachers in ii. 18-26, just as it is separated by iii. 


364 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


18-24 from the second warning against the same false 
teachers. With these two portions directed against the 
same distortion of the picture of Christ, and the peculiar 
statements of 1 ‚John concerning Christ which are occa- 
sioned by them, we may without hesitation connect the 
evidently similar passages in 2 John. 

Many deceiving teachers have appeared who seek to 
lead the readers astray to their own doctrine (i. 26; 
2 John 7). They have gone forth from Christianity—not 
specifically from the circle of the present readers, which 
would in that case be stated in ii. 19. According to the 
opinion of John, however, they have not from the be- 
ginning, not even before they appeared with their 
peculiar teaching, belonged inwardly to Christianity. 
For him they are, as the Pharisaical Jewish Christians 
were to Paul, wevdaderdos from the very beginning (Gal. 
ii. 4; 2 Cor. xi. 26) people who, when they entered the 
Church, did not break completely and conscientiously with 
ideas and aims which proceed from their former religious 
condition. That became evident from the fact that they 
appeared with their peculiar teaching concerning Christ; 
and so perfectly evident did that become, that they could 
no longer remain in the Chureh. They are expelled from 
the Church (ii. 19), and that, too, against their will; the 
Asiatic Churches have overcome them (iv. 4). But in 
spite of this they themselves seek to exert their seductive 
influence upon these congregations, and to claim, as 
Christian brothers, friendship and hospitality in the 
houses of the members of the Church. On this account 
John demands that they be refused greeting and 
hospitality (2 John 10 f.). 

Their appearance is to him an omen of the approach- 
ing end; for they seem to him to be forerunners of the 
antichrist of whom Christian prophecy, based upon the 
prediction of Jesus, had warned men, and in this sense 
they themselves are antichrists (n. 5). Although they 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 365 


are called “ false prophets”—+.e. teachers inspired, with 
the spirit of the antichrist—and even “spirits” which 
are to be proved (iv. 1-3), there is nothing to lead one 
to suppose that they employ certain forms of address 
characteristic of the prophets, and base their claims upon 
visions or special revelations. It is sufficient for this 
characterisation, which occurs but once, to say that they 
preach their pseudo-Christian doctrine with the pretension 
of an, inspiration coming from God. The fundamental 
falsehood which they champion is said to be the denial 
of the proposition that Jesus is the Christ; and this is 
characterised as a denial of the Son (11. 22 ἢ, ν. 1, 5), 
which might in itself be said of every Jew or Gentile 
who rejects the fundamental article of Christian belief 
(John 1. 41-49, vi. 69, xx. 31). But inasmuch as it has 
to do with people who not only have belonged to the 
Christian Church but who also wish still to be accounted 
Christians, it is impossible that they have in every sense 
denied the identity of the person of Jesus with the idea 
of the Christ ; as also their designation as antichrists, and 
false prophets animated by the spirit of the antichrist, 
would be inappropriate if they had fallen away from the 
confession of the Christian faith to a simple negation and 
dispute of the same. Their doctrine is rather a distorted 
picture of Christian belief clad in its forms. What they 
deny is that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (iv. 2; 
2 John 7). They do not deny the idea of the Christ, 
nor the fact that the promised One came, but they deny 
Jesus, or, according to the evidently original reading, 
they resolve into its human and divine elements the 
historical person of Jesus (n. 6). They deny that the 
man Jesus is the Son of God (v. δ). In opposition to 
them, therefore, the author testifies that this man of 
history who went through water and blood, 1.6., who not 
only allowed Himself to be baptized, but dying, also shed 
His blood,—the Jesus of the gospel history and the Christ 


366 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of the Churches’ belief—is the Son of God (n. 7). In 
addition to the witness, which is in the baptism by water 
and in the bloody death of Jesus, there is the testimony 
of the Spirit—of that Spirit we may say, who before 
Jesus, in the Prophets, including the Baptist, had borne 
witness to Jesus as the Christ and Son of God; who came 
upon Jesus at His baptism, and who has passed over from 
Him, as the one baptizing with the Spirit, to His Church. 
The testimony of the Spirit, of the water, and of the 
Blood is a triple and yet single witness of God that He 
has, in Jesus, a man living in the body, sent His Son 
to the world, and in Him has given it life (v. 7-12). 
The matter here in dispute is not to be characterised by 
the one word “docetism.” The reality of the human 
person and of the human experiences of Jesus is not 
denied, but the complete identity of this Jesus with the 
Christ and the Son of God. Excessive emphasis was laid 
upon the baptism of Jesus, while the significance of the 
death of Jesus, on the contrary, was disparaged. One can 
hardly understand this otherwise than that the false 
teachers said that in the baptism of Jesus, the Christ 
and the Son of God had a part, in so far as He united 
Himself with Jesus at the time of and by means of the 
baptism ; but that in the death upon the cross He had no 
part, in so far as He separated Himself again from Jesus 
before that event. 

In the broader sense this doctrine was, to be sure, 
docetie; and it is with perfect propriety that John, in 
answer to it, testifies that the Christ, who is inseparable 
from Jesus, came in the flesh (iv. 2; 2 John 7); that he 
emphasises the redemptive power of the blood not so 
much of Jesus as of the Son of God (i. 7); that he teaches 
the recognition of the essential purpose of the sending of 
the Son of God in the propitiation for sin, which is to be 
conceived of only through the shedding of blood (iv. 10, 
ii. 2); and that he, at the very beginning of the Epistle, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 367 


i, 1-8, gives assurance with such incomparable energy, 
that the Man whom they perceived with their senses, 
with whom he and his companions were allowed to 
associate so intimately, was the revelation of the life 
which had existed with the Father from the beginning, 
He does not say, nor prove by means of reminiscences of 
isolated events in the gospel narrative, that Jesus was a 

man, perceptible to the senses, incarnate, revealing Him- 
self as human in all that He did and suffered; but with 
the still incontestible presupposition of that tinhe, when 
many disciples of Jesus were still living, that these things 
were true of Him, he bears witness that this man was the 
Son of God, sent as Redeemer of the world (iv. 14), the 
personal and incarnate manifestation of the eternal life 
(i. 2). From this standpoint the polemic and apologetic 
attitude of the Fourth Gospel becomes more intelligible 
(above, p. 321); not only to crass identification of the 
revelation accomplished through Jesus, with the incarnate, 
living man, but also the emphasis upon the reality of the 
death of Jesus and the shedding of His blood, of which 
John himself was one of the witnesses. 

When the false teachers laid excessive emphasis upon 
the baptism of Jesus, and when they admitted only at 
His baptism a temporary personal union of the Christ 
and Son of God with Jesus, Jesus the man was not, to 
them, specifically different from other persons through 
whom revelation was given; and it is at least conceivable 
that the Baptist, through whose mediation God first made 
Jesus the instrument of the Christ, occupied almost as 
high a place as Jesus Himself. How intelligible then 
does it become that the Fourth Gospel, with an unmis- 
takably polemical purpose, portrays the Baptist as the 
humble witness—vastly inferior to Jesus—of the coming 
Son of God, manifested in Him! If we look in the 
history of heresies for the original of the false doctrine 
depicted and contested by John, we shall find what we 


368 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


are seeking in the teaching of Cerinthus, the contem- 
porary of John of Ephesus, in so far at least as we free 
the true portrait of this teacher from the foreign additions 
by which the ignorance of the later writers on heresy 
have disfigured it (n. 8). The report that Cerinthus 
enjoyed an Egyptian education has nothing against it. 
If he came from that country to Ephesus, as Apollos did, 
the theory obtains new support from this parallel that a 
school of thought, connected with that of the Baptist, 
outside the Church from the very beginning, was formally 
received into the Church of the province of Asia, though 
it did not give up altogether its peculiar opinions (above, 
pp. 323, 331). In accordance with this theory is also the 
fact that the false teachers of 1 John had their origin 
probably in Christendom, though not in the Asiatic 
Church (i. 19, above, p. 364), so that the prophecy in 
Acts xx. 29, not that in Acts xx. 80, was fulfilled in their 
appearance. 

After all this evidence has been considered, there can 
be no doubt as to the answer to the question regarding 
the origin of 1 John. The unanimous tradition which 
attributed this writing to the author of the Fourth Gospel, 
is corroborated by an aflinity of thought, vocabulary, and 
style, such as can hardly ever be proved between an 
historical and a didactic writing of the same author, to 
say nothing of different authors (n. 9). If, without con- 
sidering the varied problems which John had to solve, 
it be claimed on the basis of certain differences, that both 
writings have merely issued from the same school, it is 
equivalent to treating these writings as impersonal works 
of art, or as school exereises. In 1 John it is not a school, 
nor the single member of a school, who speaks to these 
eager readers; but, as has been shown, it is a teacher of 
unimpeachable authority who addresses a somewhat large 
eirele of Gentile Christian Churches lying outside of 
Palestine. It is a personal disciple of Jesus who speaks 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 369 


here; one who has been active formerly as a Christian 
teacher in other regions, but who has had for a long time 
the position of a spiritual father in this new field of 
activity. He shares this career with several others, but 
so far surpasses them that he does not once find it 
necessary to allude to himself by name. Such a state of 
affairs existed, as far as we know, only in the province 
of Asia, and between about 68-100 A.D. At the same 
time, we find there also the false doctrine which 1 John 
combats (n. 10). There must be taken into account also 
the fact that a writing which was originally anonymous 
cannot be called pseudonymous. The author cannot have 
intended to pass for the apostle John, without being so 
in fact, for he does not employ the means which are 
customary and indispensable for such purposes. He is, 
therefore, in the light of this writing, the writer of the 
Fourth Gospel, the John of Ephesus, and the apostle of 
that name. As to whether he wrote the letter earlier or 
later than the Gospel, the present writer would hardly 
be able to decide. A direct reference to the Gospel would 
have been very natural, if ıt had been already written 
and delivered to the Church. The Epistle must certainly 
have been written earlier than Revelation. All that we 
learn from the latter—a book intended for the same 
circle of readers—as to the condition of the Church in its 
relation to heathenism and to the State, as to the internal 
condition of the Churches, and as to the Nicolaitans and 
other matters—could not have failed to leave a trace in 
such a detailed writing as 1 John. On the other hand, 
John must have been at work in Asia for years, to have 
been able to address the Churches there in such a manner. 
1 John can hardly have been written before the year 80. 


1. (P. 356.) The ἀδελφοί which appears in 11. 7 and iii. 13 is genuine only 
in the latter passage. The readers as a body are addressed as rervia either 
with or without pov in ii. 1, 28, iii. 7, 18, iv. 4, v. 21, unquestionably, also 
in ii. 12. The expression does not mean that the Christians so addressed are 
youthful, as distinguished from aged, members of the Church—as is clearly 

VOL. II. 24 


370 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


proyed by the fact that in this case the order, “children, old men, young men,* 
ver. 12 f., would be senseless. The same is true also of παιδία, ii. 14 (in some 
texts ver. 135), which in ii. 18 is certainly used to designate the readers as a 
body. Consequently the readers, who are alternately addressed as τεκνία 
(ii. 12) and as παιδία (ii. 14) (ef. John xiii. 33, xxi. 5), are twice divided into 
two classes, πατέρες and νεανίσκοι ; οἷ. πρεσβύτεροι and νεώτεροι, 1 Tim. 
v. 1f. 0 

2. (Pp. 358, 359.) The text of i. 1-4, in regard to which Tischendorf and 
Westeott-Hort agree, is not subject to improvement. The καί before ὑμῖν in 
ver. 3, removed in the Antioch recension, and the second καί, to which there is 
no serious objection, are attested by the Passio Perp. chap. i. The double καί 
is not pleonastie ; in which case we should have it also in ver. 2 and ver, 5. 
Moreover, the relation between the disciples and the readers is already so 
strongly expressed by the conception κοινωνία pe? ἡμῶν that the double 
καί, still deemed necessary, must be explained by a contrast between the 
readers and other groups of Christians ; ef. Eph. vi. 21, vol. i. 490,n.6. The 
variations of ver. 4 from the original text are due, for the most part, to the 
feeling that this must refer to the composition of the Fourth Gospel. There- 
fore the reading ἐγράψαμεν is presupposed in the Acts of Peter (above, p. 250), 
Jan. Mur. line 31, and some MSS. of the Vulgate. More widely diffused is 
the reading ὑμῖν instead of ἡμεῖς (so as early as the Canon. Mur.), and ὑμῶν 
instead of ἡμῶν. Not only are ἡμεῖς and ἡμῶν better attested, but they are 
also favoured by the fact that these readings could not have been easily 
invented. Since ὑμῖν is spurious, ἡμῶν cannot as in 2 John 12, assuming 
that it is genuine in the latter passage, include the readers with the author 
and his companions. The reading ἡμεῖς, which is peculiar both in itself and 
because of its position (cf. iv. 14, 16), refers back to the group of eye-witnesses 
previously mentioned. 

3. (P. 358.) In regard to John and the other disciples in Asia Minor, see 
vol. ii. 435, 451 f., above, pp. 191f., 193f. In 1 John i. 1-4 the reference 
is not to apostles but, to disciples of Jesus, There is nothing which prevents 
us from including Aristion and other μαθηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου. Even Philip of 
Hierapolis is not to be excluded. This Philip, who, because of his pro- 
phetically endowed daughters, who likewise resided in Asia Minor, is held in 
Eus. (H. E. iii. 31) to be the evangelist Philip, might the more easily be 
confounded with the apostle of the same name—as is done by Polycrates 
about 195 (Kus. H. E. v. 24. 2)—if he had been a personal diseiple of Jesus. 
Nothing which makes this impossible is suggested in Acts vi. 5, viii. 4-40, 
xxi, 8f. Of. Forsch. vi. 158-175. Whether Andrew, also, was temporarily 
in Asia Minor is more uncertain. Regarding Andrew and Aristion, see 
Forsch. vi. 217-224. The present writer thinks that in Forsch. vi. 187 f., ef. 
S. 177, 183, he has paid sufficient attention to the attempts to refer 1 John i. 
1-4, iv. 14-16 to the mystical contemplation of an epigone, instead of to an 
experience of the senses on the part of a life companion of Jesus. a 

4. (P, 360.) The word ἔγραψα, which is thrice repeated in ii, 14, is not 
equivalent to γράφω as used in letters; because we find γράφω used in ii. 
1, 7, 8, 12, 13 with reference to what is to be written immediately following. 
Neither does it refer to a previous letter ; for in that case first of all ver. 14 
would have to precede ver. 12 and a contrast indicated between the present 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 371 


letter and the earlier one by means of a νῦν, ἄρτι, πάλιν (cf. Gal. i. 9 where 
the antithesis is to earlier oral statements), or Τὸ δεύτερον (ef. 2 Cor. xiii. 1 f.; 
2 Pet. iii. 1). Secondly, the object of the ἔγραψα is practically the same as the 
object of γράφω in ver. 12f. Consequently ἔγραψα is to be taken here, as in 
ii. 21, 26, v. 13, as an aorist referring to what immediately precedes (cf. 
3 John 9). John is fond of repetition, but likes at the same time to vary 
his language. Paul expresses himself more tersely, cf. Phil. iv. 4. 

5. (P. 364.) In 1 John ii. 18 the idea that an antichrist will come is 
presupposed as part of the common Christian teaching familiar to the 
readers, in fact we have already seen that such an idea was actually part of 
the common Christian faith (vol. i. 226 ff.). Only at the time when 2 Thess. 
was written the name ἀντίχριστος does not seem to have been as yet in 
common use. Neither is it strange that the readers had heard of a spirit of 
antichrist yet to come, iv. 3, 6; because it was predieted that he would 
appear in the full glory of pseudo-prophetic signs and wonders, 2 Thess. 
ii. 9f. Just as Paul saw the μυστήριον of the antichrist already at work in 
his time, so John saw the spirit of the same manifesting itself in his day 
(iv. 3, ἤδη ; ef. 2 Thess. ii. 7). In every teacher inspired by this spirit he 
perceives a preliminary incarnation of the future antichrist (ii. 18, 22, 
2 John 7). The relation of this preliminary to the complete manifestation 
is conceived of in the same manner as in John iv. 21-23, v.25. The first is 
not merely analogous to the second ; it is the beginning and indieation of it. 
Because there are many antichrists, John recognises that “it is the last 
hour,” naturally not in the general sense, in which the beginning of the end 
comes with the appearance of Christ (1 Pet. i. 20; 1 Cor. x. 11; Heb. i. 1), 
nor yet in the sense that “the last hour or the last day” has come (John 
xi. 24, xii. 48; Matt. xxiv. 36); but in the sense that the present, which is 
full of significant portends of the coming end, for this very reason partakes 
of the character of the end, cf. Jas. v. 3, 5, 8. 

6. (P. 365.) The text of iv. 3 has been very much corrected, which is 
proof that its original language was unusual. In the first place, it is certain 
that the correct reading is Ἰησοῦν without Χριστόν, which is frequently added 
(KL S! 55, Sah. Copt. Vulg., once also in a free quotation by Tert. ὦ 4). i.) or 
κύριον (X). Other readings are as follows: (A) 6 λύει Ἰησοῦν, so Iren. (Lat.) 
iii. 16. 8; according to the scholion of the Athos MS. ad loc. (von der Goltz, 
S. 48), also in the Greek text of Irevzus. In this same scholion it is stated 
that Cuement of Alexandria in his work on the Passover (Forsch. iii. 32), 
and ORIGEN in tom. 8 of his Commentary on Rom., quote the passage in this 
way. This is confirmed by Orig. (Lat.) in Matt. § 65, Delarue, iii. 883, cf, 
tom. xvi. 8 in Matt. p. 727, ob λύω τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (aceording to 
Cramer, Cat. v. 226 on 1 Cor. xii. 6, Origen, however, seems, moreover, to 
have known the B reading, which is found also in the text of the Athos MS.). 
Here belong also certain “ancient MSS.” referred to by Socrates, H. E. vii. 
32, who appeals at the same time to ancient interpreters ; also by TErTUL- 
LIAN (6. Mare. v. 16, negantes Christwm in carne venisse [according to 1 John 
iv. 2; 2John 7], et solventes Jeswm [according to iv. 3]; Je. 1: nec quod 
Jesum Christum solvant); Lucırer, ed. Vindob. 262. 3; PriscıLıan, p- 
31.3; Aveustine, Vulg. (+Christum) etc. (B) 6 μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν AB, 
with the added Χριστόν, Sahid. Copt. (C) The reading B with the addition 


372 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ev σαρκὶ eAnAvdöra, NKL 51 58, (D) The reading A with almost the same 
addition in Ticonius, Lib. Reg., ed. Burkitt, p. 68. 1, qui solvit Jesum et negat 
in carne venisse. (E) Quite as isolated is the reading in Cypr. Test. ii. 8, 
where simply qui autem negat in carne venisse is added as ver. 3 at the end of 
1 John iv. 2. Other very early witnesses, such as Polye. vii. 1; Tert. 
Carn. Chr. xxiv., refers rather to 2 John 7—a passage which Irenzeus, Pris- 
cillian, and others quote in connection with 1 John iv. 3, which also Tert. 
c. Mare. v. 16 freely quotes in connection with the same passage. Readings 
CDE are clearly derived from 2 John 7 under the influence of 1 John iv. 2. 
B likewise is only an “improvement” of the original A text. 

7. (P. 366.) In regard to the sentence v. 6a, which is interpreted in very 
different ways, the following remarks may be made: (1) The οὗτος which 
points backward can take up again only the predicate ὁ vids τοῦ θεοῦ, not the 
subject Ἰησοῦς in ver. 5, and is itself the predicate; otherwise ὁ ἐλθών 
instead of ἦλθεν and the appositional phrase "Inc. Xp., added at the end, are 
impossible. The expression is not smooth, but such language is often found 
in John (John vi. 50, 58, cf. 33). The name “the Son of God” is applicable 
to Him, who has gone through water and blood, namely, to Jesus Christ. 
(2) ὁ ἐλθών is not equivalent to ὁ ἐρχόμενος. It certainly, therefore, cannot 
refer to a repeated coming in the sacraments, or yet to the coming of Christ 
into the world, or to His public appearance. For, in the first place, in that 
case it would be necessary to refer to the flesh (cf. iv. 2; 2 John 7); and, in 
the second place, water and blood were not the medium through which Christ 
came into the world or entered upon His public work, nor were they associated 
with His coming or with His public manifestation (ef. 2 Cor. ii. 4, “I wrote 
unto you with many tears”). Still less does the passage mean that Christ thus 
equipped and clothed came into the world, in whichever sense this is taken. 
That would require ἐν not dua. The word ἔρχεσθαι means here, as it does else- 
where (vol. ii. 589, n. 4, also John iv. 30, vi. 17, xxi. 3), “to go” ; consequently 
with dua= διέρχεσθαι, “to go through.” Jesus underwent the baptism of blood 
as well as the baptism of water (Mark i. 9, x. 38 f.). On the strength of this 
statement John could add that Jesus the Christ is to be found not “in the 
water alone, but in the water and in the blood.” Whoever seeks Him and hopes 
to find Him in the water alone “ has not the Son,” and so is without the Father 
and without the life” (v. 12, ii. 23). | With reference to the so-called “Comma 
Joanneum ” about the three heavenly witnesses after 1 John v. 7, it is sufficient 
to refer to Tischendorf ad loc., Weste.-Hort, App. 103, and to Scrivener, Introd,* 
ii. 401-407, for the literature. But none of these authorities cite the earliest 
quotation of the passage which is certain and which can be definitely dated 
(circa 380), namely, that of Priscillian (p. 6) and the possibly contemporane- 
ous quotation in the Hxpositio Fidei Cathol. (in Caspari, Kirchenhistor. Anecd. 
S. 305), which quotation is apparently taken from the proselyte Isaac (alias 
Ambrosiaster). Nevertheless, on the 13th of January 1897, the Congr. 8. R. 
et U. Inquisitionis declared that denial or doubt of the authenticity of this 
passage was not unobjectionable; cf. the present writer’s lecture, Uber die 
bleibende Bedeutung des ntl. Kanons, 1898, S. 26. Conscientious Catholic 
theologians, however, have not allowed this declaration to prevent them 
from proving so much the more thoroughly the apocryphal origin of this 
interpolation. So especially Kiinstle, Das Comma Joannewm auf seine 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 373 


Herkunft untersucht, 1905, who seeks to show that Priscillian is the author 
of it. 

8. (P. 368.) Concerning the real teaching of Cerinthus, see vol. 1. 515, 
n. 4; concerning the opinion of the Alogi that Cerinthus was the author of 
the Johannine writings, see above, p. 200f. n. 11; for his personal relations 
to John, above, p. 204, n. 24. If he denied the possibility of the virgin con- 
ception and birth of Jesus (Iren. i. 26. 1), the fact throws a new light on 
John i. 13 f. (above, p. 265 f.). John’s references to Mark, which are partieu- 
larly evident, must also be considered in the light of the fact that Cerinthus 
admitted only this Gospel to be genuine (vol. ii. 456, n. 16). No trust- 
worthy witness charges Cerinthus with gross immorality or antinomian 
ethies, and this agrees with the tone of 1 and 2 John (above in the text, p. 
362f.). Not even 2 John 11 can be made to support such theories and 
practice on the part of heretics ; since τὰ ἔργα τὰ πονηρά is only a description 
of their moral attitude as a whole, and their conduct as tending to mislead 
the children of God; ef. John 111. 19, vii. 7; 1 John iii. 12; 3 John 10. 
But it is evident that John failed to discover in them the true love of God 
and of their brethren. The πολλοί in 1 John ii. 18, iv. 1; 2 John 7 does 
not refer to a number of different types of errorists, but to the strong follow- 
ing secured by one type of them. The reason why their teaching found 
acceptance, is their use of non-Christian ideas and forms of expression, 
1 John iv. 5. Cerinthus was learned in Egyptian wisdom and culture 
(Hipp. Ref. vii. 33, x. 21) ; he was a Gnostie. 

9. (P. 368.) Regarding the relation of 1 John to the Gospel of John, see 
Holtzmann, JbfPTh, 1881, S. 699 ; 1882, S. 128, 316, 460. In order to show 
the elose relationship between 1 John and the Gospel of John, it would be 
necessary to place beside nearly every sentence of 1 John two or three 
parallels from the Gospel. They agree, too, in not using certain conceptions, 
elsewhere widely current, such as εὐαγγέλιον (in the Johannine writings 
only in Rey. xiv. 6, and there not of preaching ; ἀγγελία is used instead in 
1 John i. 5, iii. 11), εὐαγγελίζεσθαι (neither word is found in James, Jude, 
and 2 Peter). That the resemblance between 1 John and the Gospel is not 
greater, only goes to confirm what is apparent from the Gospel itself, namely, 
that John in writing the Gospel was conscious of the difference between the 
language of Jesus and the understanding of the disciples at that time on the 
one hand, and the language and understanding of the Church on the other 
hand. He does not represent Jesus as using the name Logos, but himself 
employs it as a well-known phrase. Comparing 1 John i. 1 with John 1. 
1, 14, perhaps one can say that in the letter the conception of the Logos 
seems to be less fixed and the name less formal. There is nothing strange 
about the use of παράκλητος in 1 John ii. 1 to describe the relation of the 
exalted Jesus to God and to the Church (vol. i. 64f.) ; because in John xiv. 
16, Jesus represents Himself as having been heretofore the paraclete of the 
disciples. Not in every respect does He cease to be a paraclete because of 
His exaltation. But His Church, which remains on earth, needs for its. life 
in the world another Paraclete which will remain with it. Neither Jesus 
nor Paul mention the “antichrist ” by this name (above, n. 5). It is a mis- 
conception, however, to assume that the Fourth Gospel excludes the common 
eschatological views of the early Christians. To show this in detail would 


374 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


require a complete exposition of John iii. 17-19, iv. 21-23, v. 20-29, vi 
39, 44, 54, xi. 24-26, xii. 48, xiv.—xvi. 

10. (P. 369.) Of the heresies of the post-apostolic age none has nearly sc 
many points of contact with the errors which John opposes as the real teach- 
ing of Cerinthus, certainly not the Jewish docetism of Ignatius or the gnosis 
of Basilides. While in Cerinthus the cosmological speculations and the 
speculations based on the historical treatment of religion appear to be little 
developed, Basilides has a well developed system. Although Basilides may 
have laid a certain emphasis upon the baptism of Jesus (Clem. Hx. ὁ. Theodoto, 
16; Strom. i. 146), there is no evidence that his teaching on this point was the 
same‘as that of Cerinthus. The errorists of 1 John exhibit none of Basilides’ 
phantastie docetism (Iren. i. 24. 4) and loose morals (Iren. i, 24. 5 ; Clem. 
passim). Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the teachings of 
Basilides spread from Egypt to Asia Minor. 


§ 71. THE LESSER EPISTLES OF JOHN (N. 1). 


The Third Epistle of John is evidently a letter of 
recommendation which the author has given to some 
Christians who wish to journey from his place of residence 
to that of Gaius, the person addressed. Their purpose, 
however, is not to settle in this new place, but to continue 
their journey. They are commended to Gaius that he 
may show them hospitality and send them forward on 
their way (5-7, n. 2). Apparently, not long before the 
same brethren have experienced similar kindness from 
Gaius. The author expresses his pleasure and gratitude 
(n. 2) that these brethren, who had recently returned to 
his home, which seems also to have been their own, have 
borne witness not only to the genuineness of Gaius’ char- 
acter and manner of life, but also to his love; and have 
commended it before the assembled congregation (3-6). 
It is this same love which Gaius is again to show them. 
These brethren are not, however, persons who, as private 
individuals, live a restless, roving life; they are preachers 
of the gospel, or rather travelling missionaries. As such 
they receive no help from those outside the Church, and 
are therefore so much the more dependent upon the 
hospitality of fellow-Christians (7). Whoever entertains 
such persons co-operates in the spreading of Christian 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 375 


truth (8). This describes quite fully the occasion and 
purpose of the letter ; since what follows serves really to 
explain why the author addresses the communication to 
Gaius and not to someone else. This would require no 
justification if Gaius occupied an official position in the 
local Church, upon which rested the duty of caring for 
missionaries and other Christians passing through the 
place. But there is no hint of this. Gaius seems to be a 
member of a congregation, who is upon friendly terms 
with the author, and whose means, as in the case of his 
namesake at Corinth, enables him to practise hospitality 
upon an extraordinary scale (n. 3). Since, however, the 
exercise of such Church hospitality is the business of the 
congregation, and therefore the affair of its presiding 
officer (n. 3), it is most strange that the travellers are 
recommended to Gaius exclusively, instead of to the local 
Church or to Gaius as its leader, with the injunction to 
interest the remaining members of the congregation in the 
matter. It is this, however, which is explained in vv. 9 ff. 
To be sure, the author also wrote a letter to the consrega- 
tion to which Gaius belonged; but in this he could not 
and would not write what he writes to Gaius alone; for 
he could not be sure that his request would be granted 
(n. 4). Although we should expect him to have exhorted 
the congregation, either directly or through their leader, 
to entertain the missionaries,—especially since, apart from 
this, he had, at that time, to write to the congregation, 
and actually did write to them,—the remark about 
Diotrephes makes any such hypothesis impossible; for 
Diotrephes does not recognise the authority of the author 
and of the other disciples of Jesus (n. 5), who like him 
have come into the circle of the local Church. He will 
not be advised by them, and ventures even to make 
derogatory remarks about them. In fact, not satisfied 
with this, he refuses to receive the brethren recommended 
by the author— such as the travelling missionaries who 


376 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


are the bearers of the letter to Gaius; and not only 
forbids their reception by the members of the congrega- 
tion, who would have been inclined to receive them, but 
excludes from its membership such as do not submit te 
his orders. Diotrephes, consequently, possesses great 
power in the local Church, and exercises it in a direction 
hostile to the author, and directly opposed to the measures 
which he recommends. ‘The author is not at all inclined 
to allow Diotrephes to continue to do as he pleases. He 
plans, when next he visits the place where Diotrephes and 
Gaius reside, to bring to issue the evil conduct of the 
former (10, 14), and to do this before the assembled 
congregation ; for his purpose is not simply to remind 
Diotrephes of his duties, but rather to bring to their 
minds his evil words and deeds (10, ὑπομνῆσαι without 
αὐτόν; cf. 1 Tim. v. 20). Until such time, however, the 
author refrains from addressing letters of recommendation 
in behalf of journeying brethren to the congregation in 
which this imperious man rules, or to the man himself. 
The description of the conduct of Diotrephes, especially 
the ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει, presupposes that he occupies 
an official position, formally recognised even by those who 
do not agree with him, and one which even the author is 
bound to consider, and which enables him successfully 
to play the autocrat., The conclusion drawn from the 
description of him as ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν, that Diotrophes 
was only striving for the position of autocratic bishop, is 
shown from the facts adduced to be unjustified (n. 6). 
He already has this official position, and what he is 
accused of is simply that he employs it in an imperious 
and ruinous manner; that he is an ambitious hierarch who 
does not follow the precept of Jesus (Mark x. 44) and the 
example and exhortation of the apostles (1 Pet. v. 3; 
2 Cor. i. 24), being in addition an opponent of the author 
and of the other disciples of Jesus in that Church circle. 
This assertive and hostile attitude is not due merely to 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 377 


the fact that, as lord in his own house, he will not allow 
himself to be dietated to by these men in the affairs of 
his congregation. The insufficiency of such a theory is 
evident from the simple fact that it is unproved, and that 
it is unlikely that others of the apostolic circle besides 
the author occupied a similar superior ecclesiastical office 
in the Asiatic Church. His attitude is rather, like the 
instance in 1 John iv. 6, one of contradiction of the 
apostolic teaching (n. 5). The leader of this congregation 
is an enemy of the author and of his companions; but 
there are in the same place we know not how many 
persons such as Gaius, and perhaps also a certain Deme- 
trius (12), upon whom the author looks as his friends and 
to whom he sends greetings by name (15). That which 
distinguishes these persons from Diotrephes, however, is 
not merely a respectful friendship for the author or a 
greater measure of practical brotherly love for the Chris- 
tians travelling through their locality (6, 10, τοὺς βουλο- 
μένους); for the thing to which the missionaries bore 
witness upon their return from the home of Gaius, and 
that at which the author particularly expresses his 
pleasure, is that Gaius possesses the truth and walks 
therein (3, 4), which, according to 2 John 4ff., 1 John 
i. 7 ff., certainly cannot be taken to mean a theoretical 
orthodoxy, still less an active brotherly love alone. It is 
rather the firm adherence to the apostolic teaching which 
shows itself in life. That this is the testimony given of 
Gaius, distinguishing him from others (3, where σύ is not 
to be disregarded), shows clearly enough that Diotrephes is 
not attached to that truth, and that he is, principally on 
that account, unfriendly towards its advocates—i.e. to the 
author and the other disciples and missionaries recom- 
mended by him. It by no means follows that he was on 
this account a declared false teacher. The false teachers 
of 1 John were expelled from their congregations; not 
one of them could have been the leader of a loeal Church 


378 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


But one who refuses as decidedly as does Diotrephes to 
give ear to the apostolic wishes (ef. 1 John iv. 6), and 
who speaks so disrespectfully of those who communicate 
them (8 John 10), marks himself thereby a confederate of 
these errorists ; and it may be assumed that his rejection 
of the missionaries recommended by the author carries 
with it a suspicious toleration of the πλάνοι. In spite of 
the schism which divided the congregation, and the 
strained relations existing between Diotrephes and him- 
self, the author wrote a letter to the Church of which the 
former was the presiding officer (3 John 9). When, in 
consideration of the power of Diotrephes over the con- 
gregation, the author does not take up the subject of 
practical demands which call for immediate fulfilment, he 
surely does not contemplate giving up his position of 
authority over that local Church. He intends soon to 
assert it in person (10a), and he already manifests it 
in his letter. He has friends; there who at times are 
oppressed by Diotrephes (1, 105, 15), and he looks upon 
all the members of the congregation as his children, even 
if he is able to take pleasure only in those who walk in 
the truth (4). 

Fortunately we are not constrained to guess what 
the author wrote in the letter to the congregation, of 
Diotrephes, since we possess it in 2 John. According to 
3 John 9 (&ypaya te) it was brief in form,—in fact it is 
shorter than any other Epistle in the N.T. with the 
exception of 3 John. It is so exactly like 2 John in 
extent, that one must assume that the author used two 
pages of papyrus (χάρται, 2 John 12) of the same size for 
both these letters (n. 7). Furthermore, the stylistic form 
of both is so very similar, that, for this reason also, it 
cannot be doubted that both are from the hand of the 
same author, and were written at the same time (n. 7). 

In both of them the author expresses his hope of 
coming soon to those whom he is addressing, and, instead 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 379 


of the unsatisfactory epistolary communication, to speak 
to them face to face. In 2 John nothing is said about 
recommending travelling missionaries, just as there was 
nothing on this subject in the letter to the congregation 
mentioned in 8 John 9, if we interpret it rightly. But 
2 John is really directed to a local Church which the 
author addresses as a chosen mistress, as the mother of its 
members, wedded to the Lord Christ, and as a sister of the 
Church in the place where he is living, 1, 5, 13 (n. 8). 
We find here the same contrast which existed in the con- 
gregation of Gaius. The author found only a few children 
of the congregation to be walking in the truth (4). In 
fact, it must have happened that persons who did not 
hold the apostolic doctrine, but the same false doctrine 
that is combated in 1 John, received hospitality among 
the people, if we are to understand why the author so 
earnestly warns against the very thing which is con- 
demned in the first Epistle, and stigmatises even the 
friendly greeting of such persons as participation in their 
evil ways (10,11). "The author includes all the members 
of the congregation in sincere love; not because of their 
virtues, but because of his faith in the enduring truth, 
which in Christians is not easily destroyed (1 f.). He uses 
great moderation of expression when, instead of rebuking 
the others, he speaks of his special pleasure at the good 
behaviour of many of the members of the congregation (4). 
His appeal goes out to the whole congregation to hold fast 
to the ‘old command of love, to the old truth of Jesus 
Christ as come in the flesh, and to the doctrine of Christ 
Himself, and the warning not to lose, in their folly, the 
whole harvest of the labour of their Christian life (5-9; 
n. 9). ‘The danger in which this local congregation stood 
was great; but Diotrephes had not yet reached the point 
where he could hinder the reading of the letter before the 
assembled congregation. The author does not give the 
congregation up, but trusts, by means of both letters, to 


380 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


prepare the way for the discussion in which he hopes te 
contend with Diotrephes and to restore the congregation 
to the right and proper way of thinking. 

The author mentions by name neither himself nor the 
locality to which he is sending the letter by the hand of 
travelling missionaries; he characterises himself rather as 
“the Elder” (ὁ πρεσβύτερος) who has a right to consider as 
his children also the Christians of other parts of the pro- 
vince in which he lives (2 John 1; 3 John 1, 4). This is 
the name applied in the circle of his disciples to the John 
who lived in Ephesus (vol. 11. 435 ff., pp. 451fl. ; above, 
184f.). A man of letters who wished to pose as the 
apostle John, would have brought himself into the Epistle 
under the name and plain title of the latter. The apostle 
John could, thanks to his unique position in the Church of 
Asia, either neglect entirely the introduction of himself 
(1 John) or, in the case of real letters (2 and 3 John), 
select an appellation which had become current in daily 
life. Concerning the date of the composition of the 
Epistles only conjectures are possible. The disinclination 
to write (2 John 12; 3 John 13), which stands in such 
contrast to the pleasure which it gives him in 1 John 1. 4, 
may be due to the painful occasion which gave rise to the 
lesser Epistles, but may also be explained by the increasing 
age of the author, in which case the term ὁ πρεσβύτερος 
which he gives himself would be most appropriate. The 
aggravation of the internal factionalism of the congrega- 
tion, which is merely hinted at in 1 John iv. 6, may be 
due to the fact that 1 John is directed to the Churches of 
Asia, which on the whole were a source of satisfaction to 
the apostle ; while, on the other hand, the lesser Epistles 
refer to a local Church in which exceptionally critical con- 
ditions had developed. But a further development may 
have taken place. The abuse which Diotrephes made of 
his episcopal position seems to take for granted that this 
institution was not one which was entirely new. At the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 38i 


same time it is likely that 2 and 3 John were written 
several years later than 1 John. 


1. (P. 374.) Recent works on the subject are : Pog@er, Der 2 and 3 Brief 
des Apostels Jo. 1896; HARNACK, TU, xv. 3b, 1897, on Third John ; CHAPMAN, 
“The historical setting of the 2. and 3. epistles of St. John,” JThS, 1904, p. 
357 ff., 517 ff. Chapman infers from 3 John 7 that the strangers, who had been 
hospitably received by Gaius, had journeyed to the East from Rome, on account 
of the persecution of Nero. One of these was Demetrius (ver. 12), identical 
with Demas (Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 10), in whose home city, Thessalonica, 
Gaius was also resident; the same Gaius as the native of Corinth mentioned in 
Rom. xvi. 23, who, according to a tradition referred to by Origen, became the 
first bishop of Thessalonica. Therefore Diotrephes also lived in the same 
city ; and the letter, referred to in 3 John 9, but not extant to-day, was 
directed to that city. 2 John is subjected to similar caprices. 

2. (P. 374.) The reference to hospitality is given in ver. 5, καὶ τοῦτο ξένους; 
ver. 6, προπέμψεις refers to aid on the journey (vol. ii. 54, n. 4). For ἐχάρην 
λίαν in ver. 3, ef. Philem. 7; Phil. iv. 10; Polye. Phil. i. 1 ; vol. i. 456, n. 3. 
In ver. 3, ἀδελφῶν, which is without an article, might refer to other than the 
persons mentioned in ver. 5, except that in ver. 6 μαρτυρεῖν, which we find in 
6 as in ver. 3, is attributed to those who are now journeying to Gaius, only in 
ver. 6 the word has a more definite object. For ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος, οἷ. Rom. 
1. δ; for τὸ ὄνομα, which = the name of Christ, see Acts v. 41=ix. 16, xv. 26. 
In the Didache, xi. 3-6, we learn of the itinerant missionary preachers of a 
somewhat later period, called ἀπόστολοι (cf. also vol. i. 290 f., 302, 306). 

3. (P. 375.) This Gaius can hardly be identical with the Gaius of 
Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14; Rom. xvi. 23), nor with the Macedonian of the same 
name (Acts xix. 29), but perhaps he is the same as the Gaius of Derbe (Acts 
xx. 4; vol. i. 209, n. 2). This Gaius is referred to in Const. vii. 46, where he 
is represented as having been ordained by John as bishop of Pergamum, just 
as Demetrius, mentioned in 3 John 12, is made bishop of Philadelphia. 
That φιλοξενία was a duty everywhere incumbent upon the Christians is 
evidenced by 3 John 8; ef. Tit. iii, 14; 1 Tim. v. 10; Rom. xii. 13; Heb. 
xiii, 2; 1 Pet. iv.9; but because it was the duty of the Church, it was a 
special obligation on the part of those at the head of the Church (1 Tim. 
iii, 2; Tit.i.8; Herm. Sim. ix. 27; Just. Apol. i. 67). Letters of introduc- 
tion in the apostolic Church were always directed to the Church (Rom. xvi. 1; 
2 Cor. iii. 1, viii. 23 f.; Polye. ad Phil. xiv.). 

4, (P. 375.) The reading ἔγραψα ἄν instead of ri, ver. 9, is due either to 
the feeling that it is improper for an apostle to confess that he is powerless 
against the Church, or, less probably, if the reference to 2 John is denied, to 
the desire to avoid the necessity of assuming a lost letter. It is of itself quite 
conceivable that John should say that in a letter to the Church he had already 
made the same request and recommendation that he does in 3 John, knowing, 
however, that it was useless, because Diotrephes would use his influence against 
it. But (1) in that case we should have, instead of ri, rather περὶ τούτων, 
αὐτὸ τοῦτο, or some similar expression ; (2) it is hardly likely that John would 
have made his request of the Church when he knew that it would be refused 


382 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW ‘TESTAMENT 


because of the opposition of Diotrephes; (3) it is certain also.on other grounds 
that our 2 John is here meant, which says nothing concerning the introduction 
of travelling Christians. The situation, therefore, is rather that outlined 
above, pp. 374, 381. 

5. (P. 375.) Of course, after the constant use of the personal-pronoun “1” 
in the letter, the ἡμᾶς in vv. 9 and 10 cannot mean John alone, nor John and 
all who thought as he did, for the reason that the reference here is not to 
the hospitable reception of travelling brethren, as in ver. 105, but to the 
recognition of authority and respect for exhortations. Consequently the 
reference here, as in 1 John i. 1-4, iv. 6, 14, must be to John and the other 
eye-witnesses who were in the province ; above, p. 357 f. 

6. (P. 376.) The word $i\dmporos= English, ambitious (Artemia: ii. 32; 
Plut. Mor. 844 ἘΠ, does not mean one who is not yet πρῶτος, any more than 
φιλάργυρος means a poor man merely desirous of obtaining money (cf. 
φιλόλογος, φιλόσοφος, φιλότιμος, φιλόπονος, φιλόνεικος, φιλόξενος). It cam 
refer to persons of distinetion, ambitiously inclined, who lay undue weight 
upon their position as such and misuse it, as well as to those who are desirous 
of winning such a position for the first time (ef. Matt. xxiii. Ger = Mark xii, 38f.; 
Clem. Ep..ad Jac. ii. ἡ τοιαύτη καθέδρα (the bishop’s chair) οὐ φαρνάθεδ μεθ βξαδ 
τολμηροῦ χρείαν ἔχει, Iren. iv. 26. 3 speaks of presbyters, &.e. of holders of the 
πρωτοκαθεδρία (ef. Clem. Strom. vi. 106 1, ; Herm. Vis. iii. 9. 7), who con- 
twmelits agunt reliquos et principalis consessionis (πρωτοκαθεδρίας) tumore elati 
sunt; ef. 1 Tim. iii. 6. To this class belongs Diotrephes, although, according 
to 3 John 9-10, he is not, like the προηγούμενοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας in Rome in the 
time of Hermas (Joc. cit., and vol. ii. 124, n. 5), a member of the πρεσβυτέριον, 
but a ruler. What John may write to the Church is without effect save as 
Diotrephes allows it to be effective. He determines how travelling Christians 
shall be received. Those who do not submit to his will he excommunicates. 
If there were even moderate opposition on the part of other office-holders, or 
if there were co-operation between him and them, there would be some hint 
of it. Demetrius, who is mentioned in ver. 12, may be a presbyter who 
opposed Diotrephes—an assumption which possibly gets some support from 
the reading ἐκκλησίας instead of ἀληθείας, ver, 12 (see Gwynn, Hermathena, 
1890, p. 304). But in that case the official position of the presbyter, as over 
against the bishop, must have been very weak. Demetrius may also have 
been one of the missionaries (vv. 3-8), the leader of the company of travellers. 
John makes no attempt to weaken the oficial position of Diotrephes by 
defining the latter’s rights and the rights of others; he simply reproves 
Diotrephes’ opinions, words, and deeds on moral grounds. 

7. (P. 378.) According ‘to Nestle’s edition, 2 John consists of only 33 
lines, of which two contain only a few words, and two are not complete ; 
3 John likewise consists of 33 lines, of which six are incomplete. Counting 
the letters, and allowing 36 letters for the ancient line, gives for 2 John 32) 
lines, for 3 John not quite 31 lines; ef. GX, i. 76, ii. 397. The resemblance 
of style is closer than between Eph. and Col., or between 1 Tim. and Tit. 
Of. ὁ πρεσβύτερος (without a name)... obs (dv) ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ 
(2 John 1; 3 John 1), ἐχάρην lav... περιπατοῦντας ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καθώς 
(4 and 3), εἰργάσασθε (8 and 5) ; cf. especially 2 John 12, and 3 John 13-14, 

8. (Ὁ. 379.) It is true that Kupia does occur, although seldom, as a proper 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 381 


name, and is found in Asia Minor (ef. Sterrett, The Wolfe Exped. p. 138, 
No. 237 ; p. 389, No. 564; Epigraph. Journey, p. 167, No. 159), as does also 
Κύριος, which is found even in the Talmud, Jer. Shabbath, 7c; Beza, 61d ; 
ef. the Aramaic name Martha, with the meaning κυρία. Even if this render- 
ing were possible in 2 John 5, it is out of the question in ver. 1, where we 
should certainly expect Kupia τῇ ἐκλεκτῇ (cf. ver. 13; Rom. xvi. 13, cf. 8-10, 
and the entire list of names in this passage where similar epithets are used ; 
see also Ign. Smyrn. xiii. 2). Neither can κυρία be the title of a woman of 
rank ; because, in the first place, the early Christians by common consént 
refrained from the use of such titles (above, p. 81, n. 3); in the second place, 
while such a title might be used in address (ver. 5; ef. Phil. iv.3; 1 Tim. 
vi. 11), ina greeting it would have to stand in apposition to a proper name 
(1 Tim. i. 2; Philem. 1). While S* S° transeribe κυρία as a proper name, 
ἐκλεκτή is so taken by Clement of Alexandria. He seems to have discovered 
the same name in ver. 13 also, where he construed it in apposition to cov. 
On this basis he appears to have justified the identification of the woman 
addressed in 2 John as ’ExAe«xrn with the συνεκλεκτή of 1 Pet. v.13. In this 
way he makes her a Babylonian, and maintains that under existing political 
conditions she and her children, who are likewise addressed, were Parthians. 
In this way arose the mythical title or subscription to 2 John, πρὸς Πάρθους 
(misread παρθένους by the Latin translator of Clement). In the West this 
was transferred to 1 John, and even to all three of the Epistles (cf. Forsch. 
iii. 92, 99 1}}.Ψ The opinion that κυρία is a figurative name for a local 
church is not a new discovery (cf. Scholion of Matthei, pp. 153 and 242, 
where, however, the question as to whether the reference is to a man or 
to a church is left undecided); Jerome, Ep. exxiii. 12, Val.2 i. 909. Since 
1 Pet. was highly esteemed by the disciples of John in Asia, to which 
province the Epistle was directed, it is not unlikely that John was acquainted 
with it, and that 1 Pet. v.13 led him to personify the Church, and to employ 
the word ἐκλεκτός, which is very rarely used by him elsewhere (only in John 
i. 34, above, p. 284, n. 2, and Rev. xvii. 17). ‘The Church is not only the bride 
of Christ (John iii. 29; Rev. xxii. 14), but also His wife (Rev. xxi. 9; Eph. 
v. 22-32; cf. Rom. vii. 4), and what is true of the Church as a whole is 
applicable to the individual Church (2 Cor. xi. 2), only in this case the Church 
is not “the wife,” but a “ wife of the κύριος," so that κυρία stands without the 
article. The transfer of the name κύριος in its feminine form to the wife 
is not a customary Jewish, Greek, or Roman usage, but yet it finds a certain 
analogy in the use of the term Shulamite in Cant. vii. 1 [Eng. vi. 13], the choice 
of which word is, without prejudice to its original meaning, determined by 
its relation to Solomon. Neither does the interpretation of the word to mean 
an individual woman agree with the contents of the Epistle. If John wished 
to say that he had had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with some of 
this woman’s children while on a visit to their aunt (ver. 13), and of hearing 
that they were good Christians,—while in ver. 1 he assumes the same to be 
true of the woman’s other children, whom he did not know personally,—the 
language of ver. 4 is impossible. This is practically Poggel’s position (work 
cited n. 1), 8.137 ff. Moreover, the greeting in ver. 3, the apostolic fulness 
and solemnity of which are in strong contrast to the almost secular tone of 
3 John 2 (vol. i.78,n. 2; 119, n. 7), shows that it is not a friendly family 


384 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which is here addressed, but a Church in which there was much to be desired 
in the way of grace, compassion, peace, love, and truth. 

9. (P. 379.) It is assumed that eipyaracde (Iren. iii. 16.8; Lucifer, p. 
29; NA S? S®) is the correct reading in 2 John 8. The recollection of such 
passages as 1 Thess. iii. 5; Gal. iv. 11; Phil. ii. 16, caused the correction to 
eipyaraneda (B Sah. Vulg. Cop. margin of S*, «.e. Egyptian texts), in con- 
formity to which were written ἀπολέσωμεν and ἀπολάβωμεν (KLP, 1:6. 
Antiochian texts), whereas, as a matter of fact, John vi. 27-29, 1 Thess. 
i. 3, are a close analogy. 


§ 72. THE NATURE, STRUCTURE, AND UNITY OF 
REVELATION. 


The book which we are accustomed to call the Revelation 
of John after its author, who speaks of himself repeatedly 
by name (i. 1, 4, 9, xxi. 8), styles itself the revelation of 
Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to impart to His 
servants, announcing through it prophetically what must 
shortly come to pass. In carrying out this divine com- 
mission, Jesus, through His angel, imparted the revelation 
given Him to His servant John, who committed to writing 
all that it had been given him to see, and so presented, in 
his book, the word of God and the testimony of Christ 
(i. 1-2, ἢ. 1); for in the last analysis it is God who speaks 
to John, and Christ who testifies to him. 

The decision to put into writing the revelation which 
he had received, and to send it to seven Churches of Asia, 
was not his own ; it was the execution of a task repeatedly 
imposed upon him in the vision, both as regards the whole 
of what he had seen, and in respect of its separate parts 
(111519; ii ὃς B,-etelye xive' 18) xix9,oxxi6, ROY: 
Only once is he forbidden to write down a communication 
made to him (x. 4). The condition in which he represents 
himself when he saw and heard that which goes to make 
up the contents of his book is described as one of ecstasy, 
and his seeing and hearing as that of a vision (1. 10, iv. 2, 
n. 1). On the other hand, when the revelation comes to 
him through an angel, even when the appearance is not a 
visible and audible one (i. 1, xxii. 6, 8, 16, ἃ. 1), the author 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 385 


will have us understand that the ecstatic state and all the 
events therein experienced and impressions therein received 
are the direet results of the influence upon his nature, of 
this heavenly messenger. It is upon this origin of the 
book and its contents that the author bases the conscious- 
ness that in it he has, as a human witness (1. 2; cf. xxii. 
8, 18), presented the word of God and the testimony of 
Christ ; and thus has the right to call his work a revelation 
(i. 1) and a word and book of prophecy (i. 3, xxii. 7, 10, 
18, 19). It is but another way of expressing the same 
thing when this communication to John, and through him 
to different persons and Churches, is said to be the word of 
the Spirit to those for whom the book is intended (ii. 7, 
11, 17, 29; in. 6; 13, 225 ef. xxi. 16f.); for even the re- 
cording of the revelation, bidden as he is to make it, is a 
προφητεύειν (x. 11), and what the prophet speaks or writes 
is everywhere a declaration of the Spirit (Acts xxi. 11, 
1 Tim. iv. 1; 1 Thess. v. 19 f., n. 2). 

The Revelation of John consequently takes its place as 
a part of Christian prophecy, which, as a source of know- 
ledge, edification, and action, was such a powerful and 
highly esteemed manifestation of the Spirit in the time of 
the apostles. Revelation is distinguished from the other 
products of this Christian prophecy merely in the fact 
that it is a written record of revelation received ; whereas 
the prophets, so far as we know, had up to this time 
contented themselves with oral utterance. In this Reve- 
lation becomes a continuation of the writings of the 
O.T. prophets (n. 2). An understanding of the contents, 
origin, and value of Revelation, indeed even of the mean- 
ing of many individual passages, and of the nature of 
the book itself, is impossible until one has at least stated 
clearly the question with what right the author speaks thus 
of himself and of his book, and has answered it with the 
candour which is indispensable in scientific thinking. [Ὁ 


is a misuse of language to speak of the author of the book 
VOL. III. 25 


386 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


as the “ Seer,” and to hold at the same time that he saw 
nothing but some books lying about him within the light 
of his study lamp; while it is a violation of the laws of 
historical criticism to assume that the author himself was 
as confused in regard to the origin of the pictures repre- 
sented as his visions, as are many scholars who seek to 
explain them. His statements mentioned just above leave 
nothing to be desired in the way of clearness; and the 
claim which he makes for his rendering of the revelations 
received (i. 2 f., xxii. 18 f.) bears no evidence of uncertainty. 
When, as author of the book, he represented himself to be 
a witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus, 
he must have known as well as Paul, as a preacher, that 
there are false witnesses, who report as facts things which 
have never occurred (1 Cor. xv. 15). He protests the 
same horror at all lying (xxi. 27, xxi. 15; cf. xiv. 5) as 
the John of the Gospel and of the Epistles. In declaring 
his book to be prophetic—ranking himself thus on the one 
hand with the prophets of the O.T., and on the other with 
those of the apostolic age—he does not claim absolute 
infallibility ; for the prophets of the apostolic age had to 
subject themselves to the criticism of their fellow-Christians, 
and were under necessity of being cautioned against un- 
natural excitement, and the infusion of their own thoughts 
and desires into what was given them by the Spirit (n. 2). 
But there is no doubt that, in so estimating himself and 
his book, he assures us of the absence of any conscious 
admixture of this sort. On the other hand, every Christian 
prophet of that time must have been conscious of the con- 
trast between the true and the false prophets who appeared 
among them, especially one who was acquainted with such 
persons in his immediate neighbourhood (Rev. ii, 20 ; 1 John 
iv. 1, cf. Matt. vii. 15-23, xxiv. 11, 24; Luke vi! 26; 
2 Pet. ü. 1; Rey. xix. 20). These are, without exception, 
depicted as immoral men, and in some cases as preachers 
of false doctrine. But the idea of false prophets involves 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 387 


neither immorality nor false teaching (n. 2, end); it is 
rather the pretending to be a prophet and to have received 
divine revelation without this really having been the case 
(Rev. ii. 20; Jer. xiv. 14; Deut. xviii. 20-22). They are 
to be known by their fruits in life and in doctrine ; but to 
these fruits belongs, first of all, the sincerity of their state- 
ments as to the origin of their preaching. In the case of 
the early Christian, there can be no suspicion of confusion 
in regard to these elemental truths. From the name 
ἀποκάλυψις, a title never borne by any writing before the 
time of Revelation, has been divined the idea of an 
“apocalyptic literature.” The determining features of 
this class of writing (n. 3) are secured, however, not from 
the specific peculiarities of the Revelation of John, but 
from certain formal similarities between it and the Book 
of Enoch, the Book of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book 
of Jubilees, IV Ezra, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the 
Sibylline Oracles, the Ascension of Moses, and the 
Ascension of Isaiah. Even if one considers the Book of 
Daniel, the first specimen of the “ apocalyptic literature,” 
on the assumption that it was composed about 168 B.c., 
common sense and an uncorrupted taste rebel at placing in 
the same literary group the Revelation of John, although 
it be the one from which the group has been named. A 
presentation of the world’s historical development in the 
form of prophecy purporting to be of an earlier date, if 
it occurs at all in Revelation, is an entirely subordinate 
feature of the book. 

As far as the pseudonymy is concerned, which consti- 
tutes the very essence of this literature, who can compare 
the name of Enoch or Moses, or even Daniel, Baruch, or 
Ezra, with that of John! The writers of these books 
transported themselves hundreds and thousands of years 
into the past, clothed themselves with the illustrious names 
of hoary antiquity, and then addressed themselves to the 
eredulous public of their own day, without even so much 


388 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


as fabricating a personal relationship to it. In Revelation. 
on the other hand, a man speaks to seven Churches of the 
province of Asia, and commits to them his book. He is 
accurately acquainted with their present condition (ὃ 73), 
and speaks to them under the name of John—a name 
which circa 70-100 was borne by the most prominent 
ecclesiastical personality in that region; and all this is 
done, according to tradition, circa 95, 1.6. at a time when 
the celebrated John of Ephesus was still living, and, by 
any conceivable hypothesis, at a time when the personal 
disciples of this John were yet alive. Although no intelli- 
gent person to-day believes that Enoch or Ezra wrote the 
books which bear their names, or that the daughter of 
Noah proclaimed the future in Homeric verses, but recog- 
nises the artificial character of such inventions, we have 
here to do with the product of the Christian Church in 
a time when visions, inspirations of different kinds and 
preaching based upon them, were part of the accepted 
order of the day. According to the testimony of Paul, 
the Book of Acts, and the literature of the Early Church, 
certain things, in spite of all the contemporary criticism, 
had maintained their character in the consciousness of the 
Church as a product of the prophetic spirit, independent 
of the personal desire and opinion of the speaker. He who 
has not the courage to characterise everything of this sort 
as artificial patchwork or pseudo-prophecy, has no right to 
treat a book, originating in that time and representing 
itself to be a book of prophecy based upon visionary 
experiences, as an artificial literary product, or a mixture 
of the effects of ecstatic states and the painstaking art of 
a man of letters at variance with the spirit of his time. 
Especially is this impossible when we consider that it was 
immediately recognised as contemporary and genuine by 
the Churches to which it was directed. To write a book 
on the basis of visions experienced is, of course, literary 
work which cannot be produced so mechanically as the 


~ 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 389 


impressions of a photographie plate. That the recording 
of the visions received may be a προφητεύειν (x. 11), the 
prophet who employs the medium of writing must, to the 
‘same degree as the one who speaks orally to the congrega- 
tion, reproduce vividly the apocalypsis which he has 
received. He must also have the prophetic spirit, which, 
however, does not, as in the state of ecstatic vision, raise 
his consciousness above the external world and limit his 
individual activity, but awakens and stimulates it to pro- 
phetic enthusiasm. But it does not follow from this that 
the book is an artificial product of the artist, which de- 
liberately deviates from the content of the vision which 
he has seen. It would in so doing lose the very claim 
which it makes. The book cannot be understood without 
taking the standpoint of the author and his first readers ; 
so that we must assume, if only for the sake of argument, 
that John in 1. 10-xxii. 16 is giving an account of visions 
which he has really experienced. 

Disregarding for the time being the extended title of 
the book, John gives it the form of an epistle to “the 
Seven Churches in Asia.” As in the apostolic Epistles, 
he begins with an address (i. 4—5a@), in which he speaks of 
himself and of the recipients of the letter in the third 
person ; but, like Paul and Peter, and in contrast to the 
antique epistolary style, drops into the direct address— 
using “you” and “we” (including “I”)— when he comes 
to the greeting itself. A doxology follows (vv. 5b-6 ; ef. 
Eph. 1. 3; 1 Pet. 1. 3), which is separated by an Amen 
from the next two sentences, that furnish a hint of the 
contents of the following writing. After this there comes 
an announcement of the return of Christ (ver. 7), given 
from the standpoint of the writer and strengthened by 
vai, ἀμήν, and an utterance of the almighty God (ver. 8). 
The Epistle in which John speaks of himself throughout 
in the first person (1. 9, xxi. 8, 18)—a form to be expected 
in letter-writing—begins at this point. The fact that— 


390 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


except for the words of Christ addressed to the individual 
Churches and their leaders (11. 1-11. 22)—the readers are 
not again addressed after i. 9 or in the closing greeting 
(n. 4), shows that the epistolary form, as in the case of 
many didactie and historical writings of that time (above, 
pp. 42, 81, n. 2, 223, ἢ. 1), is intended merely to express ina 
clear manner the fact that the account is especially designed 
for certain definite readers. But this casting of the whole 
book in the form of an epistle does not exclude the use of 
a book title, any more than in other literature; indeed, 
this would be more in accord with common custom. It 
was all the more natural not to leave the book without a 
title, since its epistolary form might cause it, after a single 
reading, to be laid aside. But the author is persuaded of 
the importance of its contents for the Churches. It takes 
its place beside the ‘‘ prophetical books” which the Church 
had inherited from Israel, as one of the same kind. It is 
to be to her an eternal possession, which she is to protect, 
as a sacred treasure, from every violation (xxu. 18 f.), and 
use diligently until the longed-for return of Christ (xxii. 
17, 20), 2.e. she is to make it accessible to her members 
by reading it in the meetings at public worship (1. 3; ef. 
2,7, 11, ete., xxü. 10, 17). Furthermore, the author is 
convinced that the contents of the book are designed and 
have significance not only for the seven Churches to which 
it is sent as an epistle, but for all the servants of God and 
of Christ (i. 1, xxi. 6)—for the whole of Christendom 
(xxü. 17), His Bride. 

The Churches to which the prophetic spirit speaks 
through this book (11. 7, 11, 17, 29, i. 6, 13, 22, xxii. 
16) are doubtless primarily the seven Churches of Asia; 
though its range of vision and purpose extend far beyond 
these to all the Churches (ii. 23), But just because the 
book was in the form of an epistle to the seven Churches, 
it was necessary by means of a formal book title to give 
expression to the fact that it was intended for the whole 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 391 


Church, and for reading at divine service. A little reflec- 
tion might have saved the writers of more recent literature 
on Revelation and their readers any surprise that the 
author, who in the body of the book speaks of himself in 
the first person, should employ the third person in the 
title (n. 5). There are also many things-difheult to under- 
stand which vanish when one bears in mind that the 
make-up of the book presupposes that all of the preceding 
visions have already been seen (n. 6), and by remembering 
that under normal conditions, especially in ancient times 
(above, p. 80, n. 1), the title is the part of the book last 
written, just as it is to-day the part last printed. Therefore 
the writer is looking backward in the title not only on the 
revelations received at an earlier time (vv. 1, 25, εἶδεν), 
but also upon his completed literary activity (ver. 2a, 
ἐμαρτύρησεν), and he pictures to himself the near future 
when the ἀναγνώστης will read the book before the as- 
sembled congregation (ver. 3). But even when he begins 
to put in writing the book opening with i. 4, the visions 
lie behind him, their content being present to his mind ; 
and his mode of expression acquires a definiteness which 
can be accounted for only by them. Since in 1. 11 seven 
local Churches lying in the province of Asia are designated 
by him as those to whom he is to send the completed 
book, and since, in the course of the first vision, he 
receives the commission to speak to each of the congrega- 
tions a special word, which, as a constituent part of the 
book directed to all seven of them, each will receive, read, 
and hear (n. 6), these seven Churches must have been 
definitely preseut in his mind from the start (i. 4). 

It is not the Churches of Asia which are here alluded 
to (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 1,19; Gal. 1. 2),—as though there were 
not in this province, even as early as the time of Paul, 
independent congregations at Colossee, Hierapolis, and 
Troas (Col. i. 1, ii. 1, iv. 13; Acts xx. 6ff.; 2 Cor. 1. 12; 
2 Tim. iv. 13),—but the seven Churches designated by the 


392 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


angel which are all to be found in Asia. The definiteness 
with which he also speaks in i. 4 of the seven spirits before 
the throne of God, where, on the analogy of 2 Cor. xiii. 
13, 1 Pet. i. 2, one would expect instead to find but one, 
is to be explained on the basis of the vision in which the 
Spirit revealed itself to John in the form of seven torches 
before the throne of God, and as the seven eyes of the 
lamb standing by it (iv. 5, v. 6). In Rev. 11. 17, xive' 1B; 
xxii. 17, however, it is the one spirit who is spoken of. 
One may characterise the definiteness of expression in 
i. 4, which is conditioned in this way, as literary awkward- 
ness; but at any rate it bears witness to the origin of the 
written account, in visions previously experienced. 

The division of the account into the two unequal parts 
i. 10-iii. 22 and iv. 1-xxii. 9, corresponds to .the division 
of the subject-matter of all the visions into that which 
already existed at the time of the revelation, and that 
which is to come to pass in the future (1. 19, n. 6). The 
first part represents a single vision. John is sojourning 
upon the island Patmos. It is the Lord’s Day. While 
the apostle is in an eestatie state, Christ reveals Himself 
to him, in priestly array, as the Lord who rules in His 
Church, and who judges it with the sword of His word, 
and during the whole vision continues to speak to the 
apostle who has fallen at His feet, and through him to 
the “angels” of the seven Churches. At the close there 
is no mention of the vanishing of the vision or of the 
cessation of the ecstasy; but both are presupposed in 
iv. 1f. 

The indefinite term pera ταῦτα, iv. 1 (ef. vii. 9, xv. 5; 
John v. 1, vi. 1), may denote hours and days quite as well 
as a very short intermission. As John tells nothing at all 
of the execution of the command to write out what he has 
seen, it is possible that in the intermission that occurred 
he may have proceeded with the writing down of the first 
vision, i. 10-1. 22. Aceording to iv. 2, John falls again 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 393 


into a trance, which presupposes that he had returned tc 
consciousness ; and the fact that the voice of the angel who 
shows him what he sees is said to be the same as that 
which spoke to him in 1. 10, enables us to recognise the 
beginning of another revelation, No feature of the picture 
which John had before him during the first vision passes 
over into the new one. When Christ appears later, it is 
in another form (v. 6, xix. 11), nor does He ever again 
speak with the apostle face to face (on xxii. 10-16, 20, 
see ἢ, 4). In the second vision (iv. 1-- 111. 1), which is 
interrupted toward the close by two episodes (vii. 1-8, 
9-17), John feels himself transported to heaven. and 
beholds the Creator and Ruler of the world (chap. iv.) 
sitting upon His throne adorned with the attributes of 
His might over the world, surrounded by the council of 
His spirits, and unceasingly praised by all the adoring 
creatures of heaven. Not until John has received the 
impression of this picture as a whole does he become 
conscious of a βιβλίον on the right of the Enthroned, 
which is written only within, and on the back close sealed 
with seven seals (v. 1, n. 7). When it becomes evident 
that in the whole circle of creation no one can be found 
who would be able by loosing the seals to open the βιβλίον 
and read the writing contained in it, John breaks out into 
loud weeping over the fact, but is comforted by one of the 
twenty-four elders who sit around the throne of God, and 
reminded him of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, who has 
won a victory by virtue of which He can break the seven 
seals and open the book. Only now does John observe in 
the vision a Lamb, standing in the midst of the throne, 
and bearing marks as though it had been slain. This 
Lamb, amidst the songs of praise from the spirits of 
heaven, and from all creatures, receives from the hand 
of God the βιβλίον, and breaks in succession its seven seals 
(vi. 1-viii. 1). 

The word βιβλίον itself permits of a great many inter- 


394 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


pretations, but for the readers of that time it was desig 
nated by the seven seals on its back beyond the possibility 
of mistake. Just as in Germany before the introduction 
of money-orders, every one knew that a letter sealed with 
five seals contained money, so the most simple member of 
the Asiatic Churches knew that a βιβλίον made fast with 
seven seals was a festament (n. 8). When the testator dies 
the testament is brought forward, and, when possible, 
opened in the presence of the seven witnesses who sealed 
it; 1.6. unsealed, read aloud, and executed. The making 
of a will assumes that the death of the testator lies in the 
future, while its opening and execution imply that his 
death has taken place. But, as is well known, the Chris- 
tians of earliest times, although mindful of the fact that 
God does not die (Heb. ix. 16f.) and that omne simile 
claudicat, do not hesitate to imagine the property sup- 
posed to belong to God, to His Son, and to His Church, 
and the entrance of the Church into possession of it, under 
the figure of inheritance (heritage and inheriting), and 
accordingly, to compare the assurance of these properties 
on God’s part with a testamentary disposition. Jesus 
Himself uses the figure (Luke xxi. 29, ef. Matt. v. 5, 
xxi. 38, xxv. 34; Mark xii. 7; Luke xx. 14), and all the 
N.T. writers (Gal. ii. 15-iv. 7; Rom. viii. 17 ff. ; Eph. 
i, 14, 18, v. 5; Coli a 12, m. 24; 1 Pet. ἈΠ Heb. 1 2, 
vi. 17, viii. 6, ix. 15 ff; Jas. 1. 5). So also here, the 
document fastened with seven seals is an easily understood 
symbol of the promise and assurance by God to His 
Church of the future βασιλεία. This irrevokable dispo- 
sition of God, similar to a man’s testamentary disposition 
of his goods, has long ago occurred, been documented and 
sealed, but not yet carried out. ‘The inheritance is still 
laid up in heaven (1 Pet. i. 4), and the testament there- 
fore not yet opened and executed. That its content has 
been proclaimed through the prophets, and through Jesus 
and the Spirit which rules in the Chureh (1 Cor. ii. 10), 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 395 


and has to a certain extent become known, does not destroy 
its resemblance to a sealed testament still waiting to be 
opened, any more than the oral communication of a human 
testator, concerning the content of his will, destroys the 
importance of the document and renders its opening 
unnecessary. Apart from the fact that the heritages 
promised to the Church are to exceed all previous human 
experience, imagination, and anticipation (1 Cor. ii. 7-9, 
xiii. 12; 1 John i. 2), and that not until they are 
delivered over will their true nature be disclosed (Rom. 
vill. 18), the point of comparison, since the promise of 
future glory and royal dominion is likened to a sealed 
will, lies not so much in the fact that no one knows the 
contents, as that they still await realisation. No one is 
authorised to open the testament and thereby to put into 
execution the will of God therein laid down, except the 
Lamb, who by dying gained the victory like a lion, and 
delivered the Church (v. 5, 9f.). The returning Christ 
will open the testament of God and execute it. The fact 
that a will is opened by breaking all the seven seals at one 
time, but that in the vision the seals are broken one after 
the other by the Lamb, and that the opening of each seal 
is accompanied by a vision (vi. 1-17, vii. 1), does not 
destroy the applicability of the symbolism. At the same 
time, the breaking of the seals of a testament is a eom- 
plicated act, which may be divided into seven operations, 
and which primarily prepares the way for its opening and 
execution. For this reason it is well adapted to show 
what, through the returned Christ, preparatory to τὲ must 
precede the final fulfilment of the promise. The visions 
which occur as the first six seals are opened naturally 
bear upon the contents of the still unopened testament 
in this way: (1) the word of God must take its victorious 
way through the world (vi. 2, cf. Matt. xxiv. 14); (2) 
bloody wars must come (ver. 3 f., cf. Matt. xxiv. 6; Mark 
xiil. 7); (3) times of scarcity (ver. 5f.); (4) plagues 


396 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


destroying part of the people (ver. 7 f., ef. Matt. xxiv. 7; 
Luke xxi. 11); then (5) bloody persecutions of the Church, 
the punishment for which is delayed (vv. 9-11, ef. Matt. 
xxiv. 9; Mark xii. 11-13); but at last (6) events in 
nature which are to convulse the world and fill earthly 
despots with terrible anticipation of the wrath of God and 
of the Lamb which is about to be outpoured upon them 
(vv. 12-17, ef. Matt. xxiv. 29f.; Luke xxi. 25, xxiii. 30). 
After the events which prepare the way for the end have 
thus led up almost to the day of the parousia, the opening 
of the seventh seal can bring only the parousia itself. 
But this is also to be seen from the figure of the testa- 
ment itself with its seven seals; for with the loosing of 
the seventh seal the testament is opened and will there- 
upon be executed. But instead of there being any 
description of this act or the statement that it has 
oceurred, a silence of about half an hour intervenes 
in heaven, where the apostle has been since iv. 1 
(viii. 1), and neither here nor in the further course of the 
narrative does there follow anything which can be taken 
to be the phenomena accompanying the opening of the 
seventh seal. 

When, therefore, in place of an apocalyptic deserip- 
tion of the opening of the testament—.e. the induction 
of the Church into the inheritance vouchsafed by God 
through Christ, the opener and executor of the will—this 
long silence occurs, it may be meant that not only is this 
act, which has been prepared for by the opening of the 
six seals, not to be described now or at all by word or 
picture, but also that this silence is a symbol of the 
condition which has thereby come upon the Church. God's 
people have entered into the Sabbath rest promised them 
(Heb. iv. 1-11). 

This was all the easier to understand, since both the 
inserted episodes (vii. 1-8, 9-17) answer the pressing 
question as to what the condition of the Church is to be 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 307 


during the world-eonvulsing events immediately preceding 
the parousia (vi. 12-17), which is naw described under 
the new figure of a devastating storm (vii. 1ff.). The 
first answer is that one hundred and forty-four thousand of 
the people of Israel will be kept from this world-disaster 
and saved out of the midst of it (vu. 3-8). But the 
further, question as to how it will be at that time with a 
much larger congregation collected from all the nations 
(vii. 9; cf. v. 9), is answered by the second episode: they 
are taken up into heaven, dying, from the final tribulation 
of the Church (a familiar idea, vii. 14; cf. Matt. xxiv. 
15-28) which was alluded to in i. 10 and vi. 116, and 
there enjoy the repose of the blessed. 

The impression that the silence in heaven, after the 
opening of the last seal, lasted about half an hour (viii 
1), could not but have constituted a sharp division 
for the apostle’s consciousness, before whose eyes the 
vision of iv. 1-vili. 1 must have passed in a much shorter 
time. With vill. 2-x1. 18 comes a third vision, which is 
interrupted before the seventh trumpet-blast by two 
episodes (x. 1-11, xi. 1-14), just as the second vision is 
interrupted by two episodes before the seventh seal is 
opened. In vii. 2 we do not hear, as in iv. 2, of another 
ecstasy. The scene of action and the place where the 
apostle is stationed remain the same as in iv. 2—viii. 1. 
Nothing follows, however, which can be made to connect 
with the opening and execution of the testament by the 
returning Christ; but a description begins here which 
refers back to a point preceding this time, and one which, 
as the reference to vu. 3 in ix. 4 shows, takes us back to 
a point immediately preceding the parousia. As a conse- 
quence of the first four trumpet-blasts (vill. 6-12), which 
are separated by ver. 13 from the three following, occur 
catastrophes in nature, which in each case affect one part 
of the earth only; while, as a result of the fifth and sixth 
trumpet-blasts, such judgments are pronounced as affect 


398 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


men themselves, without, however, moving them to re 
pentance (ix. 1-21} 

At the seventh blast of the trumpet, which is closely 
connected with the fifth and sixth by ix. 12, xi 14, in 
spite of their being separated by the episode in x. 1—xi. 14, 
there is again, as in the case of the opening of the seventh 
seal, no description of what happens; but we haye here 
expressed by the songs of praise in heaven, just as in the 
former case by the silence, what takes place when the 
seventh act is performed. God and Christ have begun 
their world rule (xi. 15): God is no longer the One 
who is to come in the future (xi. 17; ef. per contra i. 4, 
ὁ ἐρχόμενος), but the One who has come to’ judgement in 
order to punish enemies and to reward the godly. It is, 
in fact, the “last trump,” of which Christian propheey had 
already spoken elsewhere (1 Cor. xv. 52; 1 Thess. iv. 12). 
As announced beforehand in x. 7, and as we saw in viil. 1, 
the end has again been reached ; but it is not described. 

The first episode expresses the thought that the 
apostle is not to communicate to the Church (x. 4) every- 
thing which he sees, but that he shall later experience and 
preach to the Church more than formerly the judgments 
of God upon the nations (x. 8-11). 

Jerusalem, the once holy city, forms a contrast to the 
heathen ; in punishment for the crucifixion of Jesus, it 
has, like Sodom and Egypt, experienced judgments which 
have brought it nigh unto destruction (n. 9). By the 
chronological statement (ver. 26) we are transported into 
the time of the last calamity brought about by the anti- 
christ, made familiar by Dan. vu. 25, xii. 7, 11. This 
tribulation will extend even unto Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv. 
15-24), and at that very place will reach its culmination 
in the killing of the two prophets who are still to be a 
last protection to the Church; but a sacred area, and a 
congregation of the true worshippers of God remain, pro- 
tected from the antichrist (xi. lf; ef. vii. 3-8, ix. 4); and 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 395 


even the people of Jerusalem, who do not belong ta 
this congregation, will, after a severe judgment, repent 
(xi. 13). 

A fourth vision (xi, 19-xiv. 20) is introduced by a 
view of the Ark of the Covenant, set up in the Holy of 
Holies. The forms in which it is presented are borrowed 
from the O.T. sanctuary, but the expressions used show 
that the technical terms are not employed as familiar 
names for the objects themselves, but in accordance with 
the real meaning of the terms, and as symbols for higher 
things. It is the temple of God in heaven which is 
meant, in which there is no longer any barrier to shut out 
from view the holy of holies (Heb. vi. 19f., ix. 8-12); 
and what the apostle sees is the ark in which the διαθήκη 
of God is deposited: 1.6. no longer the long-vanished 
tables of the Law, but the documents of the eternally 
valid testament of God. The conception is similar to 
that of the sealed testament in v. 1, with but the differ- 
ence that in the former instance the expressions are 
borrowed from the heathen legal institutions, while here 
they are taken from the holy institutions of Israel. In 
the former instance the subject is that which God has 
promised to His Church collected from all nations, includ- 
ing Israel; in the latter case, that which He has promised 
His Church in so far as it is the continuation of the O.T. 
Church and realises its purpose in a believing Israel. 

The first readers of this must have understood the 
vision, ΧΙ. 19-xiv. 20, more easily than we; for this idea, 
which was already alluded to in the prophecy of Jesus, 
and which Paul had before him in developed form, could 
not have been strange to them; and they were well 
acquainted with the preaching of Christian propheey— 
drawn chiefly from the Book of Daniel—concerning the 
last battle of the rebellious power of the world with the 
Church, and concerning the antichrist (1 John ii. 18, 
above, p. 371, n. 5, also vol. i, 228 ff.) It is of a 


400 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


thoroughly eschatological character in the narrower sense 
of the term. The same is true according to xv. 1 and 
xvi. 17 (γέγονεν) of the fifth vision (xv. 1-xvi. 17), in 
which the last judgments, which are comparable to the 
plagues of Egypt, and which in vain call men to repent- 
ance, are represented in the form of seven angels who 
pour out vials full of the wrath of God. In the sath 
vision (xvii. 1—xvili. 24), introduced by xvi. 18-21, an 
incident already touched upon in xiv. 8, xvi. 19—the 
judgment upon Babylon, the metropolis of the antichrist 
—is depicted in a retrospective view of her history. The 
songs of praise, which are directly connected with this 
vision, glorify the fall of Babylon as the beginning of the 
kingly dominion of God and as a last event before the 
marriage of the Lamb, :.e., before the final union of Christ 
with the Church which is now prepared for it (xix. 1-8). 
In this will participate, however, according to the word of 
the directing angel (xix. 9, 10), not only those then living, 
but all who have ever obeyed the invitation to the wed- 
ding and have held fast the witness of Jesus. 

With this the seventh vision (xix. 11—xxi. 18) is intro- 
duced. Here is at last represented the event which was 
by intimation anticipated as far back as vill. 1 and again 
in xi. 15-18, and in xix. 7 announced as being in the 
immediate future. Jesus Himself comes upon the scene 
of action in order that, after overcoming antichrist and 
binding Satan, He may enter upon His kingly rule of a 
thousand years upon earth,—a reign in which there shall 
participate not only the congregation who live to witness 
His coming, but also those who remained true till death, 
and who on that day are to be brought to life. Not till 
the millennium has expired do the general judgement, the 
destruction of death, and the creation of a new world 
take place. In this new world there is also a new 
Jerusalem. It is this eity which is unveiled before the 
eyes of John in a last and eighth vision, xxi. 8—xxil. 5 (or 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 401 


-xxil. 15). However, it is not conceived of as a part of 
the new world, but, during the period of the kingly rule 
of Christ, as the glorified centre of a world not yet com- 
pleted, to be transformed into a new and eternal world 
(n. 10) when the kingly rule of Christ is over. With this 
the course of the story closes most appropriately ; for the 
longing of the Church is directed not to an endless eternity, 
but to the specific coming of Jesus into union with His 
Chureh, and to His royal reign, limited in time, but 
broadening out into eternity (xxi. 17, 20). 

The foregoing attempt to sketch the structure of 
Revelation was also intended to bring out the evident 
unity of the book, in spite of the lack of all literary art. 
It would have been labour in vain to attempt to refute 
the manifold hypotheses by which Revelation is represented 
to be a patchwork compiled from different writings, partly 
Jewish, partly Christian; inasmuch as this could be done 
convincingly only by means of a complete exegesis (n. 11). 
None of the inventors of such hypotheses has really come 
to satisfactory terms with the tradition concerning the 
origin of Revelation, which extends back to the circle of 
persons and to the times in which it was written. None 
of them seems once to have weighed earnestly the unde- 
niable fact without which the story of the book would 
become wholly inconceivable, namely, that the book, as 
was required by its own statement (i. 11), was delivered 
immediately after its completion to the Churches of Asia 
which stood in close personal relation to the author, was 
received there as a work of the John, who was well known 
to these Churches, and as a true account of visions which 
he had experienced; and as such was read before the 
assembled congregation. None of these scholars has 
supported his claim by an exposition of the book which 
would satisfy even the most modest claims. Several 
matters which ought to be corrected have been stated 
already ; others will be discussed in §§ 73-75. 


VOL. 11]. 26 


402 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


1. (P. 384.) Im no other writing of the N.T. are the difficulties of literary 
and historical investigation, unaided by a detailed commentary, so great as in 
Rev. The style of the book alone, apart from the peculiarities of its contents, 
makes it very difficult to understand—a fact which has called forth the most 
remarkable interpretations. As regards 1. 1-2, it is sufficient to observe that 
ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ κτλ. (cf. Matt. xi. 2) agrees in content with ἀπέστειλεν 
.. . δεῖξαι, xxii. 6; ἔπεμψα. . . μαρτυρῆσαι, xxii. 16, which also refers to 
the whole of Rev. with this difference, namely, that σημαίνειν refers more 
particularly to the prophecy of future events which follows in the form of 
allusions, images, and figurative language (John xii. 33, xviii. 32, xxi. 19; 
Acts xi. 28), while δεικνύναι means rather the disclosure to the prophet by the 
display of images of things invisible and future. For the idea of the revealing 
angel, ef. Zech. i. 9, iii. 1, iv. 1; Herm. Mand. procem. § 5; Sim. ix. 1, 1-3, 
and Zahn, Hirt des Hermas, 8. 274 ff. Through this angel, even without his 
becoming visible, John was enabled to hear and to see revelations (iv. 1). 
The reference in the latter verse to i, 10 shows that this is true of the first 
vision, i. 10-iii. 22, just as i. 1, xxii. 6, 8, 16 show it to be the case with all 
the visions of the book. Not until xvii. 1, xix. 9-10, xxi. 9-15, xxii. 1, 6-9 
does the revealing angel become visible to John and communicate with him. 
The fact that the latter presents himself as one of the seven angels with the 
vials of wrath in xv. 1-7, does not prevent John from conceiving of him as 
the angel through whom he received all his revelations. In the account of 
the impressions of his visions, John has no more intention of speaking dog- 
matically or statistically regarding the angelic personages than in i. 1 and 
xxii. 6 he implies that Jesus and God have only one angel at their command 
(ef. Acts xii. 11), or that by ἄγγελος without an article the evangelist would 
imply in Matt. i. 20, ii. 13, 19 that the angels which appeared to Joseph were 
in every case different. No special importance is to be attached to the fact 
that in i. 10f. John’s ecstasy is mentioned before anything is said about what 
he hears and sees through the angel, whereas in iv. 2 the ecstasy appears to 
be a result of the angel’s voice, since in iv. 1 John sees things which he could 
not have seen in a waking state. In iv. 1f. he reproduces accurately sensa- 
tions which he remembered, and which those who can claim no visions are 
able to conceive only by the analogies of sleeping and dreaming. Before 
normal consciousness disappeared completely, he saw a door opened in heaven. 
Then, when he hears again the voice which he heard at the beginning of the 
first vision, he feels himself entirely separated from his earthly surroundings 
and translated to heaven (2 Cor. xii. 2). In this way the command of the 
angel to ascend into heaven is realised, and the vision which follows fulfils 


the angel’s announcement δείξω σοι. That ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι, i. 10, iv. 2 
=yevérOa ἐν ἐκστάσει, Acts xxii. 17 (x. 10, xi. 5 in contrast to ev ἑαυτῷ 
γενόμενος, οἷ. τῷ πνεύματι... τῷ voi, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 19), means a change into 


an ecstatic condition, does not need to be proved. 

2. (Pp. 385,386, 387.) For incidental remarks concerning prophecy in the 
N.T. cf. vol. i. 228 ff., 505 ἢ, ; vol. ii. 97 f., 110-118 ; in respect of τὸ πνεῦμα see 
vol. i. 207, n. 1, 234, n. 2, 237,n.6; above, p. 16. The richest source is 1 Cor, 
xiv., from which two definite conclusions are to be derived ; (1) that prophets, 
in contrast to those speaking with tongues, remain self-conscious and retain 
control of their powers when speaking, using language the form and contents 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 403 


of which are intelligible. (2) So that prophets, as contrasted with teachers 
and preachers without prophetic gifts, do not speak as a result of their 
meditation, investigations, and inferences, but always as a result of a special 
ἀποκάλυψις (1 Cor. xiv. 30, cf. vv. 6, 26; Eph. iii. 5). For the criticism to 
which it was necessary to subject even the inspired utterances of the prophets, 
ef. 1 Thess. v. 19-22; 1 Cor. xiv. 29; Rom. xii. 6, and the present writer’s 
lecture on Die bleibende Bedeutung des ntl. Kanons, S. 36-46. Rev. xviii. 20, 
24 (cf. xvi. 6, xvii. 6, xix. 2; vol. ii. 165, n. 4) refer to N.T. prophets, and 
there is no reason why x. 7, xi. 18 should be taken as having in mind the 
O.T. prophets exclusively and not also those of the N.T. Prophecy is a con- 
tinuous chain, which reaches from the oldest prophets of the O.T. to John, 
their youngest brother (xxii. 6, 9). The analogy of ψευδάδελφος and 
Ψευδαπόστολος shows beyond doubt that the idea of false prophets was 
familiar. Those who are in the habit of lying are not apostles and Chris- 
tians, but persons who say that they are Christians, or apostles, when they 
are not; cf. vol. ii. 232, n. 2. 

3. (P. 387.) Lücke, Komm. über die Schriften des Ev. Jo. iv. 1 (1832),—“ an 
attempt at a complete introduction to the Revelation of John and the entire 
apocalyptic literature,”—introduced the latter idea. The present writer 
offered some objections to Liicke’s classification in his work on the Hirt des 
-Hermas (1868, S. 70 ff.) (which cannot be classified as apocalyptic literature 
any more than can Rey.), and in his “ Apokalyptischen Studien” (ZfKW, 
1885, p. 523 ff.). The latter are quoted in what follows as Ap. Stud. i. (1885) 
and ii. (1886). Herder’s remark (Maranatha, 1779, 8. 13; Werke, ed. Suphan, 
ix. 111), perfectly correct in itself, that the pictures in Rev. cannot be repre- 
sented artistically, or at least not all of them, has had a confusing effect upon 
the interpretation of the book. Dürer and Cornelius knew what could be 
drawn or painted. But from this it does not follow that there is no need to 
reproduce imaginatively the changing scenes of the book in order to under- 
stand them. 

4. (P. 390.) The correct reading of xxii. 21 is either μετὰ πάντων without 
τῶν ἁγίων (thus B, and S? which adds αὐτοῦ), and certainly without ὑμῶν, or 
μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων with N. In xxii. 16 it is not John but Jesus who says ὑμῖν, 
for in xxii. 12 (or 10)-16 Jesus again speaks to John, 1.6. addresses him together 
with all the other Christians. It will be noted also that this final address of 
Christ as well as the separate saying of Jesus in xxii. 20a are, like the word 
spoken by God in i. 8, outside the visions the series of which ends with xxii. 
8-9 (or -11). God and Christ speak through the prophet, 7.e. through John, 
the author of the book, without becoming visible to him (God in i. 8; Christ 
in xxii. 12-16, 20). 

5. (P. 391.) Völter (Entstehung der Apoc., 2 Aufl. 1885, S. 8 f.) holds that 
the later origin of i. 1-3 as compared with i. 4-6 is proved by the fact that in 
vy. 4-6 John introduces himself and declares his relation to the readers, 
whereas vv. 1-3 “are characterised by an objectivity, impossible if the verses 
were written by the apostle John” (similarly also Sprrra, Offend. Joh. 1889, 
S. 10ff., and also J. Weiss, Offenb. Joh. 1904, 5. 35f.). But Völter overlooks 
the fact that this has always been and is the character of a book title, whether 
written by the author himself or added later. Among the Hebrews (Jer. i. 
1-3 and i. 4) and the Greeks (Herodotus, i. 1, Ἡροδότου ᾿Αλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης 


404 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ἀπόδεξις ἥδε «rA., cf., on the other hand, ii. 23, ἔγωγε οἶδα, and wherever he 
speaks of himself as an investigator or narrator), and, as is well known, among 
modern European writers, in the title of a book the author speaks of himself 
in the third person (edidit), where it is possible, adding all his titles as if he 
were writing his epitaph. On the other hand, in the preface and in the 
course of the book, he allows himself to use the first person—even using the 
familiar “thou” in the dedication to a friend (among the ancients this was 
permissible in the course of the book or at the end—above, p. 228, n. 1). On 
the other hand, in a serious book the use of the first person in the title would 
be a violation of style permissible only for novelists, and then in quotation 
marks, e.g. “Graham and J,” “ We Two,” “ My Wife and 1.” In i. 4 also the 
author speaks of himself and the readers in the third person, in a wholly 
objective way, as is required in ancient letter-writing, and allows himself 
only in the extended greeting itself to change to a “you” and a “we.” But 
enough has already been said on this point in vol. i. 369, n. 1; above, 
p. 226, n. 7. 

6. (P. 391, 392.) When John, before seeing anything whatever, is eom- 
manded by the voice of the revealing angel: ὃ βλέπεις γράψον εἰς βιβλίον 
(i. 11), and when in i. 19 (where reference to ver. 11 is indicated by οὖν) he is 
commanded by Christ Himself: γράψον οὖν ἃ εἶδες καὶ ἃ εἰσὶν καὶ ἃ μέλλει 
γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα, it is perfectly self-evident that John was not directed to 
write down what he saw while in a state of eestasy, accompanying as it were 
the visions step by step with his pen at lucid moments in his ecstasy. There 
is no place for such a lucid moment before iv. 1. There is no interruption in 
the discourse of Jesus in 1. 17-iii. 22. If the vision were written out while 
the writer was yet in a state of ecstasy, the fact itself would necessarily be 
recorded like the falling down of the prophet (i. 17), and such a procedure 
would destroy the dramatic vividness of the visions. Moreover, it would 
serve no conceivable purpose ; since a record originating in this way would 
itself be of the nature of a vision, 7.e. when the prophet awoke from his ecstatic 
state, it would have no more objective existence than what he had seen in a 
state of eestasy. Just as the present βλέπεις (ver. 11) has the force of a fut., 
so the aor. εἶδες has the force of a fut. perfect (cf. x. 7, xv. 1), and both alike 
refer to all that John sees in his ecstatic state. There is a corresponding 
division of what John sees and afterwards is to commit to writing into things 
existent in the present and events to take place in the future. To the first 
class belong mainly the contents of chaps. ii.-iii. ; to the second class mainly the 
contents of chaps. iv.-xxii. The division of the contents of all the visions that 
follow is to be understood ὦ potiori, as is also the designation which covers 
the contents of the entire book ini. 1, xxii. 6. Spitta’s interpretation of the 
passage (Offenb. des Joh. 1889, S. 29) as meaning “what thou hast seen up to 
this time and what it means and what may further take place, de. what may 
further be perceived by thee,” seems to the present writer scarcely to need 
refutation either from a grammatical or logical point of view. In ii. 1, 8, 
12, 18, iii. 1, 7, 14 γράψον is naturally to be taken as in i. 11, 19, as a 
command to the writer that when the vision is ended he shall inelude these 
several sayings to the separate Churehes in the book which in i, 11 he is 
directed to write and send to all the seven Churches. One should not speak 
any more, at least in scientific literature, of the seven apocalytie letters. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 405 


These are not independent letters, but each Church receives its special message 
from Christ only as part of the book which, as a whole, is sent to them all 
(i. 4). The same is true of γράψον in xiv. 13, xix. 9, xxi.5. In this way 
attention is called to separate sayings particularly worthy of notice. Neither 
can x. 4 be made a basis for the opinion that the writing of the book and the 
seeing of the visions took place at the same time. Since John was to regard 
the recording of the sevenfold voice of thunder as forbidden by God just as 
the recording of the other visions was commanded, during the vision he must 
have felt a desire to record what he heard. This made the impression of the 
prohibition more profound. 

7. (P. 393.) The only text of v. 1 which can be regarded as genuine is 
γεγραμμένον ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν κατεσφραγισμένον σφραγῖσιν ἑπτά (A, numerous 
eursives, Cypr. Test. ii. 11, 2.e. the earliest Latin Bible ; Orig. in Ps. i., Delarue, 
ii. 525; οἵ. Epiph. Her. Ixiv. 6; 58). Since there was at an early date an 
inclination to connect καὶ ὄπισθεν with what precedes instead of with what 
follows (S? [the earlier Syr. version edited by Gwynn, 1897] inserts καί, S? a 
relative before κατεσφραγισμένον), unavoidably an effort was made to get rid 
of the apparent disagreement between “within” and “behind”; sometimes 
ἔξωθεν was written for ὄπισθεν (B [in this passage=Vatic. 2066, Sec. viii.] 
P, also Hippol. in Dan., ed. Bonwetsch, 276. 1; Orig. Philoc., ed. Robinson, 

pP. 37. 10; Primas. Forsch. iv. 95; S*), and sometimes ἔμπροσθεν was used for 
ἔσωθεν (N, Orig. Philoc. p. 46.15). If, then, the inharmonious readings ἔσωθεν 
and ὄπισθεν be correct, it follows that ἔσωθεν has no correlate, either here or 
in iv. 8 (which correlate would necessarily be ἔξωθεν) (Matt. xxiii. 25, 27, 28 ; 
Luke xi. 40; 1 Cor. v. 13; 2 Cor. iv. 16), and that καὶ ὄπισθεν is to be taken 
with κατεσφραγισμένον, as even Grotius perceived in spite of his inaccurate 
text. Consequently, the idea of a papyrus roll written on both sides, a so- 
called opistograph (against Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, S. 506), must be given 
up. Such a poor document as this would give an unfavourable impression of 
this book, which rested upon the hand of the Almighty, upon which also the 
salvation of the whole world depends. The ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν shows that it was 
not a roll, in which case we would necessarily read ev τῇ δεξιᾷ (i. 16, ii. 1, 
x. 2.85; Ezek. ii. 9), if the idea be that God is holding a roll in His hand. A 
roll would fall from an open hand, such as John saw the βιβλίον resting upon, 
unless an unusual effort to balance it be assumed. Moreover, if the document 
were a roll, the opening of the book, which necessarily precedes the seeing 
and reading of the text, would not be four times described by ἀνοῖξαι, to 
say nothing of the opening of the seal (ver. 2), but we should certainly 
have ἀνειλεῖν (Ezek. ii. 10), ἀνελίσσειν (revolvere, the opposite of ἑλίσσειν, Rev. 
vi. 14), or ἀναπτύσσειν, as in Luke iv. 17. That the βιβλίον was not written 
on the outside is further evidenced by the fact that it was sealed seven times, 
the only purpose of which was to make it impossible to open the βιβλίον and 
to see and read its written contents. Not until the last seal was broken was 
it possible to open the βιβλίον and to see and read what was written in 
it. This βιβλίον is altogether different from the open βιβλαρίδιον in x. 2. 9; 
Ezek. ii. 8-iii. 3. It is not a rolled sheet, or the larger book roll, but has the 
form of a codex, or codicil, 7.e. of a modern book. Naturally, John did not, 
see what was written in the book, since he saw only the closed βιβλίον ; but in 
his vision he received the impression that it was written within, just as in 


406 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


dreams we associate ideas with objects, although these ideas cannot be repre 

sented to the senses (cf. Gen. xl. 16). It is hardly likely that he saw the 
seven seals; since these were on the back of the book, 2.e. certainly not on 
the upper side, the side turned toward the spectator, but on the side turned 
away from him, the side resting upon the hand of Him who sat on the throne, 
It is, of course, self-evident that the βιβλίον did not consist of empty pages, 
but that something was written in it. But to say this was not superfluous, 
since a letter, for example, which sometimes is called βιβλίον, has an address 
on the outside, a document has a mark of registration on the outside, and a 
literary work has a title pasted on the outside from which some idea of the 
contents can be derived. This βιβλίον contains writing only on the inside. 
No one can know what it contains, until the seals are loosed. The only 
suggestion as to its contents is given by the seven seals. 

8. (P. 394.) E. HuscHke (Das Buch mit 7 Siegeln, 1860), following out 
the idea of his essay on the wax tablets found in Siebenbürgen, Austria (Zt. 
f. gesch. Rechtswiss. xii. 173 ff.), is the first writer to set forth the essentially 
correct view, except that he is influenced by many ancient exegetical pre- 
judices, and unnecessarily substitutes for the idea of the Testament—first 
transferring to other documents processes used in preparing a testament 
(Huschke, S. 15)—the more general idea of legal documents. The so-called 
Pretorian Testament must have had on the outside, more particularly on 
the threads with which, according to ancient custom, documents, consisting 
of little wooden tablets covered with wax, or of leaves of parchment or of 
papyrus (Dig. xxxvii. 11. 1), were tied together, the seals of seven required 
witnesses, with their names inscribed beside the seals. Cf. Marquardt, Röm. 
Privatleben, 2 Aufl. p. 805 f.; Bruns, Fontes jur. Rom., ed. 5, pp. 292-303, 
especially p. 302 ; Gaius, Inst. ii. 119, 147 ; Ulpian, Fragm. Vatic. 23. 6, 28. 6. 
In Berl. Aeg. Urk. No. 361, 60]. 3, line 12, καὶ περὶ τῆς διαθήκης δὲ ἀποκρίνομαι, 
ὅτι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς διαθήκαις ἑπτά εἰσιν σφραγισταὶ κτλ. Cf. in the same 
collection the will, Nos. 86 and 326; also the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. 
Grenfell and Hunt, i. 171, No. 105. 

9. (Ὁ. 398.) The present καλεῖται in xi. 8 represents the point of view of 
the time when the book was written, as does also ἐσταυρώθη. Scdom and 
Gomorrah, however, are not merely types of a sinful city, but of a city 
condemned because of its sins (Isa. xiii. 19; Jer. 1. 40; Matt. x. 15, xi. 23; 
2 Pet. ii, 6; Jude 7). Therefore Isaiah before the first destruction of 
Jerusalem and Paul before the second, declare that Israel would have been 
made like Sodom and Gomorrah, had not God left it a remnant (Isa. 
i. 9; Rom. ix. 29). Ezekiel, on the other hand, after the first destruction 
of Jerusalem, declares (xvi. 49-50) that Jerusalem has become a sister of 
Sodom; and this is the way in which John speaks here after the second 
destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. 

10. (P. 401.) It seems as if xxi. 2 must be taken to mean that John 
beheld the descent of the Jerusalem, which until then had been in heaven, 
and that this descent was subsequent to the establishment of the new world. 
Against this interpretation is the analogy of xxi. 10, where the same thing 
seems to be stated more explicitly, and where John does not witness the 
descent of a city, but is shown a city built upon a mountain. Moreover, the 
new Jerusalem is the Bride of Jesus, whose marriage with Him takes place 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 407 


at the parousia—z.e. at the beginning, not at the end of the millennium (xxi, 
2. 9, xix. 7). It is also to be noticed, that in xxi. 2 as distinguished from 
ili. 12 (τῆς καινῆς Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἡ καταβαίνουσα) we read, “the Holy City, a new 
Jerusalem (the adjectives which follow are likewise without the article), 
coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her 
husband.” As seen by John it is primarily a part of the new world, to the 
establishment of which the vision extends. Here all national limitations 
are set aside, and even Christ Himself retires into the background (ef. 1 Cor. 
xy. 24-28). But this Jerusalem has already existed during the millennium 
on the earth, prior to the establishment of the new world, and so it is repre- 
sented in xxi. 9-xxii. 15. In this passage the Lamb is everywhere prominent 
(xxi. 9, 14, 22, 23, 27, xxii. 1, 3), and at the end of the last vision Jesus 
Himself speaks, uttering both a promise and a threat (xxii. 12-15), just as 
God is represented as speaking in xxi. 6 ff. In the latter passage God and 
humanity are represented as united without any suggestion of differences 
among men (xxi. 3-7), whereas in xxi. 9-xxii. 15 Jerusalem retains its 
Israelitish character, as is evidenced by the prominence of the number 
twelve ; the heathen are visitors, but not citizens of the city (xxi. 24f.). In 
xxi, 5ff. everything is accomplished and everything has become new, and 
sinners have been delivered over to the second death (xxi. 5-8, cf. xx. 10-15) ; 
- but in xxi. 9-xxii. 15 without the holy walls are a mass of Gentiles for 
whom the unlocked city stands open, that they may bring their gifts, and 
receive blessings of healing (xxi. 24-26, xxii. 2). Only the unholiness and 
immorality which still exists among men is excluded from the city (xxi. 27, 
xxii. 15). 

11. (P. 401.) A review of the more recent hypotheses will be found in 
HırscHt, Die Ap. und thre neueste Kritik. 1895 (see also the supplements in 
the preface). For the more important attempts to distinguish different 
sources, strata, or literary hands in Rey., see VÖLTER, Entstehung der Ap. 
1882 ; much revised in the second edition 1885 (cf. Zahn, Apok. Stud. i. 525 ff., 
567). The main part of Rev. he represents as written originally by John 
(at first by the presbyter, afterwards by the apostle), in the year 65 or 66. 
It was afterwards enlarged by the same author, and was constantly revised 
by Christian hands up to 140 (former view 170). Völter represents the 
matter in still a different manner in Das Problem der Ap. 1893. ViIscHER 
(Die Off. Jo. eine jüdische Ap. in christlicher Bearbeitung, 1886), starting from 
the observation that chaps. xi.-xii, present difficulties if taken as Christian 
prophecy which disappear if the chapters are Jewish, finds iv. I-xxii. 5 
to be a Jewish Apocalypse written in Hebrew, to be dated before the year 70. 
This was later superficially worked over by some unknown Christian into 
what at first glance seems a Christian book by the addition of chaps. i.-iii., xxii. 
6-21, and numerous interpolations. Sprrra (Of. des. Jo. 1889) distinguishes 
(1) a Christian Apocalypse which, omitting some interpolations by the 
redactor, is preserved in i, 4-vi. 17, viii. 1, vii. 9-18, xxii, 8-21 (printed on 
S. 549-560), and which belongs in the year 60 (S. 504, not the year 70, nor 
about the year 62, as Hirscht, 8. 5, 7, states) by John Mark, who is, however, 
not the author of the Gospel of Mark (S. 528); (2) a Jewish Apocalypse, 
belonging to the time of Pompey (Rev. x. 8-xi. 18, xiv. 14-xv. 8, xvi. 1-xvii. 6, 
xviii. 1-xix. 8a, xxi. 9-xxii. 3a, and ver. 15) ; (3) a second Jewish Apocalypse 


408 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


belonging to the time of Caligula (Rev. vil. 1-8, viii. 2-x. 7, xi. 15, 19 
xii. I-xiv. 11, xvi. 13-20, xix. 11-xxi. 6). All this was edited either under 
Domitian or Trajan by a Christian, who thought that he was acting “in the 
spirit” of the Apostle John (who perhaps was still living), and “therefore 
was justified in seeking to give authority to the writing (the original Christian 
Apocalypse of John Mark?) in falling back upon the judgment of (the 
apostle ?) John” (S. 543, cf. GK, i. 952). Thus the authorship of Rev. was 
transferred from the real John of the year 60 to the apostle John of the 
year 95 or 100 (ef. vol. ii. 263). ERBES (Die Offenb. Jo. kritisch untersucht, 
1891) simplified Spitta’s hypothesis, and declared the whole work to be of 
Christian origin. GUNKEL (Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit, 
eine religionsgesch. Untersuchung über Gen. 1 und Apok. 12, mit (babylonischen) 
Beiträgen von Zimmern, 1895). The chaos into which the cosmos of Rev. is 
changed in this work can hardly be described, at least it cannot be described 
briefly. JoH. Weiss. (Die Offenb. des Joh. 1904), in many points depending 
on Spitta, comes to the opinion that an original apocalypse, which was 
written by the John of Ephesus between 65-70, is preserved for us, with the 
exception of a few additions and changes from the later edition in chaps. i. 4- 
viii. 1, viii. 13-ix. 21, xii. 7-12, xiii. 11-18, xiv. 14-20, xx. I-xxii. 21. The 
editor of the whole book, who worked into the original Johannine apocalypse 
an original Jewish apocalypse, written between May and August of the year 
70, published his compilation in 95, while the original apocalyptie writer, 
the John of Ephesus, was still alive, 


s 73. THE CONDITION OF AFFAIRS IN THE CHURCH 
ACCORDING TO REVELATION I-III. 


The opening words with which John begins his account 
(i. 9) remind the Asiatic Churches that they are all, like 
himself, suffering under the oppression of a hostility 
which their Christian belief has brought upon them. 
This fact constitutes a bond of union between the readers 
and himself—isolated, though he is, upon the little island 
of Patmos, for the sake of the word of God and the 
witness of Jesus—which strengthens the tie of Christian 
brotherhood. In this statement we are told what the first 
readers must have already known before, that John had 
been banished to the island because of his activity as a 
preacher, and on account of his Christian belief (n. 1). 
To this reference is to be added the tradition concerning 
the exile upon the island of Patmos, which has in its 
favour, at least, the fact that it cannot be proved to have 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 409 


arisen through an expansion of the passage before us. 
Banishment to an island can have occurred only as the 
result of a legal sentence, and, in the case of the province 
of Asia, of a sentence imposed by the proconsul of that 
distriet, who would not have been able, upon his own 
authority, to punish in this way a preacher of the gospel 
and an adherent of the Christian faith, if he had not felt 
himself authorised so to act by some decree issuing from 
the Imperial Government, or some regulation tolerated by 
it, by which the propagation of the Christian religion was 
to be checked by the courts or the police. When we 
attempt to shed more ight upon this fact by the applica- 
tion of other data in the book, we must not, of course, 
employ indiscriminately everything which is said in 
regard to the persecution and slaughter of the faithful. 
We must disregard first of all the repeated reference to 
the great tribulation of the latter days, which is assumed 
to be well known (11. 10, vil. 14, xii. 17—xiii. 17, xiv. 9-13, 
xx. 4; cf. Matt. xxiv. 15-28); secondly, we must ignore 
the retrospective references to all the martyrs and martyr- 
doms for the sake of the Christian faith which have 
occurred in the past (vi. 9f.). At the same time, it must 
be noted that the standpoint from which the author 
makes these declarations is in most cases that of one who 
is speaking at the moment when judgment is being pro- 
nounced against the antichristian power of the world, 
and against its antichristian capital; so that even what, 
from that point of view, is past, must, when viewed by 
one living at the time when the book was written, lie 
partly, at least, in the future. In vi. 11, persons who, 
from the standpoint of those living at the time, are about 
to become martyrs, are included with the Christians who 
have already suffered. In xx. 4, again assuming the 
standpoint of the parousia, the martyrs of the anti- 
christian persecution are especially mentioned along with 
all those beheaded for the sake of the Christian faith. 


410 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Similarly, in xvii. 24 are included with the prophets and 
saints whose blood was shed in Babylon, all those who 
at any time or place have been slain for the same cause 
(cf. xvi. 6; Matt. xxii. 35). But since in pre-Christian 
times it was not Babylon on the Euphrates, but Jerusalem, 
which was the murderess of the prophets (Matt xxiii. 37 ; 
Luke xiii. 34; 1 Thess. ii. 15; Acts vil. 52), and since 
apostles are also named among the martyrs whose blood 
is avenged by the judgment against the capital city, 
xviil. 20, it becomes clear that here, as in xvii. 6, where 
Babylon is described as drunken with the blood of the 
witnesses of Jesus, and in xvill. 24, xix. 2, where more 
general terms are employed, the author refers to the 
Roman martyrs of the time of Nero, and especially to 
Peter and Paul (vol. ü. 165, n. 4). The reference in 
chaps. 11.--11. are temporally and locally less remote. The 
angel of Smyrna is already experiencing tribulation arising 
from the slanders of the Jews in that place. More 
suffering is predicted for him in the future. Punishment 
by imprisonment is to overtake some of the members of 
the Church. But the angel himself is required to remain 
faithful till death (11. 9f., see below). In Philadelphia 
also it is the synagogue of Satan, made up of Jews 
unworthy of the name, which is hostile to the angel of 
the Church. If we may draw conclusions concerning the 
present and future attitude of the Jews from the state- 
ment that the angel has kept the word of Jesus loyally, 
and has not denied His name (111. 8-10), it is evident that 
Jewish hostility has brought persecution upon him. But 
the situation was different in Pergamum (ii. 12-17, n. 2). 
The angel in that place is subject to a special temptation 
to deny Jesus and belief in Him, because he lives where 
Satan’s throne is, and he has up to this time successfully 
resisted. He has demonstrated his loyalty apparently 
not long before, since a certain Antipas was killed in 
Pergamum as a faithful witness of Christ, an occurrence 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 411 


which is explained by the fact that Satan dwells there. 
This change of expression alone betrays the fact that it 
is not something external, like a prominent building or 
work of art, which is meant, but an institution or custom 
there prevalent in which the Christians recognised a 
striking embodiment and activity of the dominion of 
Satan. This is the cause of the martyrdom of Antipas, 
and of the continued danger in which the confessors of 
Christ are placed. It cannot well be doubted that the 
author means the cult of A‘sculapius, the God of healing, 
in Pergamum, which flourished there as nowhere else. 
The serpent, which was to the Christians a symbol of 
Satan (Rev. xii. 9, xx. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 3), was also the 
chief emblem of Aisculapius. His most common epithet 
was σωτήρ; he was not infrequently called ὁ σωτήρ with- 
out qualification, and was looked upon as σωτὴρ τῶν ὅλων. 
He became in Pergamum, especially, Ζεὺς ’Ackdjmos, and 
the most exalted king. He absorbed all other deities, 
and even became identified with the Emperor. It was 
inevitable—and the fact is well attested—that he should 
appear to the Christians to be, more than any of the 
other heathen sons of God, a devilish caricature of the true 
σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (n. 2). How easily it might have hap- 
pened that in daily life, or at the celebration of the feast 
of ARseulapius, Christians in Pergamum came into conflict 
with the heathen population, and that a Christian who 
openly expressed his abhorrence of this cult might have 
been killed by fanatical worshippers of the divinity! It 
is very improbable that Antipas was executed upon 
sentence of a court (n. 3). It is evident, then, that at 
the time Revelation was written the Jewish congregations 
at Smyrna and Philadelphia knew very well how to fan 
into a flame the slumbering hostility of the populace ; 
and that things had reached such a state in Pergamum, 
especially in connection with the worship of A‘sculapius, 
that the devotees of the old cults had employed violence 


412 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


‚against the Christians, and were likely to do so again at 
any time. Such acts of hostility had been encountered 
by the Christians in Asia and Europe from the very 
beginning. On the other hand, compared with conditions 
in the time of Paul and of 1 Peter, it was an innovation 
for the Roman government to take measures which—as 
in the case of the banishment to a small island of a 
prominent Christian teacher from the field of his activity 
—could aim only at preventing the spread of Christianity. 
Equally new was the state of affairs in which the Asiatic 
Churches had come to suffer a general persecution of such 
a character that they were compelled to confess or to 
deny the name of Christ—a situation which forces us to 
assume that legal measures were employed. It cannot be 
shown that the Christians ever faced such conditions at 
any time previous to the later years of the reign of 
Domitian (n. 4). The tradition, im itself unassailable, 
that Revelation was written about 95 A.D., is thus corro- 
borated (above, pp. 183, 201). 

A consideration of the internal affairs of the Church 
leads to the same result. We are to draw no conclusions 
from the fact that, among the seven Churches enumerated, 
some are missing which were in existence even when Paul 
was living (n. 5, and above, p. 391 f.). We know, for 
example, that the Church of Hierapolis continued to 
flourish. This city was the residence of the evangelist 
Philip and his daughters, and the episcopal residence of 
Papias (Kus. A. E. iii. 31. 3f., 39. 9). It may be a mere 
coincidence that Pergamum, Smyrna, Sardis, Philadelphia, 
and Thyatira are not mentioned in even such early 
writings as Acts and the Pauline Epistles. But as regards 
Smyrna, we know from the trustworthy testimony of 
Polycarp, the local bishop, that during the lifetime of 
Paul no Church as yet existed in that place. From the 
life of Polycarp we may conclude that it was not until 
circa 67-70 A.D. that a Church arose in that place, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 412 


through the efforts of the apostle John and others of the 
apostolic circle (n. 5). As there is no hint in Rev. ii. 8-11 
that the Church of Smyrna—the second to be addressed— 
was founded in the immediate past, Revelation must have 
been written considerably later than 70 a.p. 

The apostle John, obedient to the command which had 
come to him, sent the Book of Revelation to the seven 
Churches, from Ephesus to Laodicea, in the form of a single 
letter, of which seven copies were probably made, if he had 
scribes at his disposal (i. 4, 11). In the framework of the 
first vision he receives the commission to set down in the 
very beginning of this book, which he is commanded to 
write and despatch, what Christ has to say to the seven 
different Churches, or rather to their “angels” (above, p. 
404, n. 6). That he may gain an immediate and correct 
understanding of this commission, which is to be seven 
times repeated, but which is not yet alluded to in i. 11, 
two elements of the vision before him are interpreted 
immediately preceding the first utterance of this command 
(i. 20, n. 6). The seven stars which Jesus holds in His 
hand, united as if by an invisible hoop in the form of a 
wreath or diadem, are angels (but not the angels) of the 
Churches previously mentioned ; the seven candles, in the 
midst of which the author sees Jesus stand and move, are 
the Churches themselves. The omission of the article 
before ἄγγελοι shows that the latter is no technical designa- 
tion derived from the real conditions surrounding the 
author, or from the group of ideas familiar to him, or from 
the revelation which has just begun, but that it is a 
qualifying characteristic, and therefore in some way a 
figurative designation of the persons meant. The theory 
first found in the writings of Origen, that real angels are 
here meant, to each of which was given the guardianship 
of a separate Church, must be rejected; for the idea is 
absurd that the Lord should make known His will to the 
spirits which like Himself belong to the invisible heavenly 


414 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMEN] 


world, through the agency of John, a being of this earth 
and that they should learn of this will only as unseen 
visitors at the meetings of the Churches when John’s book 
is read (i. 3). Moreover, the praise and blame which 
Christ bestows upon them is incompatible with the idea 
that they are real angels, sent by God, «.e. good angels. 
The interpretation which makes the angel the personified 
spirit or heavenly idealisation of the individual local 
Church is equally bad. This is a modern conception, in 
itself obscure, which seeks in vain for support in Dan. x. 
13-21, xii. 1, or from other biblical views concerning 
angels (Matt. xviii. 10; Acts zii. 15; Rev. xiv. 18, xvi. 5), 
and which has arisen from a mixture of ancient heathen 
ideas with the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit. On 
this point Goethe’s Faust has said all that it necessary. 
According to the early Christian view, the Christian 
Churches have no other spirit than the one Spirit of God 
and of Christ, common to them all, which cannot be 
punished or called to repentance for the sins and weak- 
nesses of the members of the congregation. All other 
dominant ideas and common tendencies which arose in a 
Church were conceived to be the effect of forces at work in 
the non-Christian world and in the unregenerate nature of 
the members; and were not ascribed to a mythological 
subject, called the “ Spirit of the Church of Ephesus,” or 
the “ Spirit of the Phrygian Church.” Only human beings 
can be meant, and only such as are in a high degree 
responsible for the condition of the Churches in which they 
occupy a position called figuratively ἄγγελος. But one 
must also reject the conjecture that these “angels” are 
emissaries of the seven Churches who have come to John 
at Patmos, and who are now to return to their homes with 
his written account of the visions which have been granted 
him. The theory is untenable: (1) because the author 
could not have applied to these persons such an indefinite 
term as ἄγγελοι (1. 20 without the article), but must have 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 415 


spoken of them as the representatives of the seven 
Churches, known to him, present with him, and perhaps 
awaiting orders from him, and so would have used οἱ 
ἄγγελοι, or better οἱ ἀπόστολοι τῶν ἑ. ἐκκλ. (2 Cor. vii. 23 ; 
Phil. ii. 25); and the author could hardly have omitted 
calling the attention of the readers in i. 9-11 to these 
conditions. (2) It would be a very strange proceeding in 
the addresses to each of the seven Churches, to direct these 
not to the congregations in question, but to the messengers 
present with the author, who were to deliver these com- 
munications. If there were seven letters, each of which 
was to be brought to the Church for which it was intended 
by an ἄγγελος as a letter-carrier, it is at least conceivable 
that these messengers would have been indicated in the 
outside addresses of the sealed letters, to avoid confusion. 
But such is not the case. What the author sends—no 
matter by whom—to Ephesus, Smyrna, and the other 
cities, is the whole book, and in this book the ἄγγελοι are 
addressed by Christ. (3) What is said to the ἄγγελοι 
would be appropriate only if they were men definitely 
responsible for the condition of the Churches to which they 
belong, 1.6., leaders of these Churches; it is immaterial 
whether they are with the apostle at the time, as envoys, 
or remain at home. But since it is usual to deal with 
persons present, not in writing but orally, it follows from 
γρώψον (used seven times from ii. 1 onwards) that the 
ἄγγελοι are not on the island of Patmos, but in Ephesus, 
Smyrna, and the other cities. The point of departure in 
determining their station is not from the strange epithet 
ἄγγελοι, but from the way in which the author makes 
Christ address them. That “thou” everywhere in the 
address indicates the ἄγγελος is self-evident; and there is 
not a single phrase to lead to the assumption that this is 
a collective personality present only to the mind. When 
“thou” is occasionally replaced by “ you,” which probably 
applies to a number of Christians of the locality in question 


416 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(ii. 10, 135, 24), it follows that the “angel” is a member 
of the Church ; but this does not exclude his being at the 
head of the congregation (n. 6, end). When the candle- 
stick (%.e., according to the authentic interpretation of 1. 
90, the Church of Ephesus) is called the candlestick of the 
angel of Ephesus (ii. 5), it is clear that the “angel” is 
neither some member of the congregation nor the con- 
gregation itself. It is the bishop to whom Christ says 
“thy candlestick,” 1.6., thy congregation. In accord with 
this is the fact that other “angels” are told that they 
“have” people in their congregations worthy or unworthy 
in their character (ii. 14 f., 11. 4). There are such persons 
in his congregation; and it is the bishop’s duty to test 
and to ward off suspicious elements which force their way 
into his Church (ii. 2, 6, 14 f.). He is to strengthen the 
wavering members (iii. 2). He is severely censured when 
he allows impure elements to flourish and to exercise a 
seductive influence, as in the case of the angel of Thyatira 
(ii. 20). According to the reading, which is undoubtedly 
correct, it is the wife of the bishop, who, like a second 
Jezebel, along with her irresolute husband is introducing 
ruinous practices (n. 7). 

None of the names of the ἄγγελοι is given. But, since 
Bengel’s discovery, one should not again lose sight of the 
fact that in iii. 1 there is a play upon the name of the 
bishop of Sardis, Zotikos (n. 8). If Revelation was 
written circa 95, we know from other accounts the name 
of the ἄγγελος of Smyrna. Even at that early date Poly- 
carp stood at the head of the Church in that place. A 
short period of persecution is predicted for the Chureh, 
which will culminate apparently in nothing more serious 
than the detention of some of the members; but of the 
bishop is required faithfulness unto death. He is to die 
asa martyr. The allusion of Christ to Himself as the One 
“which was dead and lived again” (ii. 8), and the closing 
words of ii. 11 bear this out. The fact that this prophecy 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 417 


to the congregation and its bishop was fulfilled in the year 
155 a.p. (n. 9) would lead one to regard it as a vaticinium 
ex eventu, if it were not an assured fact that Revelation 
had been written long before, and was at that time current 
in the Church. 

The monarchical episcopate, of which in the period of 
the Pastoral Epistles there was no trace in this province 
of Asia (above, p. 195 ff), had, when Revelation and 3 John 
were written, a firm foothold in that region (above, 
p. 376 f.); and the Epistles of Ignatius show the same 
condition at about 110 a.p. For this reason Revelation 
cannot have been written until a considerable period had 
elapsed after the death of Paul—not before the year 80, 
and very probably circa 95 A.D. The name ἐπίσκοπος 
seems not yet to have become the regular title of the 
individual bishops, as is the case in Ignatius; for then 
one would expect in 1. 20 οἱ ἐπίσκοποι instead of the 
anarthrous ἄγγελοι. The apostle who felt himself upon the 
Lord’s day (n. 10) transported involuntarily to the con- 
eregations assembled for divine service, must have under- 
stood the term bishop, probably borrowed from Jewish 
conditions, to mean the one who, appearing before God in 
the name of the congregation, leads in prayer and directs 
the service (n. 6, end). In the same way that he presents 
before God and Christ the petitions of the congregation, 
Christ speaks to him in order that the congregation of 
which he is in charge may through him hear the word of 
their Lord. It is incomprehensible how one can admit 
that the “angels” refer to the bishops, and still bold that 
Rey. 11.11. was written evrca 65-70 (e.g. J. Weiss, S. 49). 

In Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira a pernicious 
theory (διδαχή, 11. 14f., 24) and praxis (ἔργα, ii. 6, 22) has 
sought to gain entrance; in Ephesus without result, in 
Pergamum with some, and in Thyatira with great success. 
Its advocates are in ii. 6, 15 called Nicolaitans. This 
name is not to be read into the conditions described in ii. 

VOL, IIL. 27 


418 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


18-29, since it is clear that in Thyatira a single individual 
the wife of the bishop himself, is at the head of the move- 
ment, and apparently supports it in a peculiar way. She 
represents herself to be a prophetess (ii. 20), and it is only 
here that we meet with any indication of a speculative 
basis for the movement (n. 24). But the teaching is the 
same as that of the Nicolaitans (11. 14, 20). Fornication 
and participation in heathen sacrificial meals are not 
merely regarded with indifference, but are frankly re- 
commended, and have been instituted, at least by the 
prophetess of Thyatira, for the reason that one must 
acquaint himself with the deep things of Satan,—not, 
of course, to be engulfed therein, but that he may realise 
the powerlessness of the world of evil spirits, and attain 
freedom from evil (n. 11). Even though in Rev. 1. 14 
this teaching is not said to be that of Balaam, we must 
recognise its essential agreement with the doctrinal 
tendency combated in 2 Peter and Jude (vol. ii. 223 ff, 
232 ff., 276-281, 292f.). The only difference is that in 
the latter case we read of a libertine doctrine which arose 
in a region of Gentile-Christians and which made its way 
among the Jewish-Christians ; whereas Revelation concerns 
itself wholly with the Gentile-Christian Churches of Asia, 
where the errorists did not need to practise the reserve 
necessary among the Jewish-Christians (vol. ii, 281 f.). 
They found in their heathen surroundings the strongest 
support for their efforts. But it appears that this tendeney 
had only recently become a threatening danger for the 
Asiatic Church. In the Epistles of John we hear nothing 
of it; and if this seems of little importance in view of the 
brevity of 2 and 8 John, the silence of 1 John is all the 
more significant. From 1 John v. 21 the only fact 
that can be gleaned is that the heathen cults subjected 
these Churches to temptations, as was the case with the 
Corinthian er at the time of 1 Cor. viii—x.; 2 Cor. 
vi. 14=vii. 1, and with the Churches in Asia Minor when 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 410 


7 


1. Pet. iv. 1-4 was written. The doctrine of the 
Nicolaitans must, therefore, have found favour in the 
province only at some time ee to that represented 
by 1 John. A comparison of Rev. 1. 2 and 1]. 6 leaves 
no doubt that emissaries of this party fda come to Ephesus 
some time before, and, after being turned away by the 
bishop of that place, had moved on to Pergamum and 
Thyatira, where they met with better success (n. 12). 
The fact that they represented themselves to be apostles, 
and were declared to be false apostles, makes them 
itinerant teachers who roamed about, like the followers 
of Peter in Corinth, but does not necessitate the assump- 
tion that, like these, they originated in Palestine and 
taught a doctrine more or less Judaistie (vol. i. 289 ff.). 
The name “ Nicolaitans” gives rise to more definite 
conjectures. The theory, not yet abandoned, that the 
name is a translation of “ Balaamites” deserves at last 
to be buried (n. 13). But the tradition that Nicolaiis, 
the proselyte of Antioch (Acts vi. 5), later went astray 
as a libertine, deserves to be believed, if for no other 
reason, because it contradicts the nature of ecclesiastical 
legend-making, when it imputes evil to a Christian who 
is Ba önbe with honour in the N.T. Even as late as 
the time of Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii, 118) there 
were persons, or writings of persons, who cited this 
Nicolaiis as authority for their libertine doctrine. The 
Book of Revelation cannot have led them to use the name 
in that way. It is clear, therefore, that it did not create 
this party and the name it bears, but that both existed 
independently of the book. In that case it is impossible 
to see whence the party could have got its name, if not 
from some man by the name of Nicolaiis; and since the 
party itself, as well as the teachers of the Church who 
oppose them, make the Nicolaüs of Acts vi. 5 the originator 
of the doctrine, it would be useless to seek for another 
person of that name. If, then, this Nicolaiis himself, like 


420 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Philip his former companion in office, emigrated to the 
province of Asia, or if adherents of his came to that place 
—which is more likely—it is quite conceivable that the 
representatives of this doctrine, because of its outward 
connection with the primitive Church, introduced them- 
selves as apostles of a true gospel. This last discussion 
also confirms the tradition that Revelation was written 
circa 95. At all events, the words of Christ to the seven 
Churches were written at a time later than 1 John, 


1. (P. 408.) The fact that θλῖψις stands first shows that this is not 
something which always accompanies the quest for the kingdom (Acts xiv. 
22), but that it was present in the writer’s mind at the time. The ἐν 
Ἰησοῦ, which is connected with it and which corresponds to the Pauline 
ev Χριστῷ, shows that it was persecution for the sake of Christianity. The 
ἐγενόμην ev τῇ νήσῳ (cf. Acts xiii. 5; 2 Tim. i. 17), which refers primarily 
to the arrival at Patmos (Athanas. in Montfaucon, Coll. nova, il. 5 =mape- 
γενόμην), and which in this sense is connected with διὰ τὸν λόγον, affords even 
less basis than would ἤμην for the assumption that, at the time when he wrote, 
John was no longer on Patmos. By a mistaken reference to i. 2, Liicke, 
Bleek, and others are led to take διὰ τὸν λύγον κτλ. as meaning that John 
went to Patmos for the purpose of receiving the revelation. But (1) there 
is nothing which suggests this meaning in i. 9, while in 1. 2 it is demanded 
by ἐμαρτύρησεν and by the context. (2) A Christian can do nothing what- 
ever to induce revelation except to pray for it under certain conditions which 
give him a right to do so. Eestasy certainly would not have to be induced 
by a twelve or twenty hours’ trip by sail- or row-boat. Equally impossible 
is the interpretation, “in order to preach the gospel on Patmos.” While the 
gospel preached by man can be called “testimony of Jesus” or “ testimony 
of God” or “word of God” (vol. ii. 378 f. n. 2), it is contrary to all known 
usage by διά with the acc. to represent its proclamation as the purpose of 
an action (ef., per contra, such passages as 2 Cor, ii. 12; Phil. i. 5, ii, 22). 
Moreover, a missionary journey from the thickly populated mainland to the 
unimportant island on which there was no city (see n. 4, end) would be a 
strange proceeding. The interpretation given above is the only one in keep- 
ing with the usage of Rev. (vi. 9, xx. 4; ef. xii, 17, xix. 10) and of the N.T. 
(Matt. xiii. 21; Mark iv. 17; 1 Pet. iii. 14; Col. iv.3; 2 Tim. i. 12) and with 
the context (“partaker with you in tribulation”), For the tradition con- 
cerning the exile, see above, pp. 197, 201, nn. 8, 14. According to a donbt- 
ful Latin fragment (Patr. ap. ii. 171), Polycarp mentioned the ewilia of 
John. 

2. (Pp. 410, 411.) Pergamum (τὸ Πέργαμον since Polyb. iv. 48. 11) or 
Pergamus (ἡ Πέργαμος, the earlier form, oceurs Xenoph. Hell. iii. 1. 6, but is 
found later in connection with the later form, Ptolem. v. 2. 14), longe elar- 
issimum Asie Pergamum (Plin. v. 126), had in the time of Galen (Opp. v. 49) 
120,000 inhabitants, and was at that time the principal city of one of the 13 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 421 


or 14 judicial districts (comventus juwridiei), but was in no sense the capitai 
of the province of Asia, a distinction claimed by Ephesus (Cicero, ad Famil. 
v. 20.9; Jos. Ant. xiv. 10. 11; Digest. i. 16. 4). Consequently it is wrong 
to explain Rev. ii. 13 on the assumption that Pergamum was the centre of 
the Roman government. Moreover, to treat the latter as an incarnation of 
the rule of Satan is contrary to the views of Rev. as well as to those of Paul. 
Nor is the reference to the temple of Augustus built in 29 B.c. upon the 
highest point of the acropolis; since there is no apparent reason why this 
seat of the worship of an emperor should have aroused the aversion of the 
Christians more than did numerous other such places in the province. The 
passage has also been connected with the huge altar, rediscovered in 1878, 
famous on account of the relief work upon it. Cf. in general, Beschreibung 
der Skulpturen von Pergamon, i. Gigantomachie (edited by Puchstein), 2te Aufl. 
1902. This structure, evidently built under Eumenes ΤΙ. about 180 B.c., and 
dedicated to Zeus and Athena Nicephoros (cf. Fränkel on No. 69 of the In- 
schriften von Pergamon), was much less a place of worship than an artistically 
adorned monument allegorically commemorative of the victory of Attalus 1. 
over the Gallic hordes about 240 B.c.; ef. Tondeur, Die Gigantomachie des 
pergam. Altars, erläutert von Trendelenburg, 1884 ; Ranke, Weltgesch.} ii. 1. 286. 
This work could be regarded by Christians as the throne of Satan even less 
‘than could a temple ; certainly there was nothing about it to make Pergamum 
dangerous for Christians. This would, however, be in a high degree true of 
the worship of Aisculapius. For information on this subject, cf. the article 
“ Asklepios” by Thrämer in Roscher’s Lex. der Myth. 1. 615-641, and Pauly- 
Wissowa, ii. 1642-1697. For the Christian estimate, cf. Just. Apol. i. 21 (of 
the sons of Zeus comparable to Jesus besides the Hermes= Logos, there is also 
a second son, ARseulapius, the god of healing, who ascended into heaven); 
i, 22 (where Aseulapius’ and Jesus’ healings and restorations of the dead to 
life are compared); i. 54 end (the fable fabricated by the demons and 
conformed to the propheey of Christ); the contrast between ZAsculapius 
and Christ in Origen (contra Cels. iii. 3; Arnob. i. 49, iii. 23, vii. 44-48). 
Under Diocletian, Christian stone-cutters from Rome without seruple carved 
in the quarries of Pannonia not only pillars, capitals, and baths, but also 
vietories and eupids, and even the sun-god in his chariot ; but they steadfastly 
refused to make an image of Aisculapius. For this they were put to death 
as followers of Antipas of Pergamum ; ef. Passio quat. coron. in Biidinger’s 
Unters. zur Kaisergesch. 111. 324 ff., 331 ff. 

3. (P. 411.) The legend of Antipas (Acta SS. April. ii. 3, 965), which in 
some form had been read by Andreas of Cesarea (ed. Sylburg, p. 11), has no 
historical value. To this extent Görres (Z/V Th, 1878, S. 257 ff.) is right. That 
independent of Rev. Antipas was no distinguished martyr is evidenced also 
by the confusion in the tradition and interpretation of the text among the 
ancients, Probably the correct reading is ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ᾿Αντιπᾶ, ὁ μάρτυς (cf. 
i. 5). The nominative in apposition easily gave rise to the reading ᾿Αντιπᾶς, 
which was early interpreted as avreimas (“thou contradictedst”) and also 
changed into ὅτι πᾶς ; see especially Gwynn, The Apoc. of St. John in a Syr. 
version, 1897, Notes on the Syr. text, p. 44 f. That Antipas was put to death 
in consequence of a judicial sentence is unlikely, because the throne of Satan 
is not to be connected with the Roman authority, and especially because the 


422 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


mention of only a single bloody martyrdom in the recent past, from among 
the seven Churches, is incomprehensible, if in Asia at that time, as in 
Bithynia in 112 under Trajan and Pliny, confession of Christianity when 
proved before a court was regularly punished by death, John, who was 
certainly more prominent and not less courageous than the others, was 
punished simply by banishment. 

4. (P. 412.) Concerning the difference between the status of the Christians 
in the time of Nero and in the time of Domitian, see vol. ii. 177-185, 189-191 ; 
ef. Zahn, Hirt. des Hermas, S. 44 ff., 118-135. The present writer regards it 
as certain that not before Domitian, but in the time of this emperor and 
under his personal leadership, the government of the empire and the pro- 
vineial magistrates under it took a position antagonistie to Christianity, and 
adopted a regular procedure with reference to it. There is also a tradi- 
tion to the effect that Domitian sent Christians into exile because of their 
confession ; thus, for example, Flavia Domitilla was banished to the island of 
Pontia (Eus. H. E. iii. 18.5; Chron. an. Abr. 2109, and after an. 2110; Dio. 
Cass. Ixvii. 14). Reference is made to the banishment of Christians in 
Herm. Sim. i. (ef. Zahn, Hirt, des Hermas, 8. 124). Sparsely settled islands 
were generally used as places of exile, such as Gyara or Gyaros (Tac. Ann. 
ili. 68 £., iv. 30; cf. xv. 71; Juven. i. 73, x. 170; Epict. i. 25. 19, iii. 24. 100, 
109, 113; Philostr. Vita Afoll. vii. 16), an island among the Cyclades, of 
which Plin. H. N. iv. 69 says, as he does also of Melos and Calymna in iv. 71, 
that it had at least one city, a statement which in iv. 69 he is unable to make 
with reference to Patmos. 

5. (Pp. 412,413.) Polye. ad Phil. xi. 3, speaking in his own name and in 
that of the presbyters of Smyrna, says concerning the Macedonian Churches 
with which Paul corresponded : “de vobis etenim gloriatur (Paulus) in omnibus 
ecclesiis, que deum sole tune cognoverant ; nos autem nondum noveramus.” 
or further particulars, see Forsch. iv. 252-259. Of the Churches of the 
province, mentioned by Paul or in the Acts but not in Rev. (Coloss», Hiera- 
polis, 'Troas), Ignatius in 110 mentions only Troas (Smyrn. xii. 1; Philad. 
xi. 2); of those first mentioned in Rev., he mentions Smyrna and Phila- 
delphia, besides these, but first he mentions Magnesia and Tralies. The 
order in Rey. 1. 11, ii. 1 ff. is geographical. The Church which can first be 
reached from Patmos is Ephesus. Then going north follow Smyrna and 
Pergamum, and following in a south-east direction lay Thyatira, Sardis, 
Philadelphia, Laodicea. Leueius in his “ Wanderings of John” makes this 
order of the cities of Asia the basis of his entire treatment (Forsch. vi. 
194-199). 

6. (Pp. 413, 416.) After the comprehensive statement, given in i. 11, 19, 
of what John is to write (above, p. 404), τὸ μυστήριον xrA., i. 20, naturally 
cannot be the object οἵ γράψον in i. 19, a construction of the passage possible 
only on the absurd supposition that during the vision John produced pen 
and paper and begged the Lord, who stood before him, to cease speaking 
for a few minutes. The words are accusative absolutes and introductory 
appositives ; ef. Luke xxi. 6; Rom, xii.1. A somewhat freer use of the cases 
in apposition is characteristic of Rev. (i. 5, ii. 26, xxi. 17). “As regards the 
mystery of the seven stars, etc., the seven stars are the angels of the seven 
Churches.” The fact that in this passage the article is missing before ἄγγελοι 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 423 


is not to be overlooked any more than is the very peculiar use of language in 
the headings in ii. 1, 8ff. Without entering with detail into the very com- 
plicated critical question as to the text, where special consideration must be 
given to S* and the old Latin version, the present writer believes it possible 
to affirm that the smooth reading, τῷ dyy. τῆς ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ ἐκκλησίας, is 
spurious. If the reading suggested by Hort, τῷ dyy. τῷ ev “Ed. ἐκκλησίας, 
be correct, ἐκκλησίας, which is probably to be struck out altogether in ii. 18 
as a modifier of ayy., is hardly a Greek construction, “To the church-angel 
in Ephesus.” Origen discovers here actual angels, who along with the 
human bishops are charged with the oversight of the local Churches (Hom. 
xii. xiii. in Le. ; de Orat. xi.; Theoph. (Latin) ii. 6; see Forsch. ii. 67. 19; 
ef. Jerome on Matt. xviii. 10 (Vall. vil. 139 f.) ; Andreas, p. 8 on i. 20 (who 
also quotes Gregory Naz. as holding this view) ; moreover, p. 4 on i. 4 and p. 19 
on iv. 5, Andreas attempts to identify the seven angels with the seven spirits, 
and makes an obscure statement about a similar view of Irenweus, which 
probably relates to Rev. i. 4, iv. 5=viii. 2); among modern writers the same 
view is held, e.g., by Bleek (Vorl. über die Ap.S. 167). Ambrosiaster (Quest. 
102, ed. Bass. xvi. 466) and Epiph. (Her. xxv. 3) identify the angels with the 
local bishops ; the latter, however, seems also to believe in mystical union 
between the bishop and an angel of the altar, Ebrard, Olshausen’s Komm. 
vii. (1853) S. 144, and recently Spitta, S. 38, identify the angels with the 
messengers of the Churches who came to John. While the Jewish analogies 
adduced by Vitringa, de Synag. vet., ed. ii. (1726) pp. 889-914 ; Comm. in ap., 
ed. ii. p. 25; Lightfoot, Hore hebr. on Matt. iv. 23 (Opp. ii. 278) ; Schoettgen, 
p. 1089, on Rey, ii. 1, clearly need sifting and supplementing, they contain 
the gist of the correct view. The expression 73x my, which corresponds 
exactly in form (ef. the remarks above on the text of ii. 1), did not in itself 
and originally mean a fixed office, still less a humble office in the synagogue, 
but it meant the person in the congregation who was invested with full 
power, who acted in its name in all relations, especially in matters con- 
cerning the liturgy, the leading of prayers, etc. The idea is not that of 
the priest, who acts in the assembly in the name of God, or that of the 
prophet and apostle, who are sent by God or Christ, but that of an author- 
ised agent of the Church, its representative before God and in acts of de- 
votion. It is a noteworthy fact that the early Syrians, who were not 
familiar with Rev. or who at least did not have it in their canon, under- 
stood by ἄγγελοι in 1 Cor. vi. 3 and in other places the priests (Aphraat, p. 
432 ; Ephr. Carm. Nisib. 42.10 ; Comm. in ep. Pauli, p. 175), on the analogy of 
Mal.ii. 7; cf. Hag, i. 13. The best example of a transition from address to 
the bishop to address to the Church is Ign, ad Polye. i.-üi., vi. 1-vii. 1, vii. 
2, 3, viii. 1, 3; remote parallels are found in the concluding greetings in 
1 Tim. vi. 21 ; 2 Tim. iv. 15; Tit. iii. 15. 

7. (P. 416.) In Rev. ii. 20 the external authority for γυναῖκα followed 
by σοῦ (AB, many cursives, old Lat. version [Cypr. Primas.], S? 8%) is at 
least as great as that for γυναῖκα alone (NCP Copt. vg; Epiph. Her. li. 33). 
The later insertion of σοῦ cannot be satisfactorily explained as a mechanical 
repetition of σοῦ used three or four times earlier, On the contrary, since 
ἄγγελοι was early understood to mean angels (see ἢ. 6), σοῦ must have 
seemed out of place, However, when the earliest witnesses for γυναῖκα 


424 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


without σοῦ were written, married bishops were objectionable exceptions, at 
the history of Synesius shows ; especially a bishop who had such a godless 
wife in his house. Furthermore, the expression τὴν γυναῖκα “lef. is a gross 
violation of style, which in the nature of the case cannot be justified by 
examples like ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἡρώδης (Mark vi. 14, “the king, namely, Herod ”). 
Therefore, accepting σοῦ as correct, the reference can only be to the wife of 
the bishop. The daughter of a Phcenician king, who as the wife of the weak 
king Ahab used her position to introduce into Israel the worship of Baal 
and the unchastity associated with it (1 Kings xvi. 31, xviii. 4, 13, xix. 1, 
xxi, 25), and who herself is charged with adultery (2 Kings ix. 22, ef. ix. 30), 
was a fitting type by which to describe a bishop's wife who countenanced.the 
teaching of the Nicolaitans, reeommended without scruple unchastity and 
participation in the heathen sacrificial feasts, and who herself indulged in 
vice. If, as is clearly the case, mopvevoa in ii. 20 is to be taken literally 
(ef. ii. 14; Acts xv. 20,29; 1 Cor. x. 7, 8; 2 Pet. ii. 18-20; Jude 4, 11f., vol. 
ii. 224 f., 245f.), πορνεία in ii. 21 must be taken in the same way, and the fact 
that the sin of those who have had intercourse with her is called μοιχεύειν 
μετ᾽ αὐτῆς, only goes to confirm the fact that she was married ; all unchastity 
on the part of a married woman is adultery (cf. Matt. v. 32). But it is 
not likely that her children were the fruits of such adulterous relations (τέκνα 
πορνείας, Hos. ii. 6; John viii. 41). That would necessarily be expressed. 
They are the legitimate children of the wife and also of the bishop. They 
are to be swept away by a pestilence (cf. Rev. vi. 8=733, Ex. v. 3, ix. 3, 15). 
If there is any point at which a depraved woman can be deeply touched it is 
with reference to her own children. The comparison with Jezebel is imper- 
fect in so far as the weak Ahab actually committed wrong, although not 
without misgivings (1 Kings xxi. 27-29). The bishop of Thyatira, on the 
other hand, is praised because of his constantly increasing good conduct 
(ii. 19); but it isa blameworthy weakness on his part that he permits his 
Wife to do as she likes. As a husband and a bishop he ought not to have 
allowed his wife entire freedom in her movements, which made it possible 
for her to exercise her seductive influence on many members of the Church. 
From the manner in which Christ describes Himself in ii. 23, it is evident 
that Jezebel knew how to conceal her actions from the knowledge and eriti- 
cism of others ; hence also from her husband. She passed not as πόρνη, but 
as προφῆτις, and we do not know how far she and her followers went. In 
every century the history of the Church shows all degrees of confusion 
between immoral conduct and exalted religiousness. He who tries the 
hearts and reins calls the more refined use of feminine charms in order to 
allure admirers πορνεία, and in no allegorical sense, and in the case of a 
married woman he calls it μοιχεία ; ef. Matt. v. 28. The idea, put forth by 
Andreas, p. 12, that Jezebel is a personification of the Nicolaitan party is to 
be rejected ; (1) if the reading of ii. 20 advocated above be correct, then we 
are confronted by the incredible supposition that this godless party could be 
represented as the wife of the pious bishop; (2) Jezebel, who teaches others 
and who commits adultery with her admirers, and who has children, cannot 
be identical with the party, the members of which are distinguished from her 
as her adulterous companions and her children. Even weaker is Sehiirer’s 
view (Theol. Abh. C. Weizsacker gewidmet, 1892, S. 37 ff.), that Jezebel is the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 425 


Chaldean Sibyl, Sambethe (Prol. in Orac. Sibyll., ed. Rzach, p. 4. 28) or Sabbe 
(Pausan. x. 12. 9). This fancy is possible only on the basis of the wrong 
reading of Rev. ii. 20; furthermore, it is by no means settled whether the 
σαμβαθεῖον mentioned in an inscription at Thyatira, belonging to the time 
of Trajan or later (0. I. @. 3509), was a sanctuary of this Σαμβήθη ; finally, 
how can this purely mythical figure be made to agree with the text of Rev. 
ii. 18-29, which unquestionably deals with actual events at the time when 
Rev. was written ? It is necessary to suppose that at that time a priestess 
officiated in the sanctuary of Sambethe who pretended to be a prophetess, 
like the Sibyl, or a new incarnation of the Sibyl. In that case the name 
Jezebel would be the most unsuitable possible, since she was not a heathen 
prophetess, but the wife of an Israelitish king who had come out of paganism. 
Even accepting Schiirer’s false reading, there is still no doubt that “ Jezebel” 
belonged to the Christian Church. (1) In ii. 20 it is very plainly indicated 
among whom she passes as prophetess and teacher; she does not teach and 
lead astray a few persons who have been Christians and who have fallen back 
into paganism, or weak individuals who, while attending the Church services, 
at the same time visited heathen oracles, but the servants of Christ in 
Thyatira. Those who have suffered themselves to be led astray by her 
(ii. 22), are contrasted with the members of the Church who remained 
~ faithful (ii. 24); it follows, therefore, that all are Christians. A heathen 
prophetess, who promulgated her “teachings” only among Christians, 
would be a peculiar saint. (2) The content of her teaching (διδάσκει, 
ii. 20; τὴν διδαχὴν ταύτην, ii. 24) is exactly the same as that which in ii. 14, 
15 is called the teachings of the Nicolaitans, which were promulgated by 
alleged apostles (Rev. ii. 2, 6) among the Churches of Asia Minor. It is, 
therefore, evident that the false prophetess as well as the false prophets was 
outwardly a member of the Christian Church. (3) The angel or the bishop 
could not be blamed for permitting a heathen Pythia or Sibyl to do as she 
liked (ὅτι abeis κτλ.) ; since he had neither power nor authority over her. 
The only thing he could be blamed for would be his failure to warn the 
Christians under his care against visiting the heathen temple and against 
the suggestions of this heathen soothsayer. (4) Jezebel and all her followers 
are under the discipline of Christ; more precisely the discipline of the 
Church exercised most signally and most comprehensively by Christ Himself 
(ii. 21-23, especially v. 23, πᾶσαι ai ἐκκλησίαι and ὑμῖν). The fact that the 
exalted Christ has a part in God’s government of the world, and that God 
requires repentance also of the heathen,—something that does not need to 
be proved from the Sibylline Oracles (cf. Matt. xii. 41; Acts xvii. 30),— offers 
no justification for the assumption that Christ is here conceived of as the 
master who punishes Jezebel and her followers in order to bring them to 
repentance and as a warning to all the Churches (cf. per contra 1 Cor. v. 12). 
8. (P. 416.) Bengel (Erklärte Offenb. Joh. 1740, 8. 262) saw that in iii. 1 
a proper name is presupposed connected with the word “Life” The popular 
interpretation, “ Thou enjoyest the reputation of living when thou art dead,” 
(1) presupposes the reading of the Text. rec. τὸ ὄνομα, which is entirely 
unauthenticated, and which even Luther was obliged to translate (“the 
name”). (2) There is no justification of the interpretation from usage. The 
passage, Herod. vii. 138, cited by Raphel, ii. 794, is not parallel, since the 


426 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


reference there is not to a person who as such would have a proper name 
but to a warlike undertaking, the real purpose of which was eoncealed by 
false statements—a thought which would be expressed by λέγεσθαι (1 Cor. 
viii. 5; Eph, ii. 11; cf. Rev, ἢ, 2, 9, 20, 39); ὀνομάζεσθαι (1 Cor, v. 11), or 
δοκεῖν. (3) On this hypothesis it would be necessary to explain how the 
angel secured the unjustified reputation of being alive. It would be 
necessary to call him a hypocrite and to unmask him. That ὄνομα is here 
a proper name is further evidenced (cf. ii. 17, iii. 12, ix. 11, xix. 12), by the 
fact that in the immediate context, iii. 4, and only here ὀνόματα occurs in 
the sense of “ persons,” and that in iii. 5 ὄνομα (ef. Phil. iv. 3) is again used 
to designate the proper name. If, then, the meaning be, “ Thou bearest a 
name (which signifies) that thou livest,” it must be either Ζώσιμος or Ζωτικός͵ 
The latter is the more likely, because this name occurs very frequently in 
the inscriptions of the province (Forsch. v. 94; οὗ. also Ramsay, Cities and 
Bishopries, i, 390, 392, 475, 525, 533, 536, 539, 564, 656 f., 702, 705, 744, 760, 
761, and the inscriptions in Altert. von Hierapolis, S. 87, 89, 114, 140, Nos. 41, 
46, 133, 220); Zosimus, on the other hand, is comparatively rare (6.0. 0. 1. @. 
3509 ; Ramsey, op. cit. 472 f., 535) ; moreover, ζώσιμος as an adjective is rare, 
while ζωτικός occurs frequently (=vividus, vegetus). The suggestion of the 
meaning of the word brings to mind not only the opposite idea νεκρὸς εἶ, 
but affects also what follows: ver. 2, ἀποθανεῖν ; ver. 5, ἡ βίβλος τῆς ζωῆς. 
For a similar use of the literal meaning of proper names, see vol. 1. 456, n, 5. 

9. (P. 417.) According to Mart. Polyc. xix. 1, Polycarp was put to death 
in Smyrna in the year 155, either as the last of the twelve Christians, who 
in part, at least, had been brought thither from Philadelphia (according to 
the reading δωδέκατος), or as the thirteenth, after the twelve Philadelphians 
had preceded him in death (according to the more probable, reading δώδεκα). 
If any other Smyrnean besides Polycarp suffered martyrdom at this time, 
in the detailed account which we have there would necessarily be some 
trace of it. 

10, (P. 417.) In the light of second century usage there can be no doubt 
that ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα means Sunday, and not the Christian feast of the 
Passover (ef. Zahn, Skizzen, 2 Aufl. S. 354, A. 16). The fact that Sunday 
is no longer designated by its Jewish name, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7, 
and in the Gospels, but by the Christian name in use later, is proof of the 
relatively late date of the composition of Rev. It would have been in 
bad taste to use this in John xx. 1, 19. 

11. (P. 418.) If the saints in Thyatira are taken as the subject of ὡς 
λέγουσιν in ii. 24, these words are superfluous, since John’s judgment con- 
cerning the teachings of the Nicolaitans cannot differ from that of the saints 
in Thyatira. If, on the other hand, the Nicolaitans are the subject, they 
would hardly be made responsible for the opinion that their pious opponents 
lack knowledge of the deep things of Satan; in that case ἐκεῖνοι would 
hardly be lacking before λέγουσιν. The meaning is rather, that the 
Nicolaitans themselves boast of such knowledge, and by the use of the 
slightly emphasised ὡς λέγουσιν John merely means to indicate that this 
expression is borrowed from the language of the Nicolaitans. In any case 
the saints are without “this alleged knowledge of the deep things of Satan,” 
of which the Nicolaitans boast. Not satisfied with the knowledge of the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 427 


deep things of God (1 Cor. ii. 10), they feel that they ought also to penetrate 
the abysses of Satan (ef. vol. ii. 225 f., 246, 280 f.). 

12. (P. 419.) The opinion of Baur (Christent. der drei erst. Jahrh., 2 Aufl. 
S. 81) and his school, that Rev. ii, 2 is aimed at Paul, is refuted by the fact 
that we have καὶ οὐκ εἰσίν, not ἦσαν, which excludes all possible reference 
to the deceased Paul. The opinion that aspersions are cast on Paul, who 
wrote 1 Cor. vi. 12-20 and viii. 1-x. 33, as a representative of the teachings 
described in Rev. ii. 14, 20, and that the angel of the Church of Ephesus, 
which owed its existence to the work of Paul, is praised because he rejected 
Paul and his assistants as false prophets, and the opinion that the apostle 
John, whose attitude toward Paul we know from Gal. ii. 9, is responsible for 
such foolish utterances—need only to be stated to be refuted. There is no 
more definite description of the false apostles in ii. 2 or of the Nicolaitans 
in ii. 6. But since in ii. 2 the bishop’s action in trying and rejecting the 
false prophets is mentioned as an example of his praiseworthy intolerance 
of evil men, and since in ii. 6 his hatred of the conduct of the Nicolaitans is 
the only praiseworthy act of his mentioned, we infer that the false prophets 
must have been representatives also of the teachings of the Nicolaitans. 

13. (P. 419.) The best treatment of the Nicolaitans is that of 
WOHLENBERG in NKZ, 1895, S. 923-961. The most important sources 
are Iren. i. 26. 3, iii. 11. 1; Clem. Strom. ii. 118, iii. 25-29; Hippol. Refut. 
vii. 36, and in the writing addressed to Mammea (Hippolytus’ Kleinere 
Schriften, ed. Achelis, p. 251). Victorinus also has some distinctive remarks 
on Rev. ii. 6 (Migne, y. col. 521). According to Irenzeus and Hippolytus, 
Nicolaiis himself fell into error ; while Clement, in order to prove Nicolaiis’ 
innocence, charges the Nicolaitans with misconstruing innocent words and 
actions of his. The latter view only shows how hard it was to believe that 
an early Christian mentioned in the N.T. could become a heretic, and is 
proof of the historicity of Irenzeus’ account. The opinion current since the 
time of Vitringa (Comm. in apoc., ed. ii. 1719, p. 65f.), that Νικόλαος, from 
which the term Nicolaitans is derived, is a translation of oyba cannot be 
maintained. While those who really know Hebrew would rightfully and 
necessarily take exception to this translation, certainly inaccurate and 
probably false, to Christians in Asia Minor unfamiliar with Hebrew, the 
term would be entirely blind. They would more naturally infer that the 
teaching referred to in ii. 15 was different from that referred to in ii. 14. 
Actual translations, such as ζηλωτής, Luke vi. 15, or passages where it is 
expressly said that words are translations, as John i. 38-42, xix. 13, 17, 
xx. 16, Rey. ix. 11, cannot be cited as parallels. Such a translation would 
have served no purpose, since Balaam, like Jezebel, was a familiar historical 
figure, having a typical significance (2 Pet. ii. 15 ; Jude 11, vol. ii. 235, n. 3), 
and therefore Balaamites would have been much more intelligible than 
Nicolaitans, if there were no real Nicolaiis and no real Nicolaitans. If there 
were such, however, these must be meant; and it would be a strange 
accident if the name Balaam, which is unquestionably mentioned because of 
the historical importance of this person, and not because of the literal 
meaning of the name, could seem to one imperfectly acquainted with Hebrew 
to be a translation of Nicolaiis. Furthermore, the right place for the com- 
parison of Balaam and Nicolaiis would be ii. 6, not ii. 14f. 


428 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


$ 74. THE AUTHOR OF REVELATION. 


Since the author, who gives his book the form of a 
message to the seven Churches, begins his writing with 
a greeting, he has occasion to introduce in the greeting 
his own name (1. 4). But he calls himself by this name 
also in i. 9, «ΧΙ. 8, and in the title of the book, i. 1. 
From the explicit manner in which the author says in 
xxii, 8, “I, John, am he who saw and heard this,” we 
infer that the reason for the repeated mention of himself 
is the feeling that the one who has received revelations 
(i. 2, xxii. 18) should in person testify to the truthfulness 
of his account (Dan. vu. 2, 15, vill. 1, ix. 2, x. 2). The 
name indicates that he was a Hebrew (n. 1), and this is 
fully confirmed by his language. He is, therefore, to be 
regarded as a Christian of Jewish origin from Palestine 
who settled in Asia Minor. From the absence of all 
modifying clauses attached to the name except that of “a 
servant of Christ” (i. 1), it is clear that he was the only 
person of this name known among the seven Churches, or, 
if there were other Hebrews with this name, they were 
entirely overshadowed by this John. Unless the author 
were distinguished throughout the entire circle of Churches 
addressed, and were familiar with their conditions, the 
passage i, 4-11. 22 would be quite incomprehensible. 
This conclusion is not affected by the fact that the com- 
munications he sends had their origin in visions. From 
this it follows that he was, or pretended to be, the well- 
known John of Ephesus, the author of the Fourth Gospel 
and of the three Epistles bearing this name, whom we have 
found to be the apostle John. 

Of writers who do not think that Revelation can be 
attributed to the apostle, Dionysius of Alexandria is the 
first to suggest the identity of the author of Revelation 
with John Mark; but he refuses to make John Mark the 
author of Revelation, because of his inability to make this 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 429 


agree with the statements in the N.T. concerning Mark 
(n. 2). Nor have modern writers who hold Mark to be 
the author of Revelation, or of some parts of it, been 
able to get over this difficulty. This John, with the 
toman surname Mark, is never designated among Gentile 
Christians (Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11; 
1 Pet. v. 13) and in the tradition of the early Church 
by his Hebrew, but always by his Roman name. The 
name John is never added, except in passages where 
reference is had to his early history (Acts xii. 12, 25, 
ΧΗ]. 5, 13, xv. 37), and then always in such a way as to 
make it clear that in the Gentile Christian Churches the 
Roman had replaced the Hebrew name (Acts xv. 39), just 
as Paul had taken the place of Saul. In the year 62 
Mark was as yet personally unknown to the Asiatie 
Churches (Col. iv. 10; vol. 1. 442, 450, n. 4). Apparently 
he came to Asia shortly thereafter, but only for a short 
time; since we find him in Rome toward the end of 
the year 63, or at the beginning of the year 64 (1 Pet. 
vy. 13). He was again in Asia in the year 66, but is 
directed to come again to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11). Mark’s 
permanent residence in the province of Asia, prior to the 
year 67, is out of the question (vol. 11. 427 ff.). Since, 
however, the apostle John and others belonging to the 
apostolie group settled in this province not later than 
the year 69, it is impossible that thereafter Mark should 
come to occupy a position such as that occupied by the 
author of Revelation. Least of all could he introduce 
himself in this work as the one distinguished John known 
to the Churches in Asia; for this name belonged to the 
aged John of Ephesus, 2.e., the apostle John. | 
Surprise has been expressed that the author did not 
call himself an apostle; but this overlooks the fact that 
Paul even, who more than any other apostle had occasion 
to call attention to his apostleship, and who made use of 
such opportunities, fails to use this title in a number of 


430 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


his letters to the Churches (1 Thess. i 1; 2 Thess. i. 1), 
occasionally also designating himself simply a slave of 
Christ (Phil. i. 1; ef. Rev. i. 1). It is also to be remem- 
bered that in writing his Epistles John does not use the 
apostolic title, and that the use of it is almost entirely 
avoided in the Gospel (above, p. 227, n. 9). But the most 
important consideration of all is the fact that the present 
work gave him no occasion to call himself an apostle. 
Any member of the Church possessing prophetic sifts may 
become the recipient of a revelation, and the high regard 
in which John was held in the Church of Asia, such as is 
certainly presupposed by the simple manner in which he 
introduces his own name in Rev. i. 4, 9, is due much less 
to his position among the Twelve—which give him no 
authority over the Gentile Christian Churches founded 
by other missionaries—than to the fact that he was 
able to bear testimony as one who had heard and seen 
Jesus (1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14). Of this fact the readers 
are reminded at the very beginning of the book. When 
he falls down as one dead before the majestic gaze of the 
Lord who appears to him, he is again heartened by the 
familiar summons, “ Fear thou not, it is I” (i. 17). At 
the same time, the hand of the Lord, whom he has 
previously seen, heard, and handled (1 John i. 1), rests 
upon his head to comfort and reassure him (n. 3). 

It has also been considered strange and inconsistent 
with the apostolic dignity of the author, that im xxi. 14 
he should relate in so naive a manner what he had seen, 
namely, the names of the twelve apostles written upon 
the twelve foundation stones of the wall of the Jerusalem 
coming down to earth. In that case words like Luke 
xxii, 30, Matt. xix. 28, which only apostles could have 
heard and repeated, must be the invention of persons 
who were not apostles ; and when Paul wrote 1 Cor. i. 28 
and Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv. 11, he must have forgotten that 
in 1 Cor. i. 1, Eph. i. 1 he had very solemnly declared 
himself to be an apostle. John has never been able to 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 431 


satisfy his critics (n. 4). When, as in the Gospel and 
the Epistles, he refrains from using his title of honour 
explicitly, it is evidence that he has oceasion to conceal 
something; on the other hand, if, as in Revelation he 
mentions his own name, it is the sign of disagreeable 
obtrusiveness. If he emphasises, as in John xix. 35, 
1 John 1. 1-4, the fact that he was an eye-witness, it 
. betrays a suspicious design; if, as in Revelation, he lets 
his historical relation to Jesus remain in the background, 
it is proof that the relation did not exist. When he 
happens to speak once objectively of the twelve apostles, 
this is just as conclusive evidence that he was not one of 
their number, as if he called himself the presbyter instead 
of the apostle. 

Nor does any real problem arise from a comparison of 
the teachings of Revelation with those of the Gospel and 
of 1 John. The single fact, discussed above, p. 312 ff., that 
in all three of these writings, and nowhere else in the 
whole of early Christian literature, save in the writings 
which can be shown to be dependent upon the Johannine 
writings, ὁ λόγος is used as a comprehensive name for the 
Christ ; and this usage presupposed, has more weight than 
all the objections based upon supposed irreconcilable 
contradictions between ideas found in Revelation and the 
other Johannine writings (n. 5). It would require almost 
an entire interpretation, not only of Revelation, but 
more especially of the Gospel, in order to correct all the 
misunderstandings, which in this instance have hindered 
the acceptance of the correct view concerning the relation 
of these two works—as, for example, when one discovers 
in the Gospel the disappearance of the early Christian 
prophecy and hope, or a universalism in which the special 
position of Israel is totally denied, or a tenderness nullify- 
ing all serious thought of the wrath and judgement of God. 
Furthermore, one who regards both the discourses of the 
Gospel and the visions of Revelation as pure inventions, 
will necessarily make demands relative to similarity in 


432 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


idea and language between writings purporting to be from 
the same author, entirely different from the demands 
which one will feel himself compelled to make who regards 
the Gospel and Revelation not, to be sure, as stenographic 
reports, but as faithful accounts of a witness concerning 
what he had seen and heard. Jesus uses language in 
His earthly life and says things to His earthly companions 
different from the language and the message of the exalted | 
Lord in visions to His servant and prophet. And still 
He is the same person. 

The only real problem is that arising from the great 
difference wm style observable between the Gospel and 
Epistles on the one hand and Revelation on the, other. 
Here, first of all, it is necessary to correct the exaggerated 
statements made as early as the time of Dionysius the 
Alexandrian, concerning the good Greek of the Gospel 
and Epistles (n. 6). Even the Fourth Gospel must have 
been written by a Hebrew. Only by confining one’s 
attention to a narrow group of expressions is it possible 
to overlook the gross violations both of the spirit and 
rules of the Greek language in the Gospel. Furthermore, 
in Revelation phenomena of this kind are for the most 
part due not to ignorance of Greek, but in particular 
instances to intention (n. 7), and to the dependence of 
the visions themselves and their literary form upon the 
model of the prophetic writings of the O.T. Oral, and 
written prophecy in the apostolic Church had its own 
peculiar style, following closely the O.T. model, as did 
also the thoughtful didactic addresses and the historical 
narratives, and the Psalm. Consequently the same man, 
when writing as a prophet, would necessarily use language 
different from that which he would employ in a didactic 
communication to the Churches committed to his care, or 
in writing an account of the deeds and sayings of Jesus. 
Then it must be remembered that in the nature of the 
case the relation of the prophetic writer to his subject 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 433 


is one of much less freedom than in any other form of 
composition. Particularly when his prophecy is based 
upon visions, received in an ecstatic state, everything is 
received, not only the material, but also the form. All 
that he has to do is to put what he has seen into words, 
and for this reason he is much less inclined than is the 
historian and the teacher to polish or to permit to be 
polished for him the style of his first draft. The original 
account, written under the immediate impression of the 
vision beheld, is the best, because the most faithful. The 
more important the contents, the less important the form. 
With all the difference of content and form, however, 
there are significant agreements between the language of 
Revelation and the Gospel (nn. 5, 6). 

The tradition regarding the origin of Revelation, the 
testimony of the book itself in those portions which have 
to do with the circumstances under which it was written, 
and in single expressions, and in the impression received 
from the whole book that it is a genuine product of early 
Christian prophecy, are all in harmony with the position 
that Revelation was written by the apostle John in the 
year 95 during his exile on the island of Patmos, and that 
it was received and handed down by the seven Churches 
to which he sent it as being really what it claims to be in 
its title. This conclusion has yet to be defended against 
that construction of its prophetic contents—a construction 
frequently shown to be untenable, but nevertheless not 
abandoned—according to which the book, either as a 
whole or in many of its parts, is thought necessarily to 
have been written considerably earlier. 


1. (P. 428.) The present writer knows no Jew of the Graeco-Roman 
diaspora with the name of John; whereas, e.g., Jude, Joseph, Jonathan, 
Samuel, Miriam, and Salome occur in Roman inscriptions. Cf. also Forsch. 
vi. 176, A. 1. It was not until long after the time of Revelation that the 
custom arose among the Christians of calling themselves by the names of 
apostles (cf. Dionysius in Eus, vii. 25. 14). 

2. (P. 429.) Dionysius in Eus. vii. 25. 15 rejects the idea that Mark is 

VOL. III. 28 


434 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the author only because of Acts xiii. 5, 13. HırzıG (Über Jo. Mr. und seine 
Schriften, 1843) declares Mark to be the author of the whole of Revelation 
Spirra (see above, p. 407, n. 11) declares him to be the author of an Ur- 
Apocalypse preserved principally in Rey. i. 3-iii. 22. 

3. (P. 430.) Rev. i. 17 is correctly understood by Iren. iv. 20. 11 
(“quoniam ipse est, in cujus pectore recumbebat ad ccenam”); also by 
Herder (Maranatha, S. 13, notwithstanding his wrong division of sentences, 
S. 11). In favour of this interpretation is the clear suggestion of John vi. 20; 
Matt. xiv. 27, cf. Luke xxiv. 38f.; John xviii. 5. Furthermore, if ὁ πρῶτος 
καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος were here used predicatively, and not in apposition to ἐγώ, there 
would be absolutely nothing in it to relieve the overwhelming impression of 
the vision, and to allay fear, as is the case in all other sentences in the Bible 
which follow un φοβοῦ, φοβεῖσθε. Following i. 8 (cf. xxi. 6) so closely, it 
would be even impossible to avoid the misunderstanding that the one who 
here appeared is God the Lord Himself,—a mistake which would not be cor- 
rected until i. 18. It is also to be observed that in Rev., which in this 
respect resembles the doctrinal Epistles rather than a Gospel, the person of 
the Lord is frequently called simply Ἰησοῦς, even when the reference is to 
His exaltation and the religious attitude toward Him (i. 9, xii. 17, xiv. 12, 
xvii. 6, xix. 10, xx. 4, xxii. 16). Naturally the author is acquainted with 
the solemn formulas of i. 1, 2, 5, xiv. 13 ; uses also Χριστός in suitable places, 
xi. 15, xii. 10, xx. 4, 6; prays to Him as “ Lord Jesus,” xxii. 20; but he is not 
in the habit of using 6 κύριος or ὁ Χριστός instead of the proper name, any 
more than does the John of the Gospel and the Epistles. He is too close to 
the historical manifestation of Jesus to do this. 

4. (P. 430.) Dionysius, in Eus. vii. 25. 6-13, is an example of false 
criticism of John’s mention of himself in Rev. The Alogi also seem to have 
criticised 1 John i. 1-4; GK, ii. 50. 

5. (P. 431.) As has been shown above, pp. 312 f., 327 f., in discussing the 
* Logos doctrine” of the Johannine writings, it is not a formula capable of 
several interpretations and differently understood by different writers, in the 
use of which the Gospel, Rev., and the Epistles agree, but it is the idea which 
comes out more clearly in Rev. than in any other early Christian writing, 
whereas the form in which the idea is expressed changes (Gospel, 6 Adyos ; 
Rey. ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ ἀμήν ; 1 John, ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς). Jesus could be 
called “Logos” even if He were not in an eternal manner God. But Rev., 
the Gospel, and Epistles agree in ascribing this estimate to His person. 
While the angels will not accept any worship (Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 9), there is 
no objection when John falls down at the feet of Jesus (i. 17). He addresses 
Him with the marana tha of the liturgy (xxii. 20; ef. vol. i. 303, n. 12), and 
all the inhabitants of heaven include Him in their worshipful praise of God 
(v. 9-14; cf. vii. 10, xi. 5). With God and His sevenfold Spirit He is the 
source of grace and peace, i. 5. To Him are ascribed the attributes, “the 
first and the last,” which seem to belong imalienably to God, i, 17, xxii. 13; 
cf, also i, 8, xxi. 6. Like God, He stands at the beginning not only of history, 
but also of the ereated world, which is inconceivable without the presupposi- 
tion that He had part in the creation (iii. 14; ef. John i. 3; Col. 1. 15-18). 
And yet He calls God both His God (ii. 7, iii. 12) and His Father (iii. 5, 21; 
ef. John xx. 17), and confesses that all that He has was received from His Father 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 435 


(Rev. ii. 27, i. 1; cf. John iii. 35, v. 22, 27, xvii. 2). In view of His earthly 
and human vocation He is called the faithful witness (i. 5, iii. 14), which 
agrees perfectly with the Fourth Gospel (xviii. 37). Reference to the Con- 
cordance under paprupety and paprupia (found elsewhere only in Mark xiv. 
55-59 with reference to false witnesses) shows that all the Johannine writings 
have the same author. Jesus is called 76 apviov only in Rev., where the word 
oceurs twenty-nine times; the word occurs elsewhere only in John xxi. 15, 
while the figure itself is found in John i. 29, 36 in the testimony of the 
Baptist, which led this apostle to Jesus. Only in Rev. xxi. 2, 9, xxii. 17, and 
John iii. 29 is the Church directly called the νύμφη of Christ, etc. The claim 
of Dionysius, op. cit. § 22, that Rev. has not a single syllable in common with 
the Gospel and 1 John, is a foolish exaggeration. 

6. (P. 432.) Dionysius’ contrast between the style of Rev. and that of the 
Gospel, op. cit. §§ 24-27, is just as much exaggerated as what he says con- 
cerning the teachings (seen. 5). Cf., on the other hand, Origen’s carefully 
weighed judgment of the style of Heb. in comparison with Paul’s Epistles in 
Eus. vi. 26.11. In the latter case the comparison is between writings of the 
same class ; but, leaving that out of account, the relation is altogether different 
from that existing between Rev. and John. Concerning Hebrew words and 
Hebraisms in the Gospel, see above, p. 353, nn. 13, 19f.; in Rev., see below, 
p. 4471. It is noteworthy that in each writing John once neglects to make 
clear to the readers through translation the idea associated with a name which 
is called Hebrew (John v.2; Rev. xvi. 16; p. 353, n. 13). To be noted also is 
the Hebraistic use of ex in the sense of a partitive gen. (above, p. 283, n.2). The 
use of the neuter to describe persons (John vi. 37, 39, x. 29) in Rev. iii. 4; 
the use of the article as in John iii. 10 (“ the official teacher among us,” or “ of 
us two”), also Rev. "1.17. Cf. also single characteristic phrases such as those 
found at the end of each book referring to their respective contents, Rev. 
xxii. 18, 19; John xxi. 20 (γεγραμμένα ev τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ), Or σὺ οἶδας (“thou 
knowest better”), Rev. vii. 14; John xxi. 15-17. 

7. (P. 432.) When a writer who uses ἀπό with the gen. between thirty 
and forty times writes once (i. 4) ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν καὶ 6 ἢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, it must 
be because he wants to indicate that 6 ὧν κτλ. is used as an indeclinable 
proper name, as a paraphrase for Yahweh. Also ὁ ἦν (ef. also i. 8, iv. 8. xi. 
17, xvi. 5) must likewise be an intentional substitute for an omitted im- 
perfect or aorist participle. Just as ro can be placed before any part of 
speech whatever when the reference is to objects, so ὁ can be used (ef. 
ὃ ἀμήν, ill. 14; above, p. 329, n. 8) when the reference is to persons. In 
i. 5, xx. 2, likewise, the disagreement in case between the noun and the word 
in apposition seems to be intentional, designed to give the word in apposition 
more prominence, by making it an independent exclamation ; this may be 
true also in the case of πλήρης in John i. 14 (but cf. Blass, Gr.2 S. 81). In 
other instances (ii. 20, 111. 12, vii. 4, ix. 14) there may be actual soleeisms, 
carelessness such as would be likely to occur in the ordinary speech of 
barbarians not yet fully Hellenised. The present writer does not regard 
it as impossible that the style of John’s other writings was revised by friends 
more familiar with Greek than himself (cf. vol. i. 68 on Josephus), but that, 
for the reasons suggested above, p. 433, he failed to have this done in the case 


of Rev. 


436 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


§ 75. CONTEMPORARY-HISTORICAL OR FUTURIST 
INTERPRETATION. 


Without due recognition of the very definite tradition, 
and the evident marks of time in chaps. i.-üi., the attempt 
has long enough been made to determine the date of the 
composition of Revelation by the so-called contemporary- 
historical interpretation of its prophetic contents (n. 1). 
Especially since it was thought that it had been discovered 
that the number 666 (Rev. xiii. 18) represents the name 
of Nero, it has been held by the majority of German 
eritics to be a proved fact that Revelation was written 
soon after the death of Nero (7 June 9, 68 A.D.), and 
shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem (August 70). 
The five kings, who had fallen (Rey. xvii. 10), are said to 
have been the five emperors from Augustus to Nero, and 
the sixth, who was ruling when Revelation was written, 
either Galba (ft January 69) or—if Galba, Otho, and 
Vitellius, who had brief reigns, are omitted—Vespasian. 
The seventh, who is represented as having already been 
emperor and as to come again as antichrist (xvu. 8, 11, 
ef. xiii. 3, 12, 14), is supposed to be Nero, who, according 
to popular belief, was to return from the realm of the 
dead. In setting over against this interpretation and 
others of a similarly contemporary-historical character a 
futurist view, it must be recognised that they are not in 
every respect mutually exclusive The former does not 
indeed deny that future events—the appearing of the anti- 
christ, the parousia of Christ, and the final judgment—are 
predicted by John ; and the latter does not deny that these 
final events are announced as being near at hand, and 
are represented as intimately connected with present facts. 
This is the nature of all prophecy. It aims always at the 
final outcome, and is yet bound to the past and the present. 

Moreover, the origin of this prophecy in visions 
actually experienced does not alter the question, since 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 437 


the imagery of the ecstatie vision, as of the ordinary 
dream, is formed out of material present within the eircle 
of vision of the seer or dreamer when awake. For 
Christians inquiring concerning the issue of the develop- 
ment of history and longing for the fulfilment of all of 
God’s promises (xxi. 17, 20, v. 4, vi. 10), such material was 
at hand in the predictions of the O.T. prophets, especially 
Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, above all, however, in the 
prophetic testimony of Jesus, the possession of which alone 
secures to them a portion of the spirit of prophecy (xix. 
10, ef. John xvi. 13 f.), and in the prophecy of the Church 
—based upon this possession of the prophetic spirit (1 John 
ii. 18; above, p. 371, n. 5)—with which Revelation is con- 
nected as a new—and, as far as the present is concerned, 
the last—link of the prophetic chain beginning with the 
prophecy of Jesus Himself. The Christian prophets from 
the first had held in view the course of the historical 
development of the world and the signs of the times (vol. 
1. 228 f., 235 ff., vol. ἢ. 110 ff.); John did likewise. It is, 
moreover, simply in agreement with the form of all N.T. 
prophecy, from the Baptist onwards, that the end is 
announced as imminent, the final coming of the kingdom 
of God and of Christ as rapid, sudden, and near at hand 
(i. 1, 3, m1. 11, xxu. 7, 10, 12, 20, cf. Matt. ili. 2-12; Jas. 
v. 8f.; Rom. xii. 11 ff. ; Phil. iv. 5; Heb. x. 37; 1 John 
i. 18; above, p. 371, n. 5). None the less, however, 
Revelation maintains the underlying principle of true 
prophecy, in withholding from men outside, and from the 
Church itself, a chronologically definite knowledge of the 
coming of the end (Matt. xxiv. 36; Acts i. 5; 1 Thess. 
v. 1 ff.). It does not contain a single statement that even 
in obscure reference gives the period of time intervening 
between the present and the parousia. It also contains 
prophecies which must be fulfilled before the final events, 
if they are to be fulfilled at all. Among these are included 
not only the partly hypothetical words, ii. 5, 22, iii. 9 (iii, 


438 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


3, 191. 2), but also the persecution which will come upon 
the Church of Smyrna, and will cause the death of its 
bishop (11. 8-11; above, pp. 417, 426). 

As far as the prophecies are concerned, which unques- 
tionably have in view the really final events, it has already 
appeared (above, p. 406, n. 9) that the naming of Jeru- 
salem as the spiritual Sodom—-a name chosen from the 
point of view of the present— presupposes that the 
destruction of the former Holy City had already taken 
place. Further, the number of the forty-two months = 
1260 days = 34 years (xi. 2, 3, cf. xu. 6, 14, xi. 5; Dan. 
vii. 25, xii. 7, 11) proves that this prophecy transports us 
into the time of the rule of the antichrist. It does not 
take its forms and colours from the pre-exilie prophecy 
of an Isaiah and a Jeremiah, but bases itself upon the 
prophecies of Daniel, which were uttered after the con- 
quest of Jerusalem, and foretold not a destruction of 
Jerusalem and the temple, but a desecration of the temple 
in the end of days. To be sure, it is in the abstract 
conceivable that a Christian prophet before the year 70, 
like Jesus Himself, might have combined both kinds of 
prophecies without clearly explaining their mutual relation- 
ship. He might in this way have combined a prophecy 
of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, given in 
the tone and meaning of an Isaiah, a Micah, or a Jeremiah, 
with a prophecy of the “antichrist” in the meaning of a 
Daniel. However, apart from the fact that the Christian 
prophecy of the antichrist in the time of Paul shows no 
trace of a confused mingling of these radically different lines 
of thought (1 Thess. ii. 16; 2 Thess. un. 1-12), nothing 
of the sort appears at least in Rev. xi. 1-18. There 
is no mention of a taking of Jerusalem by an army, but 
only of a rule of the Gentiles in Jerusalem during the 
period of the antichrist (xi. 2 f.). The destruction of only 
a tenth of the city, and the killing of only a small portion 
of the inhabitants, are not occasioned by a hostile army, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 439 


but by an earthquake (ver. 13), and the temple suffered 
so little destruction at the hands of the Romans, that the 
main building with the outer courts of the priests, in 
which the altar of burnt-offering stood, together with the 
congregation, worshipping there, is to remain protected 
from every desecration by the Gentiles (xi. 1f.). No 
further proof should be needed to show that this prophecy 
could not have been made by a Christian before the year 
70 who knew only of the destruction of Jerusalem and 
the temple, prophesied by Jesus. It is only necessary to 
call to mind, that in the period from the death of Nero to 
the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jewish revolution had 
its reion of terror, with mutual destruction of the different 
party-groups. Since the Christians had fled to Pella, 
there was no longer in Jerusalem a worshipper of the true 
God, or a temple worthy of divine protection, but only 
Jews, who were no longer worthy of the name (Rev. ii. 9, 
iii. 9). No Christian could have judged this more mildly 
than the Jew Josephus (e.g. Bell. iv. 9. 10). All these 
events lie behind Revelation, just as the destruction of 
Jerusalem by the Babylonians lies behind Daniel. 

By the beast with the ten horns and seven heads, 
which at the command of Satan comes up out of the sea— 
an image of the world of nations—and begins the last 
struggle of wickedness against God and the Church of 
Jesus (xii. 1 ff), John could have understood only the 
world kingdom at enmity with God, and that too in its last 
development, since all the essential attributes and acts of 
the beast must have reminded him of Dan. vii. 2-27. 
However, in John’s writing, as throughout Daniel (ii. 
37 ff., vill. 20 ff.), the image of the kingdom changes to 
that of the kings who govern and represent it. The 
description of the transference of the rule to the beast 
(xiii. 2), the undoubtedly authentic masculine αὐτόν (ver. 
8) and és (ver. 14), as also the statement that the name of 
the beast is a man’s name (xii. 18), demand this personal 


44cC INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


heading up of the conception, without, however, doing 
away with the fundamental idea of a new and final world 
kingdom. From the connection of xii. 1 ff. with xu, 13- 
17 (cf. xi. 7), it appears that no more than its personal 
head was this last world kingdom in existence at the time 
of the writing of Revelation. Still more clearly it is stated 
three times in xvii. 8-11, with emphatic reference to chap. 
xu, that the beast does not exist in the present, and 
twice that it will appear in the future (μέλλει avaBaiver 
and παρέσται, ver. 8). There also the ten horns are in- 
terpreted to mean ten kings, who are allied with it and 
place their powers at its disposal. They, together with 
the beast, will receive the authority for a short period ; in 
the present, however, they have not received it any more 
than the beast (xvu. 12). On the other hand, however, 
the beast has already once existed and will again come up 
out of the abyss—+.e. the world of the dead (ef. ix. 1f, 
11)—(xvii. 8, 11 three times ἣν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν). The anti- 
christ and his kingdom are a power which had already 
appeared once in history, had then disappeared, and at the 
end of the times is to appear again in life. This is a 
fundamental thought of early Christian prophecy (vol. 1. 
251,n.8). The same thought is expressed, ΧΙ]. 3, 12, 14, 
in the statement that one of the seven heads of the beast 
had received a mortal wound, which healed again. This 
means that the beast itself had received a death-stroke, 
and had come to life again (xi. 12, 14), The healing of 
the wound of the one head caused the world to wonder in 
the same way as did the coming up of the beast out of the 
abyss (xiii. 3, xvii. 8). In a certain sense, therefore, the 
beast is identical with its seven heads. ‘This is even more 
clearly stated in xvii, 10f. Five of the seven heads had 
fallen, a sixth is standing at the time of Revelation, a 
seventh has not yet appeared. But one of the five beasts 
which had already fallen will appear again, and this head, 
which was and is to come again, is absolutely identified 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 441 


with the beast (xvii. 11). On the other hand, the whole 
idea of the seven heads of the beast would be impossible 
were the meaning of the beast itself out and out identical 
with the meaning of one of its seven heads. An analogous 
relation must exist between it and the remaining six heads. 
The heads are consecutive phases of the greatness of the 
world kingdom at enmity with God through all changes of 
history, which the beast represents. This broader meaning 
of the beast, along with the narrower one, according to which 
it represents a single one of the seven phases,—namely, the 
antichristian kingdom and its ruler, who had existed once 
and was to return,—is expressed in xii. 2 by the state- 
ment that the beast bears in itself the marks of the three 
world rulers, which, according to Dan. vii. 4-6, precede 
the fourth and last. Accordingly, the seven heads cannot 
be individual rulers of one and the same kingdom, but 
only kingdoms which follow each other, together with 
their respective kings; so, for example, the Babylonian 
with Nebuchadnezzar, the Gr&co-Macedonian with Alex- 
ander, and the Roman with Ceesar at the head. The seven 
heads are interpreted in xvu. 10 simply as seven kings 
(βασιλεῖς and not βασιλεῖαι); but this cannot lead one 
astray, for, as has been said, since the time of Daniel the 
idea of the kingdoms had become inseparably blended 
with that of their founders or representatives (n. 2). 

Since Revelation was written at the time of the Roman 
Empire, this is, according to xvi. 10, the sixth head ; 
another seventh kingdom will follow it, but will not long 
reign. Upon this follows the eighth,—that of the anti- 
christ,—which, however, is only a revivification of one of 
the five earlier kingdoms. Without question this is in- 
tended to be the Greeco-Macedonian and its typical ruler, 
the pre-Christian antichrist, Antiochus Epiphanes (vol. i. 
227, 237, n. 4, 238ff.). The interpretation of the seven 
heads as the line of Roman emperors from Augustus or 
from Cesar onwards, which has confused many, is unten- 


442 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


>) 


able. In passing judgment upon the Roman kingdom as 
the antichristian kingdom of the end of the world, Revela- 
tion, in the first place, would step entirely out of the 
position which we see was held in the presence of the 
Roman Empire by Jesus (Matt. xxii. 21; John xix. 11), by 
Peter (1 Pet. τ. 13-17), by Paul (Rom. xii. 1 ff. ; 2 Thess. 
ii. 6f.), and by the early Christian prophecy of which 
Paul approved ; further, by Clement of Rome, Melito, and 
Irenzeus (vol. 1. 229 f., 252 ff.). At all events the Roman 
Empire is one of the consecutive world kingdoms which 
together form a contrast to the kingdom of God and Christ, 
or, speaking figuratively, it is the sixth of the seven heads 
of the beast. So then Rome, 1.6. the world-metropolis at 
this time, is represented as Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13; vol. 1]. 
163). The blood of saints and apostles has been shed in 
this Babylon-Rome, according to Rev. xvii. 20, under Nero 
(vol. ii. 165, n. 4). Probably also the seven hills, on which 
the harlot Babylon sitteth (xvii. 9), without detracting from 
their actual meaning (n. 2), are intended to refer to the 
seven hills of Rome. For that reason, however, Rome is by 
no means the Babylon of the last times, and the Roman 
kingdom the beast in his last antichristian development, or 
a Roman emperor of the immediate future the antichrist. 

In the second place, by this interpretation it would be 
wholly inconceivable how the beast, who accordingly must 
be the Roman Empire founded by Caesar or Augustus, could 
be represented as an appearance of the closing period of 
the world. That the beast has already once existed does 
not alter the case; for the former existence is fully 
separated from the future prophesied existence by a present 
non-existence (xvii. 8-11). 

The Roman Empire, however, has not ceased to exist 
since it was established, at least at the time of Revelation, 
when the Christians came to feel its power heavily enough. 
The interpretation of the seven heads as the Roman 
emperors succeeding each other is in the third place 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 443 


incomprehensible, as the killing of one of these heads is 
said to be at the same time the killing of the beast (xiii. 
3f., 12, 14, xvi. 8). By the death of Nero, or any other 
one of the emperors, before the time of Revelation, the 
continued existence of the Roman kingdom had never 
been questioned, much less had it ever ceased to exist 
(ef. vol. 1. 229f.). If a Ceesar dies, there is another Ceesar 
who immediately lives and reigns. In spite of the tem- 
porary disturbances of the national unity, which were 
occasioned by the simultaneous reigning of several 
pretendants during the two years from the death of 
Nero until the general recognition of Vespasian, in Asia 
Minor at least the governmental machinery continued in 
activity, andin that section of the empire no provincial 
in 68-70 a.p. could think of the Roman Empire as dead. 
This contemporary-historical interpretation makes in the 
fourth place any acceptable interpretation of the ten horns 
(xi. 1, xvii. 8, 12-17, ef. xii. 3) impossible. The idea, 
however, that the representation of the revivification of 
the fatally smitten beast or of one of its heads (xiii. 3, 14, 
xvii. 8, 11) rests upon the myth of the return of Nero, is 
irreconcilable with the history of this myth (n. 3). The 
notion, which arose soon after the suicide of Nero and at 
first among his heathen admirers, that he had not died, 
but had fled to the Parthians, and would return from that 
country to Rome to take vengeance on his enemies and to 
assume the throne again, existed unchanged until the 
beginning of the second century,—namely, until the time 
when it was no longer probable that Nero, who was born 
in 37 A.D., was still alive. We find this notion in two 
Jewish Sibyllists of the year 71, and about the year 80. 
In the field of just this literature, about 120 to 125,— 
namely, at a time when Nero could no longer have been 
alive,—the idea of his return appeared in the changed form, 
that Nero, the instigator of the destruction of Jerusalem, 
though lone since dead, would return again to life with 


444 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


signs and wonders. Finally, however, he would be de- 
stroyed in punishment for his last attack on the Holy City 
of the Messiah. A Christian Sibyllist about 150 to 160 
combined these Jewish notions with the statements in Rev. 
ΧΙ, 3, 15, xvii. 8, 11, and thus introduced into the 
Christian world one of the most confused ideas of which it 
was possible to conceive. The idea of the return of the 
dead Nero first arose when he could no longer likely be 
among the living, and the original form of the popular belief 
evidently for this reason only underwent transformation 
into the complete fantastic form ; consequently this idea 
cannot be present in Revelation, whether it was written in 
69, when Nero, if still alive, would have been thirty-two 
years old, or about 95, in which year Nero would have 
completed his fifty-eighth year. An oracle had warned 
him with regard to his seventy-third year, which he would 
have attained in 110 (Suet. Nero, xl.). Earlier than that 
date neither friends nor enemies, who believed in his 
return, had any occasion whatever for believing in a 
return from the dead. No thoughtful person, however, 
can consider it possible that Revelation was written after 
the year 110. 

Moreover, the interpretation of the number 666 as the 
alleged Hebrew form, op m. (Νέρων Kaicap), of the name 
Nero (n. 4), is extremely improbable. Revelation was 
written for Greek Christians, for whom it would be 
necessary to translate a Hebrew name, in order that they 
might grasp its literal meaning (ix. 11, ef. xvi. 16). The 
author makes use of only such Hebrew words as would be 
familiar to the readers from their liturgy or their Greek Ὁ, ἽΝ, 
like amen and hallelujah. He paraphrases the Yahweh 
name by a Greek participial form (i, 4), and does not use 
the Hebrew (n—s), but the Greek alphabet (A—2) when he 
employs the first and last letters as a figurative expression 
for beginning and end (i, 8, xxi. 6, xxii, 13). He does not 
in any way indie ate (xiii. 18) that it needed a knowledge of 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 445 


Hebrew and the numerical value of the Hebrew letters to 
solve the riddle. His readers could and had to understand 
him in no other way, than that the numerical values of the 
letters of the personal name written in Greek are summed 
up in the number 666. It was a fixed tradition (Iren. v. 
30) in the circles of the disciples of John in Asia Minor, 
that the Greek alphabet was to underlie any interpretation 
of Scripture ; and also those, who in the second century 
took the liberty of changing the number 666 to 616 in order 
to secure the name of the Emperor Caius (n. 5)—ze. 
Caligula—follow this self-evident rule. In fact, we perceive 
from this early change of the test, on the one hand, how 
foreign it was to the Christians, even of the post-apostolic 
period, to consider Nero as the type of the antichrist ; and, 
on the other hand, how still unforgotten the figure of the 
ἀντίθεος Caligula had remained (vol. i. 227, 237, n. 7). 

The disciples of John, to whom Irenzeus appealed not 
only for the authenticity of the number 666, but also for 
the principles of interpreting it, discarded rightly the 
interpretation that it meant a former or future Roman 
emperor. They did not know, further, what name the 
number represented, but were convinced that at the time 
of the appearance of the antichrist, this prophecy also 
would be fulfilled, and that the agreement between name 
and number would assist the Church, at once and with 
certainty, to recognise their last enemy. ‘This method of 
consideration is in accord with the “spirit of prophecy” 
and the “testimony of Jesus” (Rev. xix. 10), as the apostle 
John has preserved it in his Gospel (John xiii. 19 and else- 
where ; above, p. 330, n. 10). That is the position which 
Christianity has taken from the beginning toward all 
prophecy, recognised as genuine. Genuine prophecy con- 
tains much which lies outside the consciousness of the 
prophet himself, and will first become clear through its 
fulfilment.’ It is on this account, nevertheless, a guiding 
star, before it is fulfilled, and does not become through its 


446 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW ‚TESTAMENT 


fulfilment in any way superfluous, but as fulfilled prophecy 
renders just then the greatest service to the Church. 

Whoever holds Revelation to be an artificial patchwork 
of a seer who has seen nothing, may make further effort 
to discover solutions of the number riddle 666, and in fact 
any other riddle of this book more satisfactory than have 
been found up to this time under these presuppositions. 
The rest of us, who, in memory of the warning of Paul 
(1 Thess. v. 20), find genuine prophecy in Revelation, of 
which we already understand something and hope later to 
understand more, shall, in face of the scorn which is not 
spared us, remember the words (1 Cor. xiv. 22) : ἡ προφητεία 
οὐ τοῖς ἀπίστοις, ἀλλὰ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. 


1. (P. 436.) A useful history of the interpretation οἵ Rev., which would 
be almost equivalent to a history of Christian eschatology, has not yet been 
written. Cf., however, Lücke, Kommentar über die Schriften des Jo. ἵν. 1: 
Versuch einer vollständigen Einl. in die Offenb. und die gesamte apokal. 
Literatur, 1832. 

2. (P. 441.) A diffieulty is certainly presented by the double interpreta- 
tion of the seven heads in xvii. 9 and xvii. 10f. But no confusion is created, 
simply because the two interpretations occur so close together. The inter- 
pretation, as seven kings, which alone is elaborated, is the only one which 
agrees with xiii. 1-3, 12, 14, since a mountain cannot be mortally wounded. 
At the same time, the identification in the latter passage and xvii. 11 of one 
of the heads with the beast, proves that the heads, like the beasts, cannot 
designate kings in distinction from kingdoms, but mean kingdoms together 
with their representative kings. Moreover, the fact that the harlot sits upon 
the seven-headed beast (xvii. 3), whereas in xvii. 9 she is represented as sitting 
upon the seven heads, presupposes that the beast is a world empire, and that 
the seven heads are phases of the empire, since the capital city of the world 
does not ride upon a king or upon a number of kings, but reigns over the 
world empire or over several successive world empires. If xvii. 9 were 
omitted, nothing essential would be lost. Just as the beast signifies not 
only the world empire of the antichrist at the end of time, together with 
its ruler, but also the world empire whose successive phases are represented 
by the seven heads from its beginning, so Babylon also is the capital of the 
world empire as such. It was situated formerly on the Euphrates, now on 
the Tiber, in the language of the prophets later perhaps it will be on the 
Seine or the Bosphorus ; but through all historical changes it retains its old 
name. If, then, the beast be conceived of as an entity persisting throughout 
the course of history, then Babylon sits upon the beast ; if the point of view 
be the changing aspects of the world empire, then Babylon sits upon the 
seven heads. Ina stationary picture successive events are necessarily repre- 
sented as simultaneous. This is true also of the interpretation of the seven 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 447 


heads as seven mountains, which is not further elaborated. Of course, as the 
writer intended, the readers who regarded Rome as the Babylon of their 
age (1 Pet. v. 13), would necessarily think of the seven hills of Rome; and 
therefore they have always understood that Rome was intended by the 
Babylon of John, as by that of Peter (see vol. ii. 163, n. 3, 165, n. 4, 189, n. 
5; ef. Hippol. de Antichr. 36 ff. ; Tert. contra Jud. ix. ; Jerome, preface in 
Libr. Didymi de spir. sancto; Andreas in Apoc., ed. Sylburg, p. 75 ff., 81 ff.). 
However, even these seven mountains were only symbols of the places— 
probably upon earth—where successively the’ capital of the world has stood 
and is destined to stand (ef. Jer. li. 25). Of subordinate importance is the 
question as to the succession of world empires presented in Rev. Probably 
(1) Egypt with Pharaoh as the typical name of the king, (2) Assyria with 
Sennacherib, (3) Babylon with Nebuchadnezzar, (4) the Medo-Persian empire, 
(5) the Graeco-Macedonian empire, (6) the Roman Empire with its Cesar, 
(7) the shortlived empire which is to come, to be followed by a renewal of 
the fifth empire of which Antiochus is the antitype, who is the antichrist 
of the last days. This is the eighth kingdom. 

3. (P. 443.) For the legend concerning Nero, ef. vol. i, 246 f., 252 ; Apok. 
Stud. ii. 337-352, 393-405. 

4. (P. 444.) In regard to the number of the antichrist, ef. Apok. Stud. 
i. 561-576. Its interpretation, as equivalent to op 7%, was proposed first in 
1831 by Fritzsche (Annalen der ges. theol. Lit. i. 3, S. 42 11.) and then by 
Benary, Hitzig, and Reuss, as it seems, quite independently both of Fritzsche 
and of one another (cf. Bleek, Vorles. über die Ap. S. 292f.), The defective 
spelling op instead of the regular 107 (as in the Talmud ; cf. also Sh, Matt, 
xxii. 17, and the inscription found near Bostra belonging to the year 47 a.p, 
©. I. Sem. ii. No. 170), is the least suspicious thing about this discovery, 
Mention may be made of other Hebrew interpretations as follows: Vitringa, 
Comm. 633 ff., op»7x, from Ezra ii. 13 with reference to the 666 fellow-tribes- 
men, and without reference to the numerical value of the letters. Lightfoot 
(with whose view the present writer is acquainted only from Wolff, Cur. phil. 
in epist. Jac. ete. 1735, p. 546), mmo from Num. xiii, 13; this gives the 
number 666, and the meaning of “no suggests μυστήριον. This is united by 
Herder (Maranatha, S. 148) with the interpretation mo suggested by Portzig 
and purporting to mean apostasie ; also Herder appropriates Lakemacher’s 
suggestion pyow κα but does not, like its originator, refer it to the Rabban 
Simon, the son of Gamaliel (Schürer, ii. 365 [Eng. trans. τι. 1. 365]), but te 
Simon bar Giora, the revolutionist (Schürer, i. 621 [Eng. trans. 1. ii, 232]). 
Ziillig (Offenb. Joh. ii. 247) proposes opp aya ja oyba, Jos. xiii. 22; but in order 
to get the number he wants, it is necessary to omit the indispensable article 
before nop and the vowel 1 twice. Aberle (TAQSc, 1872, S. 144) suggests 
wn (sic! supposed to mean Trajan). Volter (2 Aufl. S. 77), ow on 
(Trajanus Hadrianus). Bruston (Le chiffre 666, Paris, 1880, p. 11), v12 72 mo, 
Gen. x. 8, ) has to be omitted in the second name. Gunkel, 8. 377, nan 
mop, “Chaos of the primeval age.” The well-known analogies adduced by 
Gunkel himself might well have suggested to him that an attribute without 
an article is questionable Hebrew. Several of these interpretations are 
worthy of the jest pow n, “Mr. Salmon,” in Salmon’s Historic. Introd. to N.T. 
(1885) p. 300. Greek interpretations.—Iren. v. 30. 3 gives us our choice 


448 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


among Εὐάνθας, Teırav, Aareivos, the last favoured by Hippol. (de Antichr. 50), 
although, according to the report of J. Haussleiter, the real Victorinus of 
Pettau gives no name; in the later editions of his commentary (Migne, v. 
col. 399), ΓἌντεμος and the Gothic name Tevonpixos are referred to as possi- 
bilities. Others suggest ἀρνοῦμαι, “I deny,” or Papiscus (written Παπεῖσκος), 
since the time of the ancient dialogue, “ Jason and Papiskus,” a typical name 
for the Jew who contends with the Christian. More recent explanations are 
to be found Z/NTW, 1901, 8. 109-114; 1902, S. 238-242 ; 1903, S. 167-174, 
264-267 ; 1904, S. 84-88, 257-261. 

5. (P. 445.) In his discussion of Rev. xiii., and after a theological ex- 
planation of the number 666 (v. 28-30), Irenzeus remarks in a supplementary 
way (v. 30. 1, cf. Forsch. vi. 70): “ His autem sic se habentibus et in omnibus 
antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis numero hoe posito, et testi- 
monium perhibentibus his, qui facie ad faciem Joannem viderunt, et ratione 
docente nos, quoniam numerus nominis bestie secundum Grecorum com- 
putationem per literas, qu in eo sunt, sexcentos habebit et sexaginta et sex 
. . . ignoro, quomodo ignoraverunt quidam, sequentes idiotismum et medium 
frustrantes numerum nominis, quinquaginta numeros deducentes, pro sex 
decadis unam decadem volentes esse.” This reading 616 is also attested to 
by Cod. Ο (fifth cent.), by two eursives which unfortunately are no longer 
extant (5 and 11, ef. Gregory, Prolegomena, 676), and by the Donatist Tyconius, 
whose remarks on this point are to be inferred from the agreement of the 
three commentaries dependent upon him; those of the pseudo-Augustine, 
of Primasius, and of Beatus, cf. Haussleiter, Forsch. iv. 133, also by the tract 
on the monogram of Christ (Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 3. 195), aseribed by 
tradition to Jerome. Ireneus was of the opinion that this reading origi- 
nated innocently through errors in writing ; since the numbers were written 
not only in numerals (thus Rev. xiii. 18, NACP sah. vg. S? 55. Iren. and 
apparently also in his ἀρχαῖα καὶ σπουδαῖα καὶ παλαιὰ ἀντίγραφα), but also 
in numeral letters (thus B, some cursives, Copt., and probably Hippol. de 
Antichr. 48, 50: x&’), by vertical extension = could easily be changed into I. 
Notwithstanding the present writer’s remarks in Apok. Stud. i. 569, this is 
certainly possible, not only in the case of the old Doric form of the 1 (ef. 
Kirchhoff, Stud. 2. Gesch. des griech. Alphabets, 3te Aufl. Tafel i. ; Paleogr. Soc. 
series, vol. i. table after plate 101 ; Inscr. antiquiss. Grecia, ed. Röhl, Nos. 15, 17, 
20 ff.), but also according to inscriptions and coins of the time of the emperors ; 
cf. Ramsay, J HSt, 1887, p. 466f. It was not until later, according to Irenwus, 
that inquisitive persons attempted to give a meaning to the meaningless 
scribal error by endeavouring to find a name which it would represent. 
The gist of Irenwus’ further discussion is that a Roman emperor was found 
designated by xı: an opinion which Irensus controverts. Tyconius, who was 
familiar only with the number 616, makes no reference to an historical 
explanation. He thought that he discovered in the number the monogram 
of Christ, and, as Burkitt proves (Cambridge University Reporter, 1896, p. 625), 


in reverse position. x is held to be a combination of X=600, I=10, and 
the old form of the episemon=6, which at the same time stands for the 
name of Christ. This reversed Kk is, therefore, a suitable monogram for 
the antichrist. This meaning cannot be correct and original; for, in the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 449 


first place, according to Irenzus, there is no doubt that 666, not 616, was 
the number written by John. In the second place, there is just as little 
doubt that this was originally written in numerals, not in numeral letters. 
This disposes of Irenzeus’ well-meant supposition that the reading is due 
to an innocent scribal error, and likewise of Tyconius’ explanation, which 
is, moreover, based upon the incredible supposition that the monogram of 
Christ was in use at the time of Rev., or, if the reading 616 is not genuine, 
at least some time before Irenzus ; see, however, vol. ii. 192f. Finally, it 
is impossible that the number 616 should have originated in this accidental 
way and afterwards been given a meaning, because, without any resort to 
artifice whatever, the number gives a thoroughly intelligible name, dios 
Kaicap (T=3, a=1,:=10, o= 70, c=200, K=20, a=1, ı=10, c=200, a=1, 
p=100=616). This observation, which the present writer believed to be 
original with him in Apok. Stud. i. 571, is said to have been made earlier 
by Weyers, Disput. de libro wpoc., Lugd. Bat. 1728 (so quoted by Züllig, 
Offb. Joh. i. 147 ; others, 1828. The present writer has not seen the work). 
Because of the desire to find here a reference to Caius Cesar, 7.6. Caligula 
(ef. vol. i. 228, 237f.), before the time of Irenzeus, unknown persons residing 
in Rome or the West, not in Asia, changed the number 666 to 616. Spitta, 
S. 392 ff., holds the view that in the Jewish Apocalypse of Caligula’s time, 
which he makes one of the sources of the canonical Apocalypse (above, p. 
407, n. 11), the number 616 was found which meant Caligula, that between 
90 and 110 the Christian editor, by making the Hebrew alphabet his basis 
and changing 616 into 666, introduced the name Nero Cesar, and that 
finally those who are opposed by Irenzeus, on the basis of “an old tradi- 
tion” (S. 394), reintroduced the original number 616 from the Jewish into 
the canonical Apocalypse. It seems impossible to accept this explanation. 
For it represents the Jewish apocalyptic writer as basing his computation 
upon the Greek alphabet, while the Christian apocalyptic writer living in 
Asia Minor uses the Hebrew alphabet! But most inconceivable of ali is 
the interpolation about the year 150 of a canonical Apocalypse originating 
between 90 and 110 from a Jewish Apocalypse written about 40. Nothing 
is more common than a confusion of the texts of an earlier and a later 
recension of a Biblical book (cf. in the MSS. of the Vulgate the many 
elements which date from a time previous to Jerome). But this presupposes 
that the older recension has been used canonically for generations in the 
Church; and cannot be at once entirely displaced by the new recension. 
Phenomena of this kind offer no analogy whatever for the relation of this 
alleged Jewish Apocalypse to the Apocalypse of Jolin. 


VOL. IN, a9 


Az 
CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY. 


1. Preuiminary Remarks.—(1) It is not the purpose 
of this text-book to arrange the entire chronology of the 
history recorded in the N.T. and at the same time to 
fix the dates of the writings brought together in that 
collection. The relative chronology of these writings, 
however, has been established in many particulars by the 
investigation of the individual books. In order to con- 
struct their absolute chronology, there seemed to be de- 
manded, as the only sufficient thing, a complete enumera- 
tion and not a wholly superficial discussion of the possible 
synchronisms between the N.T. literature and general 
history, and of those synchronisms which do not as yet, 
but perhaps in the near future may help in fixing the 
dates absolutely. These synchronisms concern especially 
the history of Paul, the chronology of which has been 
discussed in recent years with particular interest. (2) 
Literature :—Bengel, Ordo temporum, 1741, 268-295; 
Wurm, TZfTh, 1833, 8. 3-103; Anger, De tempor. ın actis 
apost. ratione, 1833; Wieseler, Chronologie des apost. 
Zeitalters, 1848; Hofmann, NT. v. 11-17; Lightfoot, 
Bibl. Essays (written 1863), 1893, pp. 21-233; Aberle, 
ThQSc, 1886, 8. 553ff.; Aberle, Bibl. Zeitschrift von 
Göttsberger und Sickenberger, 1903, 8. 256 ff. ; O. Holtz- 
mann, Ntl. Zeitgeschichte, 1895, S. 128 ff. ; Blass, Acta 
Apost. editio phalol. 1895, p. 22 ff. ; Harnack, Chronol. 
der altchristl. Literatur, Bd. i. 1897, 8. 233 ff. ; Belser, 
ThQSc, 1898, S. 353 ff; Ramsay, several articles in 


450 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 451 


Expos. 1896, 1897, 1900; Bacon, Expos. 1898, 1899 
1900 ; Schürer, Z/WTh, 1898, S. 21-42; Schurer, Gesch 
des Jüd. Volks*, i. (1901) in many passages, especially 8. 
577 ff. [Eng. trans. 1. ii. 181 ff]; Hönnicke, Chronol. des 
Apostels Pl. 1903; Zahn, PRE®, xv. 62-68 (1904); 
Clemen, Paulus, Bd. i. (1904). (3) In the following 
remarks, which set forth the grounds for some of the 
principal dates in the table on p. 481 ff., the conclusions 
already reached in this book concerning the origin and 
trustworthiness of the N.T. writings, especially of Acts, 
are assumed. These remarks also recognise the principle, 
that in historical matters no writer is infallible, but each 
must be judged according to his historical position and 
probable intention in writing. For example, Tacitus is 
better acquainted with Rome than is Josephus ; Josephus 
is better acquainted with Palestine than is Tacitus. 
Josephus (born in 37), though poorly informed concerning 
conditions among the Jews during the forty years prior to 
his birth and the first decade after it (above, p. 97 ff.), is 
the classical witness for the same conditions between 50 
and 70, and in questions concerning the order of events 
during this period certainly deserves incomparably more 
eredence than the chroniclers, learned and unlearned, from 
the time of Julius Africanus onwards. Leaving out of 
account the length of time between a writer and the event 
which he records, in chronological questions the authority 
of even a mediocre historian who gives a connected 
narrative is greater than that of chroniclers who group 
together separate dates, generally on the basis of some 
scheme. Where the chronicler has used, or seems to have 
used, official lists of emperors or bishops and their years 
of oflice, he should be given a hearing; but it is certain 
that there were no such lists of the procurators of Pales- 
tine. Furthermore, it must be regarded as not per- 
missible to change dates which without variation are 
transmitted by such ancient and widely manifest tradition 


452 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


as that of the N.T. writings, e.g., in Gal. ü. 1 to substi- 
tute for διὰ δεκατεσσάρων, with Marcion (GK, ii. 497), 
διὰ τεσσάρων, as proposed by Grotius and Reiche (Comm. 
erit. ii. 1-10), and accepted by Baljon (Aomm. zum Gal. 
S. 16-19, 102). If in the future a text with this reading 
should turn up, every critic would certainly know that it 
was a correction due to such reflections as are found in 
the Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, i. 436. Furthermore, on 
stylistic grounds, it seems impossible to reckon the fourteen 
years from the conversion of Paul (Gal. 1. 15) instead of 
from the first visit to Jerusalem three years after the 
conversion (Gal. 1. 18). Even omitting πάλεν in Gal. i. 1, 
which refers directly to 1. 18, with Marcion (GK, 11. 497), 
Iren. et al. ἔπειτα, which is twice repeated in i. 18 and 
ii. 1, shows that the three facts—the conversion, the first 
and the second visit to Jerusalem—are links in a chain 
(ef. 1 Cor. xv. 4-8), the second of which is separated 
from the first by a space of three years, and the third 
by a space of fourteen years (cf. the expression with 
that of Acts xxiv. 17); so that we have an interval 
of seventeen years between the conversion and the 
event narrated in Gal. ii. 1-10; ef. ZKom. Gal. 1608 
Moreover, for the present writer as for most modern 
scholars there is no question that the events referred to 
in Gal. ii. 1-10 are the same as those of Acts xv. 1-29. 
This is evidenced not only by the practical identity of the 
two accounts, but also by the impossibility of making any 
other combination. A combination of Gal. 11. and Acts 
Xvili. 22 is impossible, because in the latter passage Paul 
does not go to Jerusalem at all (above, p. 29 f., ἢ. 8), and 
because Galatians was written prior to this time. But it 
is just as impossible to combine Gal. ii. with Acts xi. 30, 
xii, 25, because this journey with the collection took place 
in the autumn of 44 (see below), subtracting from which 
the seventeen years, we should have the year 27 as the 
date of Paul’s conversion, which is impossible. Even if, 
on the presupposition of the combination of Acts xi. 30 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 453 


and Gal. 11. 1, it were admissible to subtract only fourteen 
years, Paul’s conversion would have to be dated in the 
year 30, which would make such combination very improb- 
able. In the opinion of the present writer, it is by ne 
means certain in what year Jesus’ death took place; it 
certainly did not occur before the year 29. Moreover, it 
is impossible to crowd the events of Acts 1.-ix. into the 
interval between the Passover of 29 and the autumn of 30. 
One needs only to recall the complete change in the 
attitude of the Pharisaical party and of the entire popula- 
tion toward the early Church—as contrasted with that of 
the Sadducees—which took place in the interval between 
the events of Acts i—v. and the events of Acts vi.—ix. 
This would require years. Furthermore, Rom. xvi. 7 
(vol. 1. 418, n. 23) shows that Paul’s conversion could not 
have taken place until several years after the death of 
Jesus. The fact that Paul makes no mention of the 
journey with the collection in Gal. 11. 1 is no reason either 
for such impracticable combinations, or for questioning the 
historicity of the journey with the collection in Acts ΧΙ. 
30. The historicity of the account is proved both by the 
general character of Acts and by the fact that Luke was 
in Antioch at the time when Paul and Barnabas were sent 
to Jerusalem (Acts xi. 27; above, pp. 2, 4, 28). Paul 
does not say in Gal. u. 1 that after his first visit he re- 
mained away from Jerusalem fourteen years; this would 
have required just as positive a denial of his presence 
there as we have in i. 16-18 if there had been any 
occasion for such a statement. He merely says that he 
went to Jerusalem fourteen years after his first visit, and 
tells why. There is no claim that the narrative is com- 
plete, especially if πάλιν, which is by no means certain, 
be omitted. It will, however, be made clear below 
(p. 455 f.) why Paul omits mention of the journey with 
the collection, and why his opponents could not use this 
against him, 


454 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Finally, it is assumed that the regulations governing 
ancient traffic were used, where the sources do not expressly 
state otherwise. Navigation was regularly closed from 
the beginning of November until the beginning of March 
(according to Vegetius, de Re Milt. iv. 39, from Novem- 
ber 11 until March 10), According to the ancient calen- 
dars, the festival connected with the opening of navigation, 
the Navigium Isidis (ef. Apul. Metamorph. xi. 7 ff. ; 
Lactant. Inst. i. 11. 21) fell on the fifth of March, (1.1.1. 
i. 1 (ed. ii.) pp. 260, 280, 311. For the causes of this “ weak 
point in ancient navigation,” the mare clausum, see 
Breusing, Nautik der Alten, 8. 160. From 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 
Tit. iii. 12 (ef. Acts xx. 3, 6), we see that Paul took this 
into consideration in making the plans for his journeys. 
He awaits in port cities the end of the winter, 1.6., the 
reopening of navigation. This is also the meaning of 
παραχειμάζξειν in Acts xxvii. 12, xxvii. 11. For this 
reason an assumption like that of Erbes (Die Todestage 
der Apostel Pt. und Pl. 8. 48f.), that Paul sailed from 
Malta on the twenty-sixth of January, is quite inadmissible. 
Partieularly, after the experiences which the travellers 
had had on their way to Malta, this would have shown an 
incredible lack of caution on the part of the centurion 
Julius. Moreover, the latter was merely taking passage, 
and the decision as to whether, contrary to custom, the 
ship and cargo should be exposed to special danger rested 
primarily not with him, but with the captain of the Alex- 
andrian vessel. That part of the sea was regarded as 
especially dangerous (Polybius, i. 37), and an officer en- 
trusted with a responsible order would, according to 
Vegetius (op. eit.), exereise more, not less care, than the 
captain of a merchant vessel. In view of the character 
of his report in Acts xxvi._xxvii., Luke could not have 
failed to note any departure from the rule, or to have 
stated the reason for the particular haste of the Alex- 
andrian captain and for the consequent decision of Julius. 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 455 


The synchronisms will be noted in their chronological 
order. 

2. THE ETHNARCH OF ARRTAS, t.e., of the Nabatzean 
king Harithath ıv., the father-in-law of Herod Antipas, 
showed himself hostile to Paul, according to 2 Cor. xi. 32 
( = Acts ix. 24), at the time of his flight from Damascus to 
Jerusalem, three years after his conversion (Gal. i. 18). 
The question need not be discussed whether Damascus 
was at that time, and only temporarily, a part of the king- 
dom of Aretas (mentioned by Gutschmid in Euting, Nabat. 
Inschr. 8. 85; Schürer, 1. 737, 11. 82, 118 [Eng. trans. 1, 
ii. 357, 11. 1. 66, 98}. The present writer believes that 
on very good grounds he has disputed this position (Ν ΑΖ, 
1904, 8. 34ff.; PRE°, xv. 62f—in the latter of which 
articles he has contested other confused views). Certainly 
it was impossible to speak of an ethnarch of Aretas after 
the latter had ceased to live and reign. At the same 
time we cannot determine definitely either the beginning 
or the end of his reign, though from his coins and in- 
scriptions we know that he lived to see the forty-eighth 
year of his reign. His immediate successor, Abia, ruled 
under Claudius and in the time of Izates of Adiabene (Jos. 
Ant. xx. 4. 1), the latest possible dates of whose successor, 
Malchus (Maliku) πη. (listed by Gutschmid as Malchus u1.), 
according to Gutschmid, 8. 86, were from April 49 to 
April 71. But only the final date is certain, whereas 
the year of importance to us is that of the beginning of 
his reign. It is probable, however, that Aretas reigned 
from about 9 B.c. to 39 A.D. (Gutschmid, 8. 85; Schiirer, 
1. 736 ff. | Eng. trans. 1. 11, 356 {1}... If Aretas’ reign did 
not extend beyond this year, Paul’s flight from Damascus 
must have taken place in the year 39, at the very latest, 
and his conversion at the very latest in the year 36. 
However, it may just as well have occurred several years 
earlier. 

3. Herop Aarippa 1., who received the dominion and 


456 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


royal title of his grandfather from Claudius immediately 
after the accession of the latter to the throne, Jan. 24th, 
41 (Jos. Bell. u. 11. 5; Ant. xix. 5. 1), died three years 
later (Bell. ü. 11. 6; Ant. xix. 8. 2), v.e. in the year 44, 
according to Acts xii. 3, 19, some time after the Passover. 
With this agrees the fact that the festive games at Cesarea, 
on the occasion of which he died, were held in honour of 
the emperor, more specifically ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκείνου σωτηρίας ( Ant. 
xix. 8. 2), which can refer only to Claudius’ safe return from 
Britain in the spring of 44 (Dio Cass. Ix. 23. 1, ef. Ix. 21.2; 
Suet. Claud. xvii. ; Eus. Chron. Abr. 2060 ; ef. Schiirer, 1. 
562 [ Eng. trans. 1. 11. 163]). The summer of that year must 
have come before the news of this event could have reached 
Palestine and been the occasion of extraordinary festivities. 
If this determines the chronology of the events in Acts 
xii. 1-23, the question arises as to the relation of the 
collection journey in Acts xi. 30, xu. 25, to the events 
which took place at the time of the Passover in the year 
44. There are three possibilities. Of these, the first is to 
be excluded, namely, that which makes the journey of Paul 
and Barnabas to and from Jerusalem take place before the 
events of xii. 1-23. In this case it is impossible to under- 
stand why xii. 25 is not added directly after xi. 30, 
especially since nothing is added after xii. 25, the narrative 
beginning in xiii. 1 being entirely new. The second possi- 
bility, namely, that the events recorded in xii. 1-23 
coincide with the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, 
is likewise to be rejected. In that case, (1) these events 
would naturally in some way be woven into the story of 
the experiences of Paul and Barnabas, and it would some- 
where be intimated that Paul and Barnabas witnessed 
these events in Jerusalem, and the story would not be 
inserted into the account by means of a very indefinite 
date like that in xii. 1. (2) The only natural explana- 
tion of πρὸς τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους in xi. 30 is the absence of the 
apostles from Jerusalem. The disposition of the collection 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 457 


money by the presbyters, with the apostles present in the 
city, is, of course, conceivable ; cf. vi. 1-6. But m xi. 30 
the Church to which the money was sent seems to be 
represented by the presbyters alone, among whom the 
“bishop” James is reckoned, notwithstanding his eminent 
position (cf. xi. 17, xxi. 18; per contra, cf. xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 
23, xvi. 4, Gal. ü. 1-10 ; Forsch. vi. 353). Only the thard 
possibility remains, namely, that Paul and Barnabas came 
to Jerusalem after the events of xii. 1-23. Peter had 
already fled from Jerusalem (xii. 17). Inasmuch as Peter 
in departing speaks only of James and the Church, not of 
the other apostles, we infer that the latter, or as many of 
them as were then present in Jerusalem, had made use of 
their right to flee (Matt. x. 23) immediately after the 
execution of the apostle James and during the imprison- 
ment of Peter, since manifestly Agrippa’s designs were 
against the apostles in general. So Acts xii. 1-23 is an 
episode taken out of the past, which, apart from whatever 
independent value it may have, serves to show the con- 
dition of things which Paul and Barnabas encountered in 
Jerusalem. One apostle had been beheaded, another had 
been saved by a miracle and had afterwards fled, the others 
had left Jerusalem earlier. The direction of the Church 
was in the hands of James and the presbyters alone. 
Paul did not see an apostle on this occasion. Therefore 
he had no reason whatever to mention this journey in 
Galatians. The only thing that follows directly from 
what precedes is the fact that the collection journey took 
place after the death of Agrippa 1., therefore at the earliest 
in the summer of the year 44. Since, moreover, the full 
year during which Paul and Barnabas were teaching 
together in Antioch (xi. 26) could have ended, not with 
the introduction of the name Christian, or with the appear- 
ance of Agabus (xi. 27), but only with an event causing a 
serious interruption in the teaching work, te. with the 
journey with the collection, from which point the time 


458 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(ἐνιαυτὸν ὅλον) is to be reckoned backwards, it follows that 
Barnabas could not have brought Paul from Tarsus before 
the summer of the year 43. But these dates (summer of 
43 and summer of 44), before which the events could not 
have taken place, must coincide very nearly with the actual 
dates. For, in the first place, if a year or more elapsed 
after Peter’s flight and the death of Agrippa, before Paul 
and Barnabas came to Jerusalem, the episode in xi. 1-23 
is inserted in a very awkward place, and fails to fulfil its 
purpose, namely, to show the condition of things at the 
time when Paul and Barnabas arrived. Moreover, the 
expression κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρόν, xii. 1 (cf. xix. 23), not- 
withstanding its flexibility, needs to be connected in some 
way with the context, and the only thing with which it 
can be connected is the collection journey, which ended 
the first full year of Paul’s work as a teacher in Antioch 
(xi. 26, 30). The events recorded in xu. 1-23 did not 
take place before the beginning of this year,—in which 
case the episode would belong before xi. 25, if it ought not 
to follow immediately after xi. 18,—but in the course of 
this year, from summer to summer, or autumn to autumn. 
Therefore the collection journey took place in the summer, 
or, since it was not customary to travel to the south in 
the hottest part of the year unless it was necessary, more 
probably in the autumn of the year 44,—the autumn of the 
year in which James had been put to death at Kaster,— 
and Barnabas brought Paul from Tarsus in the summer or 
autumn of 43. But these dates must be further defended, 
in view of the misunderstandings which have arisen about 
the collection journey. ‘The first occasion for the collection 
mentioned (xi, 28)is Agabus’ prophecy of a general famine. 
This very general prophecy (that ὅλη ἡ οἰκουμένη cannot 
refer to Judea has been shown above, p. 130 f.) caused the 
Christians of Antioch to think at once of their poverty- 
stricken brethren in Judea, and led to the decision to raise 
a collection for them, each giving according to his ability. 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 456 


The language in xi. 29 and the analogy of other collections 
(1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. vill. 10, ix. 2) justify us in supposing 
that a year or more elapsed before the collection was com- 
pleted, and that it was not sent until much later. In 
xi. 30 (ὃ καὶ ἐποίησαν, cf. Gal. 11. 10) the sending of the 
collection is clearly distinguished from the resolution to 
take and to send a collection. The difference in time 
between the prophecy and its fulfilment is even more 
clearly indicated in xi. 28. Every unprejudiced reader 
would necessarily infer from the contrast between μέλλειν 
ἔσεσθαι and ἥτις ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου that the prophecy was 
made wm the time of Caligula (died January 24, 41), and 
fulfilled in the time of his successor Claudius (vol. i. 228 ; 
cf. Bengel, Ord. temp. p. 247). Since now xi. 25-26, 30, 
xu. 25, place us in the year between the summer or autumn 
of 43 and the same time in 44, it is clear that in xi. 27-29, 
according to his eustom (above, pp. 64-68), Luke goes 
back to the time prior to January 41 in order to explain 
the journey with the collection in the autumn of 44. The 
date mentioned in xi. 27 (cf. vi. 1; Matt. iii. 1) refers 
quite generally to the beginning of the Church in Antioch, 
described in xi. 19-26. No statement is made as to what 
occasioned the sending of the money, and to assume that 
the actual breaking out of the famine in Palestine caused 
it to be sent is arbitrary. If the indefinite prophecy of a 
single prophet was sufficient to lead to the collection of 
a charitable fund, any indication that this prophecy was 
about to be fulfilled could have led to the resolution to 
send the money at once to the poor Judeans, who had 
been in mind from the first. If, in addition, the news had 
reached Antioch of Agrippa’s persecution of the apostles, 
and of the orphaned condition of the Church at Jerusalem, 
then there was all the more reason for such an immediate 
exercise of brotherly love. The prophecy of Agabus, how- 
ever, did not begin to be fulfilled until after the beginning of 
Claudius’ reign, which was generally afflicted by assidua 


460 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


sterilitates (Suet. Claudius, xviii. ; for further particulars 
see above, p. 130f.). For Luke this was sufficient fulfil- 
ment of the prophecy of Agabus, whose indefinite and 
popular language he does not hesitate to repeat. It was 
likewise sufficient to induce the Antiochians to send the 
money collected, without waiting for a great famine actually 
to occur in Judea. Although this makes the Pauline 
chronology really independent of the date of the famine in 
Judea, the following brief remarks concerning the latter 
may be made. According to Jos. Ant. xx. 5. 2, it took 
place under the procurator Tiberius Alexander. The 
correct reading in this passage is certainly not that 
adopted by Niese following the epitome ἐπὶ τούτου, but 
ἐπὶ τούτοις, as in the Greek MSS., the Latin version, and 
Eus. H. E. ii. 12. 1; at the same time, however, it is 
unnecessary, with Anger, 43 f.; Wieseler, 157 f.; Lightfoot, 
216; Schürer, 1. 567 f. |[Eng. trans. 1. ἢ. 169 f.], to refer 
this to the last two procurators mentioned, namely, Fadus 
and Tiberius Alexander. Because, in the first place, 
Josephus, in the concluding sentence of xx. 5. 1, sharply 
distinguishes the history of the procuratorship of Fadus 
from what follows. In the second place, that construction 
would require the reading ἐπὶ τούτων. The phrase ἐπὶ 
τούτοις, like the following πρὸς τούτοις (cf. also xx. 12; 
Niese, 267), is to be taken in a neuter sense, and means, 
as often in Eusebius, ‘‘ under these conditions and eireum- 
stances,’ and consequently “at this time”; ef. H. BR. 
i. 1. 8, 2. 20 (ἐφ᾽ οἷς), 111. 4.11; chap. 12; 23. 1; Mart. 
Palestine, xii. (beginning) (cf. xi. 31), practically the 
same as ἐν τούτοις, H. E. iv. 21, and ἐν τούτῳ, 11]. 18. 1, 
iv. 15. 1, v. 13. 1, vi. 18.1. There is nothing in the con- 
text of xx. 2. 1 to indicate that the famine in connection 
with which the princess Helena distinguished herself by 
deeds of mercy (xx. 2. 5) oecurred during the procurator- 
ship of Fadus (xx. 1. 1 f.), for the reason that xx. 2. 1 ff. 
deals with the conversion of Helena to Judaism. In this 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 461 


connection, Josephus speaks proleptically of her journey 
to Jerusalem, which was coincident with the famine (xx. 
2. 5), and, in the same way, speaks even of her death 
(xx. 4. 3). He then returns to the procuratorship of 
Fadus (xx. 5. 1), and only after he has given an account 
of the accession of Tiberius Alexander does he indicate that 
the activity of Helena belongs historically in connection 
with the famine (xx. 5.2). From xx. 1. 2 we know that 
Fadus was still in office in 45 (according to a more 
uncertain reading, on the 28th of June 45). According to 
xx. 5, 2, Tiberius Alexander was again recalled in the 
year 48; for Josephus connects this event with the death 
of Herod of Chaleis, which is dated by him in 48, by a καί 
before which there should be no pause. The year is, 
therefore, the date of Alexander’s recall. This is not 
contradicted by the indefinite connection indicated in Bell. 
i. 11.6. If we are willing to assume, contrary to the 
whole impression of the narrative in Ant. xx. 1. 1-5. 2, 
that the decree of Claudius, referred to in xx. 1. 2, belonged 
to the latter and not to the earlier part of Fadus’ term of 
office, and that Fadus held office a very short time, while 
Tiberius Alexander held office for a very long period, their 
respective terms of office must be divided somewhat. as 
follows: Fadus, 44 to 46 or 47; Tiberius Alexander, from 
46 or 47 to 48. Therefore the famine in Judea certainly 
did not fall in 44 or 45, but took place between 46 and 48, 
probably 47 or 48. Even if repeated bad harvests from 
41 to 45 in various lands had raised prices in Palestine 
also, famine conditions did not exist there at the very 
earliest until 46, and so were not the occasion of the 
collection journey. Two further remarks may be added. 
In 2 Cor. xii. 1-4, Paul alludes to an experience of visions 
of a kind to give him a feeling of his importance for the 
rest of his life. Although, according to his own state- 
ment, fourteen years have elapsed since this experience 
took place, he speaks of it with the greatest animation and 


462 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


preeision. When he confesses himself unable to give any 
definite account of his physical and psychical condition at 
that moment, it is not because the memory of it has faded, 
but merely because he is reproducing the first impression 
which one has upon awakening from a state of ecstasy 
(ef. Acts xi. 9). For him it must have been a very 
significant experience. Of course, the reference here 
cannot be to the experience near Damascus, as some 
ancient writers suppose, nor to his vision on the occasion 
of his first visit to Jerusalem subsequent to his conversion 
(Acts xxii. 17-21); for 2 Cor. was certainly written later 
than Galatians, in which we are informed that the apostolic 
council, which is spoken of as already past, took place 
fourteen years after the first visit and seventeen years after 
Paul’s conversion. By the vision referred to in 2 Cor. his 
thoughts were turned to a future mission to the Gentiles 
(Acts xxü. 21, ἐξαποστελῶ, not ἐξαποστέλλω). It was 
necessary for him to wait for years in Tarsus until the 
Lord should redeem His word and send him to the Gentiles. 
In the summer of 43, Barnabas sought him out in Tarsus, 
and drew him into the missionary work at Antioch. 
According to the chronology here followed, 2 Cor. was 
written towards the end of the year 57. Subtracting 
fourteen years, we have the year 43. The two dates, 
arrived at independently of each other, agree in this, 
namely, that the significant revelation in 2 Cor. xu. 2, and 
the new call and actual participation of Paul in missionary 
work among the Gentiles, both fall in the year 43. [5 this 
to be explained as chance, or do the two reckonings agree 
both as regards the year and even the time of the year, 
because the events mentioned in 2 Cor. xii, 2 and Acts 
xi, 25 were simultaneous? If several years before this 
Paul became aware that he was to receive a new manifesta- 
tion of Jesus, by which he was to be directed to preach to 
the Gentiles, he could not have begun this work until this 
revelation was received. Barnabas’ summons could not of 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 463 


itself have been sufficient. The fact that only the human 
summons is mentioned in Acts xi. 25 is merely an accurate 
illustration of the same relation which exists between Acts 
xv. 2 and Gal. ii. 2. The human summons does not 
exclude the κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν. But in both cases the 
historian Luke emphasises the external aspect of the 
matter, whereas Paul emphasises the supernatural side in 
the great crises of his life. A second remark needs to 
be added here concerning Peter’s visit to Antioch. 
Following Schneckenburger, Zweck der Apg. 8. 109 ff., 
the present writer, in VA Z, 1894, 8. 435-448, claimed and 
endeavoured to prove that this visit took place before the 
apostolic council, probably shortly after Acts xu. 17. It 
is left to others to judge whether or not Belser, Bibl. 
Stud., edited by Bardenhewer, i. 3 (1896), 8. 127-139, has 
successfully refuted this thesis. The visit of the prophets 
from Judea, Acts xi. 27; the collection journey, xi. 30; 
Mark’s settlement in Antioch, xii. 25, in the autumn of 44 ; 
the visit of Peter and of others associated with James, 
Gal. ii. 11-14,—constitute a series of events extending 
from about 40 to 45. 

4. SERGIUS PAULUS, THE PROCONSUL OF Cyprus, Acts 
xım. 7—12.—ÜConcerning this, cf. the extended discussion, 
NKZ, 1904, 8. 189-195, which is directed especially 
against Mommsen. Cyprus became a senatorial province 
under Augustus, and remained such from 22 B.c. onwards 
(Dio Cass. lin. 12. 7, liv. 4. 1). It seems that during 
the great Jewish rebellion under Trajan (Dio Cass. Ixviii. 
32, and therefore under unusual conditions, Cyprus was 
governed by an imperial Legate, a certain M. Calpurnius 
Rufus, CLl.L. ii. No. 6072, if the latter be identical with 
the person of the same name who previously under Hadrian 
had been proconsul of Achaia (Digest, i. 16. 10. 1). The 
governors of Cyprus usually bore the title of proconsul 
before as well as after Trajan’s time. The full name of 
the proconsul (Acts xiii. 7), L. Sergius Paullus, is found 
in all probability in an inscription of the city of Rome 


464 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


according to which he was one of the curatores ryparum 
et alver Tiberrs under Claudius (C./.L. vi. 31545, cf. 
Prosopographia, ii. 221, No. 876). The year cannot be 
determined ; the only thing that is sure is that L. Sergius 
Paullus later than this was appointed to the much more 
important post on Cyprus. At Soloi on the island of 
Cyprus an inscription has been found, first published 
by Cesnola (Cypern, German. transl. by Stern, 8. 379, 
No. 29), and then more carefully edited by Hogarth, 
Devia Cypria (1889), p. 114. This inseription ends with 
the words: riunrevoas τὴν βουλὴν [δι]ὰ ἐξαστῶν (510) ἐπὶ 
Παύλου [ἀνθ)])υπάτου. Hogarth regards the writing as 
wholly that of the first century. This makes it impos- 
sible to doubt the identity of this proconsul of Cyprus 
(the Paulus of the Soloi inseription) with the proconsul 
Sergius Paulus of Acts, and with the Sergius Paullus of 
the Roman inscription. For other than chronological 
reasons alone, the opinion of Mommsen, that the Soloi 
inscription refers to a certain Paullus Fabius Maximus, 
who died 14 B.c., cannot be maintained ; see Ν ΑΖ, 1904, 
S. 193 ff. Of importance as showing the connection of 
the Sergian gens with Cyprus is another Cyprian inserip- 
tion found in 1887 (J HS, ix. 241, No. 56: Δούκιον Σέργιον 
ΚΙ... .] Appıavov συγκλητικὸν TpıBodvov Yepyia Δημητρία τὸν 
ἀδελφόν). Moreover, Lightfoot (Essays on Supernat. Rel, 
p. 295) has shown it to be probable that the Sergius 
Paullus whom Pliny, H. N. i., mentions in the list of 
authorities for lib. 11. and xviii. (in the first reference only 
Sergius, not Paullus, see the critical apparatus of Sillig 
or Detlefsen), is the proconsul of Cyprus, and that the 
notes about Cyprus, H. N. ii. 210, xviii. 68, were derived 
from him. For other conjectures see Prosopographia, i. 
222, under Sergius Paullus. The Soloi inscription contains 
a date, A certain Apollonius (if he is to be identified 
with the Apollonius of 61.1.1. vi. 1440 is questionable) 
set up a monument to his parents on the 25th Dem- 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 465 


archexusios of the year 13. If this date refers to the year 
of the emperor’s reign (cf. C. J. @. 2632, 2634), —in this 
case the emperor Claudius, —then the date is fixed as 53. 
Hogarth’s hypothesis, that the figure P (100) should be 
added,—which gives the number 113, to be reckoned from 
the first organisation of the province, giving us the year 
55,—seems to the present writer hazardous. The con- 
cluding words of the inscription just quoted seem to 
presuppose that the Paulus in whose proconsulship Apol- 
lonius as censor examined the senate of Soloi, was no 
longer in office; that, therefore, Paulus governed Cyprus 
before 53. Now it is true that these two lines and a 
half are written in somewhat different characters, 2.e. are 
a later filling out of Apollonius’ list of offices. But from 
this it does not follow that Apollonius and the proconsul 
Paulus did not hold office until a time subsequent to the 
date of the original inscription. Since whatever Pauline 
chronology is accepted, it is impossible to date Sergius 
Paulus’ proconsulship of Cyprus later than 53, it follows 
that the supplement to the inscription records a distinc- 
tion of Apollonius belonging prior to 58, and forgotten 
in the original inscription. But the proconsulship of 
Sergius Paulus must be dated back at least two. years. 
According to C. I. σ΄. 2632, the. proconsul of Cyprus in 
the twelfth year of Claudius, 1.6. in the year 52, was L. 
Annius Bassus (cf. Plin. Hp. vu. 31), who was not consul 
suffectus until the year 70 (CLL. vi. 200). There is 
no need to discuss the question whether he is identical 
with the person mentioned in Tac. Hist. 111. 50, year 69, 
nor the statements of Mommsen concerning him in the 
index to Keil’s Plimus, p. 401, which to the present 
writer are unintelligible and certainly incorrect, nor the 
statements of Marquardt, Rom. Staatsverwaltung’, i. 391, 
concerning his predecessor, Cordus ; ef.,on the other hand, 
the correct statements concerning both in Prosopographia, 
1. 63, 11.188. Since in C. 1. @. 2632, Bassus carries out 
VOL, III. 30 


466 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


an order of his predecessor, Cordus, and had, therefore, 
only just begun to govern, Q. Julius Cordus (C. I. @. 
2631; the same person mentioned in Tac. Hist. i. 76?) 
must have governed the island until the spring of this 
same year, 52. The proconsulship of Sergius Paulus falls 
in the year beginning in the spring of 51, and ending 
in the spring of 52. 

5. THe ExpuLsIon oF THE JEWS FROM Roms, Acts 
xvinl. 2—Dio Cassius (lx. 6. 6) makes the following 
remark in connection with the first year of Claudius, 2.e. 
A.D. 41 (since there is no transition to the year 42 until 
lx. 9. 1, ef. 10.1): “The Jews, who had again so increased 
in numbers that it would have been diflieult to exclude 
them from the city without a riot on the part of their 
rabble (ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου σφῶν), he did not indeed drive out, 
but commanded them, while retaining (otherwise) their 
ancestral customs, not to assemble.” The reference in 
πάτριος Bios can be to nothing else than that which in the 
edicts of tolerance in Jos. Ant. xix. 5. 2-3 is called ra ἴδια 
ἔθη, ἡ πάτριος θρησκεία, τὰ πάτρια ἔθη, οἱ ἴδιοι νόμοι. Since 
the observation of the Sabbath and the religious services 
in the synagogue on the Sabbath were a prime feature 
of their ancestral customs, the decree against συναθροίζεσθαι 
cannot refer to the religious services, which in Rome were 
held in a large number of different synagogues (vol. i. 47), 
but is directed against large assemblies and tumultuous 
gatherings of the whole Jewish populace in Rome, which 
were especially pleasing to the Jews (Jos. Bell. i. 6. 1, 
10. 3; Ant. xvii. 9. 1 ff., 11. 1, xviii. 8. 2; Philo, Leg. ad 
Cai. xxxii.), and which would be appropriately designated 
by συναθροίξεσθαι (Acts xix. 25; Jos. Bell. ii. 10. 3) as 
distinguished from συνάγεσθαι (cf. συναγωγή, σύναξις ; Acts 
xix, 39, ἔννομος ἐκκλησία). With this deeree against the 
Jews is to be compared the strieter measures against the 
heterie, which Dio Cassius reports in the passage imme- 
diately following. ‘Thus understood, this account of Dio 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 467 


Cassius agrees well with the fact that Claudius at the 
beginning of his reign showed great favour to the Jewish 
princes, Agrippa I. and Herod of Chalcis (Jos. Ant. xix. 
5. 1; Dio Cass. lx. 8. 2), and that at their request he 
granted the Jews throughout the whole empire, including 
Italy, the right of religious worship (Ant. xix. 5. 3, of the 
year 42),—the same had been granted earlier to the Alex- 
andrian Jews, Ant. xix. 5. 2,—warning them, however, to 
make modest and peaceful use of it. If this warning were 
not followed, it did not mean a return under Claudius of 
the conditions that prevailed under Caligula, but the en- 
forcement of police regulations against the insubordination 
of troublesome Jews in different places. But it is very 
improbable that the Roman Jews gave occasion for such 
measures so soon after the year 42. The expulsion of 
the Jews from Rome mentioned in Acts xvi. 2 and Suet. 
Claudius, xxv. (vol. i. 488, n. 6), must belong to a later 
date. On the other hand, it is wrong to conclude, with O. 
Holtzmann, Ntl. Zeitgeschichte, 8. 127, that, from favours 
shown by Claudius to Agrippa 11. between 50 and 54 
(Schürer, i. 586 f. [ Eng. trans. 1. ii. 191 f.]), this edict does 
not belong to this, but to an earlier period. This con- 
tinuous patronage of Agrippa does not presuppose general 
love for the Jews on the part of the emperor; neither is 
the fact that in consequence of the repeated tumults among 
the Jews in Rome, the patience of the Roman police was 
finally exhausted, to be taken as evidence of an especially 
unfriendly feeling or attitude of the Emperor toward the 
Jews. The date cannot be fixed more definitely either 
from the “ Teaching of Addai,” ed. Philips, p. 16, or from 
Kus. H. E. ii. 18. 9, who simply follows Acts, or from 
Orosius, Hist. vii. 6. 15, who declares that he found the 
ninth year of Claudius’ reign mentioned in Josephus, who 
says nothing whatever about it; it must be fixed from 
the chronology of Paul as determined from other data. 

6. GALLIO, PROCONSUL oF ACHAIA, ACTS ΧΥΠΙ. 12-17. 


468 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


— Since the words in xviii. 12, TaAXiwvos δὲ ἀνθυπάτου ὄντος 
τῆς ᾿Αχαΐας, are clearly intended to indicate not the motive 
for the Jews’ charges against Paul, but the time and 
circumstances of them, it is fair to infer that Gallio did 
not assume office until some time during Paul’s eighteen 
months’ sojourn in Corinth, and, since official changes 
were usually made in the spring, not until the spring 
following Paul’s settlement in Corinth. L. Junius 
Gallio (called Anneus Novatus before his adoption by 
the rhetorician Gallio), the elder brother of the philo- 
sopher Seneca, left Achaia on one occasion (according to 
Seneca, Epest. xvii. 1 [105]) in order to get rid of a 
fever which he had contracted there. The sea-voyage here 
referred to cannot be the same as that which took him 
to Egypt (Plin. H. N. xxxi. 62), for the occasion of the 
latter voyage was a hemorrhage. He died in the reign 
of Nero (Dio Cass. lxii. 25). It is naturally impossible 
to determine the date of his death more definitely from 
Tac. Ann. xv. 73. The date of his consulate is just as 
uncertain (Prosopogr. 11. 237) as that of his proconsulate 
in Achaia. Inasmuch as his younger brother Seneca was 
consul in 56, Gallio probably held the office at an earlier 
date. During the exile of his brother, from which the 
latter was recalled in 49 (Seneca, Dial. xii. 18. 2), Gallio 
continued his honourable career undisturbed. Seneca’s 
history, therefore, throws no light upon the dates of his 
brother’s career. In addition, the investigations of Ramsay 
(Expos. 1897, March, p. 201 f.), Schürer (Z/WTh, 1898, 
S. 41), and of Hönnicke (Chronol. des Apostels Pl., 8. 
26 ff.), have led to no sure result. Even if we knew when 
Gallio was adopted, and received this name from his adopted 
father, this information would be of no importance for the 
chronology of Paul ; for Luke could have given him this 
name (Acts xviii. 14) without scruple, even if he had not 
yet assumed it at the time of this incident of which he 
writes. 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 469 


7. THE PROCURATORS FELIX AND Festus, ACTS XXIII. 
24-xxv1. 32.—Josephus, the only authority in any way 
closely associated with the events in question, in Bell. ii. 
12. 8 mentions the sending of Felix to Palestine as the 
last event of Claudius’ reign (i. 11. 1-12. 8), and places 
everything which he relates concerning Felix’s pro- 
euratorship (ii. 13. 2-7, ef. Ant. xx. 8. 4 on the first 
year of Nero) after the accession of Nero (ii. 12. 8). 
The remark in il. 13. 2 concerning Nero, that he gave 
Agrippa 1 some other cities of Palestine in addition to 
the tetrarchy of Philip (i. 12. 8) which Claudius had 
bestowed upon him, and that he appointed (κατέστησεν 
not ἐξέπεμψεν) Felix procurator over the rest of Judea, 
can only mean that Nero confirmed Felix in the procu- 
ratorship to which he was appointed by Claudius, except 
that he reduced his jurisdiction in the manner mentioned. 
The date of the transference of office from Felix to Festus 
is not definitely fixed by Bell. 11. 14. 1. Practically the 
same situation is found in Ant. xx. 7. 1-8, 9. Here also 
no account of the official acts of Felix is given until the 
reign of Nero (8. 1-8). Only his appointment to Pales- 
tine falls in the reign of Claudius (7. 1). This cannot 
be claimed as certainly regarding his marriage with 
Drusilla (7. 2), the account of which is given merely as 
an episode. Josephus’ idea of the appointment of Felix 
is indicated not only in the distribution of material be- 
tween the reigns of Claudius and of Nero, but also by the 
fact that immediately after mentioning the appointment 
of Felix he reports the assignment to Agrippa of the 
tetrarchy of Philip (7. 1), which took place in the begin- 
ning of the thirteenth year of Claudius’ reign (53). Con- 
sequently there can be no doubt about Josephus’ idea of 
the date of Felix’s procuratorship. Felix entered office 
in one of the last years of Claudius’ reign (between 51 
and 54), was confirmed by Nero immediately upon his 
accession (October 13th, 54), and was recalled in the same 


470 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


reign. But the greater part of Felix’s term of office 
which, according to Acts xxiv. 10, 27, must have covered 
at least (4- 2) six years, fell in the reign of Nero. Even 
if only half of the six years belong after the accession of 
Nero (October 54), Felix could, according to Josephus, 
have been withdrawn, at the very earliest, in the autumn 
of 57. The chronology of Josephus is confirmed by 
Tacitus (Ann. zii. 54) to this extent, namely, in that 
Tacitus assigns to the year 52 the sentence of Cumanus, 
which, according to Josephus, was the immediate occasion 
of the appointment of Felix. In another respect Tacitus’ 
statement in this passage has caused confusion. Whereas, 
according to Josephus (Bell. i. 12. 8; Ant. xx. 7. 1), 
Felix was sent from Rome to Palestine to succeed 
Cumanus, at the request of the high priest Jonathan, 
who was present at Rome at the time of the condemna- 
tion of Cumanus (Ant. xx. 8. 5; Bell. ii. 12. 6), accord- 
ing to Tacitus, Felix had governed Samaria for a long 
time prior to this sentence (jam pridem Jude impositus) 
while Cumanus was governing Galilee. The statement of 
Tacitus is to be rejected, not only because in respect of 
time and place Josephus was much nearer the facts than 
Tacitus, and could not have invented such specific reports 
as those about Jonathan, but also because Tacitus’ alleged 
division of the small province takes no account of the 
most important part of Palestine, namely, Judea and 
Jerusalem. This is a point on which Tacitus is poorly 
informed. It is more difficult to explain a contradiction 
in which Josephus involves himself notwithstanding his 
otherwise clear statements about Felix. In Ant. xx. 8. 9 
he says that after Festus had been sent by Nero to Pales- 
tine to succeed Felix, the foremost Jews of Ceesarea went 
to Rome in order to accuse Felix, and that he would have 
received the punishment which he deserved for his mis- 
deeds if the emperor had not pardoned many of his 
offences at the intercession of Felix’s brother Pallas, who 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 471 


was at that time greatly esteemed by Nero. Josephus 
evidently knows of the subsequent downfall of Pallas, 
and says with reference to it, that just when (μάλεστα δὴ 
röre) Felix had to answer charges in Rome, Pallas was in 
high favour with Nero. But, according to Tacitus (Ann. 
xiii. 14), who must have been informed on this point, the 
downfall of Pallas occurred in the year 55 (cf. the state- 
ment concerning the consuls, xiii. 11) shortly before 
Britannicus had completed his fourteenth year (xii. 15). 
But, according to Suet. Claud. xxvii., Britannicus was 
born on the twentieth day of the reign of Claudius during 
his second consulate, 2.e. (reckoning from January 24th, 
41) on the 12th or 13th of February 41, not on the 
12th of February 42, as Schiller states in his Kazsergesch. 
1. 338. Naturally no account need be taken of the 
incidental statement of Dio Cassius, lx. 12. 5, from 
which it might be inferred that Britannicus was born in 
the year 42. Accordingly, Britannicus’ fourteenth birth- 
day fell on the 13th day of February 55, and Pallas was 
deposed in January of the year 55. With this, however, 
agrees Dio Cassius, Ixi. 7. 4, where the death of Britan- 
nicus is placed in the year 55. In view of the complete 
agreement of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius regard- 
ing these dates, which are entirely independent of each 
other, referring in part to the birth, in part to the four- 
teenth birthday of Britannicus and his poisoning, which 
took place shortly before his fourteenth birthday,—dates, 
moreover, which are associated with the names of consuls, 
—such trivial statements as those of Harnack, Chronol. der 
Altchrist. Int. 8. 238, to the effect that Tacitus made a 
mistake of a year in giving the age of Britannicus at the 
time of his death, and consequently put the downfall of 
Pallas in the year 55 instead of 56, the correct date, are 
to be rejected. On the other hand, from the fact that in 
the year 55, when Pallas was charged with high treason, 
he showed a defiant spirit, and was acquitted along with 


472 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Burrus (Tac. Ann. xiii. 23), it is not to be inferred that 
between 55 and 57 he had gradually or suddenly regained 
the favour of Nero. Nero never showed him any special 
regard (Ann. xii. 2), and it is certain that from January 
55 until he was poisoned in 62 (Tac. Ann. xiv. 65) he 
was never in favour with the emperor, which would agree 
fairly well with the words of Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 9. How 
O. Holtzmann, Ntl. Zeitgeschichte, S. 128-130, infers 
from this statement of Josephus that in the summer of 
55 Felix went to Rome and Festus to Palestine, and 
especially how Harnack, 8. 235, reaches his conclusion 
that Felix was recalled not later than the year 55 or 56 
(ef. S. 237, Accession of Festus, summer of 56), these 
writers themselves must explain. A glance into older 
works, e.g. Wieseler, Chron. des apost. Zeitalters, 8. 
72-74, would have prevented such mistakes. According 
to Acts xxiv. 27 (cf. xx. 16, xxvii. 9), Felix departed, and 
Festus assumed office in the summer. Felix’s accusers 
could, therefore, have left Ceesarea immediately after his 
departure and have reached Rome before the close of 
navigation; but if Josephus is correct in his statement 
about Pallas, they did not arrive in the autumn of the 
year 55, at the beginning of which Pallas was deposed, 
nor in the year 56, 2.6. one year and nine months after 
the fall of Pallas, but must have come at the very latest 
in the autumn of 54. But this, too, is impossible. For 
since Nero did not come to the throne until October 13th, 
54, Festus, who arrived in Palestine in the summer of 
this same year, would not have been sent out by Nero 
but by Claudius, and Felix, who departed in the summer, 
would have found Claudius still alive. Josephus would 
then be entirely wrong in his statement that Nero con- 
firmed Felix in his procuratorshop and appointed Festus 
as his successor, and in his belief that the procuratorship 
of Felix fell largely under Nero. But even if he be cor- 
rect in one point, namely, that Nero sent Festus to Pales- 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 473 


tine, nevertheless his statement about Pallas is untenable. 
It is impossible to crowd the journey of Festus from 
Rome to Palestine, the journey of Felix and the Jewish 
embassy to Rome, and the adjustment of their troubles, 
into the period of time between October 13th, 54, and 
approximately February 1st, 55, to say nothing of the 
fact that such journeys were not usually made in the 
winter months, and that according to the Acts they must 
necessarily have been made in the summer. Josephus’ 
statement about Pallas is, therefore, certainly incorrect. 
But even if this were not as evident as it is, even if we 
had the choice of rejecting either this incidental account 
of Josephus’ idea of events in distant Rome, or his con- 
sistent conception of the relation of the procuratorships of 
Felix and Festus in Palestine to the administration of 
Claudius and Nero, without question we would hold the 
latter to be historical, and reject the former as an error of 
Josephus’ due to the practical necessity of explaining 
Felix’s escape from punishment, and to a confusion of the 
times of Claudius with those of Nero. Whoever makes 
this error a corner-stone in chronology will certainly 
arrive at conclusions which are absurd—and these con- 
clusions affect more than the history of the Church. Three 
examples will suffice: (1) If Festus succeeded Felix at 
the latest in the year 54,—which, as we have seen, would 
be the case on this supposition,—Paul was arrested at 
Pentecost, 52. On this occasion, fully two years before 
the recall of Felix, the uprising of the Egyptians is 
spoken of as an event not belonging to the immediate 
past (Acts xxl. 38, πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν, cf. v. 36). 
According to Josephus (Bell. ii. 13. 5; Ant. xx. 8. 2), 
however, this uprising occurred during the reign of Nero. 
The arrest of Paul took place, therefore, several years 
after October 54, and the recall of Felix several years after 
56. (2) When, at the beginning of his imprisonment in 
Uxsarea, Paul spoke before Felix, the latter was married 


474 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to Drusilla (Acts xxiv. 24), and there is nothing which im 
plies that he had been only recently married. Drusilla, 
who in 44 was only six years old (Ant. xix. 9. 1), was only 
fourteen years old in 52. But when Felix induced her tc 
infidelity she was married to Azizus of Emesa (Ant. xx. 7. 2), 
and, prior to this first marriage, her brother Agrippa 1. 
had seriously negotiated with Epiphanes of Comagene for 
her marriage to him (xx. 7. 1). Drusilla’s first marriage 
was of short duration (loc. cit.). In order to compress 
into a period of two years the whole of the first marriage, 
the struggle with the difficulties which Felix had to over- 
come in order to make Drusilla unfaithful to her husband, 
and to induce the Jewess to marry him (Ant. xx. 7. 2), 
and the period during which at the time of Acts xxiv. 24 
Felix and Drusilla had been married, it is necessary to 
assume the most extreme possibilities. Her first marriage 
took place at twelve years, after negotiations concerning 
another marriage, which also required time, had failed. 
This in itself is hardly probable. Moreover, Josephus 
evidently knows when the first marriage took place. At 
the end of the twelfth year of Claudius, 1.6. at the begin- 
ning of the thirteenth year of Claudius (= 53), Agrippa IL. 
received the tetrarchy of Philip, and after this elevation in 
rank, 2.e. at the earliest in the year 53, he gave his sister, 
who was then fifteen years of age, in marriage to Azizus 
(Ant. xx. 7. 1). At the very earliest, then, it was not 
until the year 54, probably later, that Drusilla became the 
wife of Felix. This marriage had already taken place 
when Paul spoke before Felix, and the latter retained 
his procuratorship for two whole years thereafter. Con- 
sequently, at the very earliest, Festus succeeded Felix in 
56, probably later. (3) Neither does the “new chrono- 
logy” agree with Josephus’ statements about his first 
journey to Rome (Vit. 3). He was born in the winter of 
37-38 (Schiirer, i. 74 [ Eng. trans. 1. 1, 77 |), and completed 
his twenty-sixth year in the winter of 63-64 ; so that he 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 475 


started on his journey in the spring of 64. The purpose 
of this journey was the liberation of some Jewish priests 
from imprisonment in Rome, whither Felix had sent them 
during his procuratorship to be condemned by the Imperial 
court. If Felix was removed from office in 54 (55 or 56), 
these priests must have remained prisoners in Rome for at 
least ten (or according to the incorrect reckoning of our 
modern chronologists, at least eight or nine) years. ‘This 
imprisonment was not the result of a judicial sentence, a 
mode of punishment unknown among the Romans, but it 
was an imprisonment pending a trial. The case 1s con- 
ceivable only if Felix remained in office until the summer 
of 60; so that the imprisonment of these priests until 
they were set free by Josephus may have lasted about 
four years, just as the first Roman imprisonment of Paul 
lasted from two to two and a half years. As regards 
the data of the Eusebian Chronicle (Schoene, 11. 152 ff.), 
(1) due regard is to be paid to the fact that Hus. A. E. ii. 
20. 1, 22. 1, agrees with Josephus as against the Armenian 
version of the Chronicle in making Felix a procurator 
under Nero,—indeed, he places his procuratorship mainly 
under Nero,—and in making Nero appoint Festus. (2) 
It is not possible, with Blass, Acta apost. p. 22, to 
harmonise the two chronologists, Eusebius and Jerome, on 
the assumption that they differ only by a year. The 
Latin editor places the sending of Felix in Anno Abr. 
2066, the tenth year of Claudius, and the sending of 
Festus in Anno Abr. 2072, the second year of Nero. On 
the other hand, the Armenian version places the sending 
of Felix in Anno Abr. 2067, the eleventh year of Claudius 
(= 51), but puts the sending of Festus in Anno Abr, 
2070, the fourteenth year of Claudius (= 54). 'Ihat 
the Armenian version is confused, appears also from the 
peculiar fact that Felix’s entrance upon office is not re- 
corded until after a statement is made concerning an 
event which took place under his proeuratorship. (3) But 


476 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


even if the dates of the Armenian version are correeted on 
the basis of Jerome’s editing (cf. Ver. Ill. v.), and even if 
we assume with Harnack, 8. 234, 236 f., that the Eusebian 
dates for the assumption of office by Felix and Festus are 
the summer of 51 and the summer of 56 respectively, and 
that Paul’s first trial before Felix took place at Pentecost 
(Harnack, 8. 237, makes the surprising statement “at 
Easter”) 54, there is still a contradiction to Acts xxiv. 10; 
for Felix had been then only three years in office, a period 
covering less than one-third of the time of Pilate’s pro- 
curatorship. More especially there remains the irrecon- 
cilable contradiction to the course of events in Palestine 
under Claudius and Nero, according to the representation 
of Josephus. Certain dates can be obtained only by 
reckoning back with the help of Josephus from the Jewish 
war. According to the episodic narrative of Bell. vi. 5. 8, 
Albinus, the successor of Festus, was in Jerusalem at a 
feast of Tabernacles, which visit, according to Josephus, 
took place four years before the outbreak of the war, and 
seven years five months prior to a point of time just 
before the capture of Jerusalem. The second date, which 
is more definite, with which, however, the first agrees, 
refers clearly to the feast of Tabernacles in the year 62. 
But now all that is related in Ant. xx. 9. 2-3 (ef. the 
meagre allusions in Bell. ii. 14. 1) concerning Albinus’ ἡ 
stay in Jerusalem, also took place at a feast of Tabernacles ; 
for, since there is no previous mention of a feast κατὰ τὴν 
ἑορτὴν, ἐνειστήκει γὰρ αὕτη in xx. 9. 3 is to be understood as 
referring to the feast of Tabernacles (cf. above, p. 285, 
n. 4, on John v. 1, vii. 2). This is a Jewish usage of 
language which is evidently found in Bell. 1. 12. 3; since 
ἡ ἑορτή in this passage is not the Passover mentioned in 
ΧΙ. 1, nor an undetermined feast, in which case there 
would be no artiele (cf. the importance attached to the 
feast of Tabernacles, Ant. viii. 4. 1). Unless a peculiar 
coincidence be assumed, the feast of Tabernacles, briefly 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 477 


referred to in Bell. vi. 5. 3, is identical with that spoken 
of in Ant. xx. 9. 2. From the context of xx. 9. 1-3 we 
learn that Albinus journeyed to Jerusalem very soon after 
his arrival in the country (cf. a similar case in Acts 
xxv. 1). If he was there at the feast of Tabernacles in 62, 
then he arrived in Palestine late in the summer of 62. 
But from xx. 9. 1 it follows that Festus died in Palestine 
at least three months previous, 7.e. in May or June 62. 
Josephus gives the comparatively just and energetic ad- 
ministration of Festus only two lines in Bell. 11. 14. 1, 
and also describes it very briefly in Ant. xx. 8. 10-11. 
It produced no change in affairs, and must have been of 
short duration. In view of the silence of Josephus, it 
is a bold venture to assume that the procuratorship of 
Festus lasted from 54 to 55 or 56 (see above, p. 472 f.) 
until June 62. On the other hand, the events in Ant. 
xx. 8. 10-11 cannot possibly be crowded into the space of 
time—ten months at the most—between the arrival of 
Festus in the late summer and June of the following year. 
Therefore he cannot have assumed oflice so late as 61, but 
at the very latest began to rule in the year 60. When in 
Ant. xx. 8. 11 (ef. 11. 2; Vita, 3) Josephus calls Poppzea 
the wife of Nero, he is certainly speaking either pro- 
leptically or euphemistically ; for the formal marriage 
between the two (Tac. Ann. xiv. 60-64; Suet. Nero, 
xxxv. lvii.) did not take place until after Nero’s separa- 
tion from Octavia and her death (June the 9th, 62), 1.6. 
about the time of the death of Festus, whereas Ant. xx. 
8. 11 refers to a period prior to his death. Moreover, the 
original reading in Acts xxvill. 16 (vol. 1. 551f.) pre- 
supposes that at the time of Paul’s arrival in Rome there 
was only one Prefectus pretorio. That was the case 
until the death of Burrus, which, as the context of the 
narratives shows (Tac. Ann. xiv. 51; Dio Cassius, Ixil. 13), 
occurred in the beginning of the year 62. After his death 
this office was shared by two persons. If Paul had 


478 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


arrived in Rome in March 62, he would have found this 
new arrangement in operation. Therefore he probably 
arrived in Rome at the latest in the spring of 61, and 
accordingly Festus assumed office as procurator at the 
latest in the summer of 60. But this latest possible date 
for his assumption of office has every claim to be the 
correct one. As has been shown, a date much earlier is 
impossible, while there can be no serious objection to 
taking the year 59 as the date of the change of office from 
Felix to Festus. In view of Acts xxiv. 10 and the re- 
presentation of the rule of Festus in Josephus, there is 
little to recommend in deducting a year from Felix’s 
procuratorship and adding it to Festus’. Then there is 
also to be considered the significant coincidence, shown 
above, p. 462, between 2 Cor. xii. 2 and the date in Acts 
xi. 25, which can be absolutely fixed. By referring the 
relative dates back a year, this very likely combination 
would be rendered impossible. 

8. Taking the fixed date—the death of Agrippa τ. in 
the summer of 44—and a date almost as certain, namely, 
Festus’ entrance upon office in the summer of 60, the 
Pauline chronology can be arranged plausibly without any 
conflict with established dates. It requires no change in 
the traditional dates, but only the proof that Josephus 
and Tacitus each in one instance gave an inaccurate report 
of matters with which they were imperfectly acquainted. 
The excess of between five and six years, concerning 
which we have no information, causes no difficulty. The 
question, whether these years should be inserted between 
Acts xii, and xiii., or between Acts xiv. and xv. 1, or 
between Acts xv. 33 and xv. 40, is not difficult to answer. 
The apostolic council took place soon after the first mis- 
sionary journey. The language in xiv. 28 may apply to ἃ 
period of months, but not to five or six years. Paul and 
Barnabas brought to Jerusalem the fresh reports of the 
first missionary journey (xv. 3, 4, 12). In xv. 35 mention 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 479 


is made of the resumption of teaching in the Church at 
Antioch and of missionary preaching in the same city, but 
the elose connection between xv. 40 and xv. 30-34, and 
between xvi. 4 and xv. 29, makes it impossible to assume 
an interval of more than weeks or months. Evidence is 
also found in Phil. iv. 15 (ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ evayyeriov) for the 
statement that only a short space of time intervened 
between the first and second missionary journeys. But, 
on the other hand, in xii. 1 we have the beginning of an 
entirely new historical narrative. Nothing suggests that 
Paul and Barnabas took Mark with them to Antioch 
with a view to making him their companion on a more 
extensive missionary journey (xii. 25). But Mark settled 
in Antioch, where we meet him again in xv. 37. Only 
in a passing moment of discouragement did he go back 
to Jerusalem to his mother (xii. 13). In view of what 
has just been stated, room for the insertion of a five- 
year period of the preparation of the apostle to the 
Gentiles for the calling which had been placed before 
him, is to be found only between Acts xu. and xiii. 
If Luke had written a third book, we would prob- 
ably know much of the history of the older apostles 
during the years 44-50, which he dismisses with Acts 
xiii. 1 (above, p. 59 f.). During this period no important 
steps were taken affecting missionary work among the 
Gentiles. 

9. THE DEATH OF PETER AND PAUL UNDER NERO.—In 
view of the investigations in vol. 1]. 54-84, 158-194, it 
may be assumed as certain that both apostles died as 
martyrs in Rome in the reign of Nero, and also that Paul 
died considerably later than Peter. The parts of 2 Tim. 
which it would have been most impossible to invent, 
prove that the last imprisonment and the death of Paul 
were not part of the persecution of the Christians in 64. 
Paul’s silence regarding Peter in all his imprisonment 
letters, and Peter’s silence concerning Paulin 1 Pet., prove 


480 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


that their ways parted at the end. The clearest traces of 
the true course of events are preserved in the tradition of 
Clement of Rome up to and beyond the Chronicle of 
Eusebius. Harnack’s assertion, Chronol. der altchristl. 
Lit. 8. 239, 240, that Paul was certainly executed in the 
year 64, is as incorrect as it is bold. 


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 


ROMAN AND JEWISH. 


Deposition of Pilate and of Caiaphas, 
. 36. 

Death of Tiberius, March 16, 37. 
Reign of Caius Cesar (Caligula) 
March 16, 37, to January 24, 41. 

Birth of Nero and of Josephus, 37. 

Herod Agrippa I., 37-44. 

Persecution of the Jews in Alexandria, 
38. 


Attempts of Caligula to erect his 
statue in the temple, 39-40. 


teign of the Emperor Claudius, Jan. 
24, 41, to October 13, 54. 


Death of Herod Agrippa 1., summer 
of 44, 
Fadus’ procuratorship, 44-46 (or 47). 


VOL. III. 


CHRISTIAN. 


Death and Resurrection of Christ, 
probably 30. 

The events in Acts i.-viii. 1, from 30 
to 34. 

The Conversion of Paul, beginning 
of 35. 


Three years’ sojourn of Paul in 
Damascus, once interrupted by a 
journey to Arabia (Gal. i. 17). 


Flight from Damascus, first visit to 
Jerusalem, settlement in Tarsus 
(Gal. 1. 18-24; 2 Cor. xi. 32; Acts 
ix. 23-30, xxii. 17-21, xxvi. 20; 
Rom. xv. 19), 38. 

Peter in Joppa and Cxsarea (Acts ix. 
32-xi. 18, xv. 7). 

Agabus and the other prophets in 
Antioch (Acts xi. 27 f.), about 40, 
Luke a member of the Antiochian 

Church. 


Paul brought by Barnabas from 
Tarsus to Antioch (Acts xi. 25; 
2 Cor. xii. 2), summer or autumn, 
43. 

Execution of James the son of 
Zebedee, imprisonment of Peter, 
flight of Peter from Jerusalem, 
about Easter, 44. 


Journey of Barnabas and of Paul to 
Jerusalem with the collection, and 
the settlement of Mark in Antioch 
(Acts xi. 30, xii. 25), autumn of 44. 


31 


482 


ROMAN AND JEWISH. 


Procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander, 
46 (or 47)-48. 

Faminein Judea. 

Procuratorship of Cumanus, 48-52. 


Sergius Paulus, governor of Cyprus, 
about 50 (certainly not between 5l 
and 53). 

Banishment of Jews from 
about 52. 

Procuratorship of Felix, from 52, or 
beginning 53, until summer, 60. 


Rome, 


Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, probably 
from the spring of 53 on. 


Reign of Nero, from Oct. 13, 54, to 
June 9, 68. 


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 


CHRISTIAN. 


Paul and Barnabas, active as teachers 
and missionaries in Antioch until 
the spring of 50. 

The visit of Peter and of other 
Judeans in Antioch, 

The Epistle of James, about 50. 

First missionary journey of Paul (Acts 
xiii. 4-xiv. 27; Gal. iv. 13), spring 
of 50 until autumn of 51. 

The apostolic council (Acts xv. 1-29; 
Gal. ii. 1-10), beginning of 52. 

Beginning of the second missionary 
journey (Acts xv. 40), spring of 52. 

Arrival, in Corinth, about November 
52. 

The Epistle to the Galatians, about 
April 53. 

Arrival of Silas and Timothy in 
Corinth (Acts xviii. 5; 1 Thess. 111. 6). 

First Epistle to the Thessalonians, 
about May or June 53. 

Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, 
August or September 53. 

Hearing before Gallio (Acts xviii. 
12-17), autumn of 53. 

Journey from Corinth to Ephesus 
(Acts xviii. 18-21. Beginning of the 
three years’ stay in Ephesus, Acts 
xx. 31, ef. xix. 8-10, xx. 18), before 
Pentecost, i.e. about May 54. 

Continuation of the journey to 
C»sarea (not to Jerusalem) and 
Antioch (Acts xviii. 21f.). 

Journey of Apollos from Alexandria 
by way of Ephesus to Corinth (Acts 
xviii. 24-28), summer, 54. 

Beginning of the third missionary 
journey from Antioch to Ephesus 
(Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1), probably in 
the late summer of 54. 

Settlement in Ephesus, somewhere 
about February 59. 

Transfer to the lecture-room of Tyran- 
nus, about Pentecost, 55. 

Short visit in Corinth from Ephesus 
(vol. i. 263 f.). 

A lost letter of Paul to the Corinth 


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 483 


RoMAN AND JEWISH. CHRISTIAN. 


ians (1 Cor. v. 9), toward the end of 
56 or beginning of 57. 

Sending of Timothy and Erastus to 
Macedonia, and thence to Corinth 
(Acts xix. 22; 1 Cor. iv. 17). 

Letter of the Corinthians to Paul 
(1 Cor. vii. 1). 

The First Epistle to the Corinthians 
(1 Cor. v. 7, xvi. 8), about Easter, 
57. 

Return of Timothy to Ephesus. Send- 
ing of Titus to Corinth (vol. i. 


321 ff.). 
The uprising of Demetrius (Acts xix. 
23-41). 


Departure of Paul and Timothy from 
Ephesus to Macedonia by way of 
Troas (Aete’xx. 1; cf. 2 Cor. i. 8, 
ii. 12, vii. 5), at or shortly after 
Pentecost, 57. 

Meeting of Titus and Paul in Mace- 
donia (2 Cor. vü. 5-15). 

Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 
about November or December 57. 
Journey of Paul from Macedonia to 
Corinth (Acts xx. 2), at New Year, 

58. 

The Epistle to the Romans written 
during the three months’ stay in 
Greece and Corinth (Acts xx. 3; 
Rom. xv. 25, xvi. 1), about Feb- 
ruary 58. 

Juurney by way of Macedonia (Easter 
in Philippi, Acts xx. 6), Troas, 
Miletus, ete., to Jerusalem, 

Arrival in Jerusalem, and beginning 
of the Cesarean imprisonment, 
Pentecost, 58. 

Porcins Festus, proenrator from sum- 
mer 60 to early summer 62. 

Defence before Festus, late summer 
of 60. 

Departure from Cvesarea for Rome 
(Acts xxvii. 1, 9), September 60. 

Arrival at Rome (Acts xxviii. 16; ef 
ver. 11), March 61. 

Epistle to the Ephesians, Colossians, 
and Philemon, summer, 62. 

Second Epistle of Peter, in 62, 

Matthew writes his Aramaic Gospel 
in Palestine, in 62. 


484 


ROMAN AND JEWISH. 


Burning of Rome (vol. ii. 68), from the 
19th to the 24th of July 64. 


Beginning of the Jewish War, 66. 


Victory of the Jews over Cestius, 
November 66. 


War in Galilee, 67. 


Civil war in Jerusalem, winter 67-68. 


Death of Emperor Nero, June 9, 
68. 

Death of Galba, January 15, 69; of 
Otho, April 16, 69; of Vitellius, 
December 21, 69. 

Vespasian proclaimed 
Alexandria, July 1, 69. 

jerinning of the siege of Jerusalem 
by Titus, April 70. 

Capture of Jerusalem and destruction 
of the temple, August 70. 


emperor in 


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 


CHRISTIAN. 


End of the two whole years (ef. Acts 
xxviii. 30), about April 63. 

The Epistle to the Philippians, sum- 
mer of 63. 

Release of Paul, late in the summer of 
63. 

Journey of Paul to Spain, autumn of 
63 or spring of 64. 

Arrival of Peter in Rome, in the 
autumn of 63 or spring of 64. 

First Epistle of Peter, spring of 64. 

Mark engaged in Rome in the pre- 
paration of his Gospel, summer of 
64. 

Persecution under Nero and cruci- 
fixion of Peter, autumn of 64. 

Return of Paul from Spain, tour of 
the Eastern Churches, composition 
of 1 Timothy and of Titus, spring 
and autumn of 65. 

Stay in Nicopolis during the winter 
of 65-66. 

Death of James the brother of Jesus, 
in Jerusalem, at Easter, 66. 

Return of Paul to Rome, spring of 
66. 

Paul’s arrest in Rome, composition of 
2 Timothy, summer of 66. 


Paul beheaded, at the end of 66 or 
beginning of 67. 

Publication of the Gospel of Mark, in 
67. 

Flight of the Christians from Jeru- 
salem to Pella, 67. 

Settlement of the apostle John and 
other disciples (Philip, Aristion, 
and others) in the province of Asia, 
68. 


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 


ROMAN AND JEWISH. 


Reign of Titus, from June 23, 79, 
until September 13, 81. 

Reign of the Emperor Domitian, Sep- 
tember 13, 81, to September 18, 96. 

Reign of the Emperor Nerva, from the 
18th of September 96 until the 25th 
of January 98. 

Reign of the Emperor Trajan, from the 
25th οἵ January 98 until August 117. 


485 
CHRISTIAN. 


Epistle of Jude, about 75. 

Gospel and Acts of the Apostles by 
Luke, about 75. 

Epistle to the Hebrews, about 80. 

The Gospel and Epistles of John, 
80-90. 

Appearance of the Greek Matthew, 
about 85. 

Revelation of John, about 95. 


Death of John, about 100. 


ee eae eqaon) oT 


“sr ‚08-08 
werkttalt doer) 0 30 vonetaaqqgA- 
£ 08 suode 
Ren, to nvitnlovenl 
ine ods 
Y Epth to the nae of ply δι, 
t ‘ \ 
j fixion of Peter; auto 
’ Return af! Paul fran § 
he Rast m .Dbure 
ΤΙ of 1 Timothy and o 
uch ond Ankarın of 5. ὦ ar 
Stay dn Nicapolik du FR 
, ᾿ of 05-65, 
.Boginning af the Jowish War, δύ, Death of Janin the ὃ R 
\ in Jerusalane δὶ Piper t 
ki 5 Retafn of van to Som } 
, ᾿ # Su, = Ὶ 
᾿ : j Faul’s arrest ἢ! & Οἱ 
Ἷ ἵ ᾽ 2 Timothy, num 
Victery οὔ thew Jew over ee eit Mg 
Nov cries δ, lied 
N ox or" jes Paul beheaded, at: the, 
' οἵ . ᾿ ὰ 
ι ‘ oy eine the & 1 
Γ ᾿ 18 
War in Galilee, 47, Blight of the Christine‘ 


᾿ ἢ salem to Pella, δ). ἠὲ i 
Ciyit wer lin Jere, winter 67468. Setddemen® of thedape . 
ather dige‘phon : (P gi 


- wand ao here) ii 

. 68, Π σιν 
Death af Em ecrogd Non June 8 i 

88, ᾿ 3 
Donth af Gale Jannary τῆ, We af " ὦ 

Othe, ye Mb: δὲ Viteliun, 

Dogwaber SE ma wen . ᾿ 
Vorasian οι, ory perer ‘An ; 

Alu anilr ag LP AIR zZ = 
Berinpiriey om at a a ὧς 4 

hy Ἄν»; Ape Bar 
ne | Bo. eh y A 

of the bewple 7 i) 


GENERAL INDEX. 


I— 


abba, i. 48 f. 
Abilius, second Bishop of Alexandria, 
iii. 87. 
Achaia, i. 185 f.,, 256, 266,; iü. 467 f. 
Achaicus, 1. 260, 269;. 
Acta Pauli, i. 2705. 
see also Acts of Paul. 
Acta Thecl, ii. 915. 
‘see also Acts of Thecla. 
Acts of the Apostles— 
see also Luke, Writings of. 
Accounts of Journeys, 111, 115 ff. 
Agreement with Pauline Epistles, 
iii. 150 f. 
Alleged Hebrew (Aramaic) original, 
111. 14197. 
Author, iii. 54 ff., 125 f. 
Author, relation to events recorded, 
iii. 114 ff. 
Authorship ascribed to Luke by 
early Church, iii. 1, 3}. 
Chronological order lacking, iii. 67 f. 
Date, iii. 294, 125 f. 
Dedication, 111. 43, 54. 
Discourses of Peter in, compared 
with 1 Pet., ii. 173 f., 1865. 
Hebraisms in i.-xii., iii. 129, 140 figg. 
Heb. translation, ii. 819 1. 
Historicity, iii. 162 f.,. 
Names of Roman provincesin,i.186ff. 
Purpose, iii. 79 f., 9339. 
view of Baur, iii. 79 f., 93... 
Relation to Pauline Epistles, iii. 
118-126, 1391.91, 93. 
Sources of, iii. 114 ff. 
bibliography, iii. 127 £., 141 fgg. 
Text of— - 
recension a,editio Antiochena, 111.9 ff. 
recension ß, editio Romana, 111. 9 ff. 
recension ß, sources of, iii. 25 ff.. 
two-fold recension of, iii. 8-41. 
bibliography, iii. 25. 
theory of Fr. Blass, 111. 8f. 


| 


487 


Acts of the Apostles—continuen. 
Title, iii. 3,, 59, 8715. 
“We” passages, iii. 14; iii. 54 ff, 
8615 (ct. 8715), 15}. 
author, iii. 142-145, 159 £.,, 5. 
Acts of John, iii. 88,7, 197, 20655. 
Date, iii. 179, 1975. 
Acts of John and of Peter, iii. 177. 
on John xxi. 24f., iii. 2505. 
Acts of Paul; i. 270,, 451,, 455, ; ii. 
20, ; iii. 8817. 
Coptic fragments bearing on im- 
prisonment of Paul, ii. 83 f.,9. 
Testimony of, to Journey of Paul to 
Spain, 11. 63. 
Acts of ‚Peter, ii. 168f.,, 45175; iii. 
Bahr 
Acts of Philip, ii. 163;. 
Acts of Pilate, iii. 352£.,3. 
Acts of Thecla, ii. 213; iii. 88,7. 
Addai— 
Missionary work of, ii. 164,. 
Teaching of, see Teaching of Addai. 
Address, Christian— 
Forms of, iii. S81f.,. 


Adjectives, ending in ävos, avus, avis, 


li. 1934. 
Ado, ili. 263, 31g. 
AEsculapius— 
Cult of, iii. 411f., 421,. 
Africanus, Epistle of, to Aristides— 
on Luke, iil. 5,4. 
Agabus, iii. 127, 1313. 
Prophecy of, date, i. 
458 ff. 
Agape, li. 211,, 229, 235 f.;. 
Ignatius on the, ii. 2365. 
Agrippa I.,1. 5539; 11.130, ; 111, 75, 467 
Death, 111. 133,. 
date, iii. 455 ff. 
Persecutes Christians, iii. 457, 459, 
Agrippa IL, ii. 130,9 ; ili. 76, 467, 474. 
Akeldama, meaning, i. 28,,. 


228; 11]. 


488 


Albinus, iii. 476. 

Alexander, Cypriote Monk, i. 433, ; ii. 
447g. 

Alexander (in Actsand 1 and 2 Tim.), 
ii. 42,, 86. 

Alexander (in. Pastoral Epistles), 11. 
108 ἢ. 

Alexander (the coppersmith), ii. 16f., 
21 f... 


"8 

Alexander (son of Simon), ii. 489f., 
504,. 

Alexander Jannzus, i. 25g, 37, 59;- 

Coins of, i. 25. 

Alexandria, Church in— 
Founder, ii. 159. 
Origin, ii. 3574. 
Alexandrians, Epistle to the, i. 160; 
ii. 295, 306,. 
Aloes, 111, 1965. 
Alogi— 
Estimate of Johannine Writings, iii. 
177 f., 181,.200],. 

on Cerinthus, i. 515,. 

on Gospel of John, ii. 389. 
Alpheus (father of Levi), i. 

522 Ὁ}: 
“Amen, the,” iii. 316, 329 f.g. 
Ammonius— 

Diatessaron of, ii. 401, 420). 
Ampliatus, i, 393, 419945 11. 219. 
Anagnost, ii. 374. 

Andreas Cretensis, on James, i. 108, 
Andrew, the Apostle, 1. 41. 

Greek name, i. 63} . 

in Asia Minor, iii. 3705. 

in John, iii. 179, 209 f., 213, 224,. 
Andronicus, i. 391, 41893. 

Angelolatry, 1. 475-479... 
Among Jews, 1. 475 f.¢. 
Views of fathers, i. 476 f.g. 
Angels (of the Churches)— 
Meaning of term, iii. 413-417, 422 f.,. 
View of Origen, iii. 413 f. 
Annas, 111, 270f., 292 ἢ, 11. 
Annianus, first Bishop of Alexandria, 
ili. 87. 
Antichrist, i. 227 ff., 236 ff. 4-9. 
in First Epistle of John, iii. 3641., 


507, 


371, 
in Revelation, iii. 399 f., 438 f., 441 f., 
446». 
number of, i, 238f.,; iii. 444 ff., 
447 ff. . 


5 

in teaching of John, i, 228. 

in teaching of Paul, i, 239 7.0, 251,. 
Antioch, Church of— 

Gentile Character of, ii. 344. 


INDEX 


Antioch in Pisidia, i. 191 f., .. | 
Antiochus Epiphanes, i. 36, 2374, 239 f.g, 
2619. Α 
Antipas, iii. 410f., 421 f.,. 
anus, adjective ending, ii. 193. 
Apamea, i. 448 f.,. 
Apocalyptic Literature, iii. 387 f., 4035. 
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, de- 
pendent on Canonical Acts, 
iii. 61, 88,7. 
Apoeryphal Gospels— 
Gospel of Etchmiadzin, ii. 485;. 
Gospel of the Ebionites, iii. 3819. 
Gospel of the Hebrews, i. 109, ; ii. 
518 ff., 529,, 562, 573, 594,,, 
596,1, 59712. | 
Date, 1. 13. 
Language, i. 13. 
on James, iii. 22719. 
Relation to the Heb. Matthew, ii. 
518 f. 
View of Baur, ii. 413. 
Witness to John vii. 53-viii, 1, iii. 
3465. 
Gospel of Matthias, ii. 524s. 
Gospel of the Nazarenes, ii. 403, 
δ18 1. 
Relation to the Greek Matthew, ii. 
519. 
Gospel of Peter— 
Date, 11. 45615. 
on Pilate, ill. 352 Ἐπ} 
Relation to Mark, ii. 488. 
Gospel of Philip, iii. 9237. 
Apollos, ii. 49f., 87 ; iii. 82, 193, 
Alleged author of Hebrews, ii. 356, 
364 8.15. 
and Corinthian parties, i. 
285 ff. 
Christian belief of, ii. 356, 357,. 
in Corinth, i. 262, 270 ἢ, 1. 
in Ephesus, i. 262f.; iii. 331 1... 
Name, i. 2700. 
Apollos Party, i. 2711}. 
Apostle, Apostleship, i. 354, 371 ἴω, 
536, ; ii. 389, 463f.; iii. 49, 
226 1.0, 429 ἢ. 
Title, i. 1073, 210, ; ii. 147f., 206 f., 
220,0, 386 f. 
Use of term by Paul, i. 2103, 505 f. 
Apostles— 
Forged letters of, i. 242 f., 247), 2705. 
in Asia Minor, iii. 191f., 194f.,, 
904... 
Apostles, and Apostolie Letters— 
nterest of Post-apostolic Churches 
in, i, 162, 164,. 


283 f., 


INDEX 


Apostolate, iii. 78 f. 
Apostolic Council and Decree, i. 146, 
168, 179, 266; ii. 161, 208; 
iii. 19ff., 27, 33 flo 124, 
153 ff, 163,0, 452. 
Apostolic Decree— 
Bibliography, iii. 35)». 
Style, compared with Luke’s style, 
iii, 100, 1345. 
Apphia, i. 447,, 452, 458,. 
Aquila, the translator, 1. ὅθ, 62,; ii. 
563, 575. 
Translation approved, i. 625. 
Aquila and Priscilla— 
Authors of Hebrews, ii. 365 f.1;- 
in Corinth, i, 257, 265s. 
in Ephesus, i. 262, 2664, 389, 417,,, 
483. 
in Pontus, ii. 152). 
in Rome, i. 417, 429, ; ii. 19, 350. 
Church in the house of, ii. 350. 
Arabia, i. 186,. 
Bartholomew in, ii. 3857. 
Gospel of Matthew in, 11. 3857. 
Aramaic—- 
Biblical =Syriae, i. 22 f,. 
Dialects, i. 8 ff. 
Dialects of non-Jews, 1. 2814 
Forms in LXX, 1. 18, 67,3. 
Idioms and Terms in the Gospels, 
ii, 573£., 576 ff., 591-597,.1). 
in Rabbinic Circles, 1. 3319- 
In Seleucidan Empire, i. 34. 
Language used by Jesus and Dis- 
ciples, i. § 1; 11. 573 Ἠ 
Language used by Paul, i. 11, 48 ff., 
57 


Language used in Synagogue services, 
ı LER. 

Names for places in and near 
Jerusalem, i. 28. 

Original language of “the gospel,” 
i §1 


Original language of Matthew, ii. 
522, 5305. 
Words in Synoptic Gospels, i. 2 ff. ; 
ii. 487 f., 502). 
in John, iii. 323 f,, 353). 
in Luke, iii. 135 f.,., 13774 
in Mark, ii. 610, 616;. 
in Matthew, ii. 576f., 610, 616,. 
in Revelation, iii. 444. 
Archippus, i. 446 f., 452, 458,, 4595. 
Aretzeus, iii. 160 f.;. 
Aretas, i, 5; ii. 1309. 
Date of reign, iii. 455. 
Aretas IV., i. 5; ii. 180,95 iii. 455. 


489 


Aristarchus, i. 209, 213,, 320,, 440, 
4514. 

Aristion, 11. 437 f., 453 5. 

(Ariston), relation to Mark xvi. 14- 
18, ii. 473 f., 4851... 
in Asia Minor, iii. 358, 3703. 

Aristobulus, i. 392 f., 41994. 

Arsinoé, 11. 3574. 

Artemas, ii. 48. 

Ascetic Party in Rome, i. 365 f., 376 1.10, 

406 £325 ll. 346 ΤΙ: 490. 

Asceticism— 

Among readers of Hebrews, ii. 331 ff. 
in Colossee, i. 465 ff., 4738-47949. 
View of Paul, ii. 332. 

Asia, Province, 1. 186,, 1894. 
Beginnings of Church in, ii. 138. 
Churches founded by Paul in, ii. 

1355, 
Churches of, Character of, ii. 136. 
Jews in, i. 449,. 
Paul’s work in, 1. 259. 

Asia, Seven Churches of, iii. 390. 

Asia Minor, i. 47. 

Christian Church in, before Paul, 
ii, 137 f. 
Churches founded by Paul in, ii. 
135 f. 
Churches of, Character of, ii. 136. 
Paul’s journeys through— 
Ramsay’s view, i. 188 fl... 
Asia Minor, Churches of— 
Condition of, according to Rev. i—ii1., 
111. 408-427. 
Founded by Paul, iii. 412 f., 422,. 
Intercourse of Paul with, during the 
Roman imprisonment, ii. 161. 
Internal condition about 90-100 A.D., 
iii. 409 ff. 
Organisation, ii. 93. 
Persecution of, iii. 409 ff. 
Relation to Church in Rome, ii. 
148 f. 
Relation to Mark, ii. 148 f. 
Relation to Paul, ii. 148 f. 
Relation to Silvanus, ii. 148 ff. 
Teaching of Nicolaitans in, ii. 
292, 5. 
Author’s reference to himself in his 
work, iii. 226,. 
Azyma, Feast of, iii. 296 8.17. 


Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13)— 
= Babylon in Egypt, ii. 159, 162,. 
= Babylon on Euphrates, 11. 159, 
162 1... 
= Rome, ii. 159f., 163 fig... 


490 


Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13) —continued. 
Interpretation of Barhebreeus, ii. 
164 £.5. 
Interpretation of Papias, ii. 1633. 
Babylon (Rev. xvii. 5, ete.)— 
Interpretation of, ii. 165 ἔ,,. 
= Rome, ii. 165 fl... 
Babylon— 
in Revelation, ili. 400, 442, 4465. 
Meaning of name in 1 Peter, ii. 158 ff., 
162-1734.4. 
Origin of use of name for Rome, 
ii. 178, 188 f.,. 
Babylon, Church in, ii. 
162-1739-4. 
Balaam, ii. 2333. 
Compared with Nicolaüs, iii. 419, 
427 13- 
in Jude, ii. 2461. 
in 2 Peter and Jude, ii. 282f., 291,4 
in Revelation, 11. 283. 
the way of (2 Pet. ii. 15), ii. 225, 
235,5 
Baptismal Formula, ii. 591;. 
in Pastoral Epistles, ii. 119, 13139. 
Barabbas, ii. 555, 5691. 
Name, 1. 30je- 
Barnabas, 1. 207,, 442, 450, ; 11. 527,. 
Alleged author of Hebrews, ii. 302 f., 
303, 308,, 31019, ı1, 354-356, 
Biographical notes on, ii. 354 f. 
Collection journey, Acts xi. 30, iii. 
456 ff. 
Cousin of Mark, i. 442 ; ii. 428. 
in Galatia with Paul, i. 178 ff. 
in Rome, i. 4335. 
Name, 1. 9110 
Surname of Joseph of Cyprus, 1. ie 
Jarnabas, en of, ii. 302, 310,0; 111. 
183 


148, 158 ff, 


Matt, use of, in the, ii. 515, 526 f.,. 
3artholomew— 
brought Gospel of Matthew into 
India, 11, 3857. 
see also Nathanael. 
Jartimzeus (Bar-Timai), 1. 31je- 
Basilides, ii. 455 f.,,. 
Teaching, iii. 37449. 
Bercea, Church of — 
Character, ii. 344, 
Bethany, iii. 261 f. 
jethesda, Bnbeada— 
Meaning, i. 28,5. 
sible, Jewish term for, ii. 277. 
Bishop, ii. 32, 90 ff., 123 f.,, 124. 
Qualifications, il. 821. 90 ff, 


INDEX 


Bithynia, i. 1853, 188, 5 ii. 151, ; iil. 7 76 
Churches in, Character of, ii. 1861, 
Beethusians, Family of, i. 625. 
Books— 
Reading of, in antiquity, ii. 373f., 
385;. 
Britannieus, iii. 471. 


Ceesarea, i. 38, 58,, 629, 443, 4515. 
Garrison in, 1. 60,. 
Jews in, i. 451g. 
Paul in, i. 451,. 
Caiaphas, 111. 270 ἐξ 292 f.11 35219. 
Cain, Comparison with, in Jude, 11.957. 
Caius of Rome, ii. 825. 
Dialogue with Proclus, i ii, 3111}. 
on Johannine writings, 111. 181, 
9001. 
Calendar— 
Athenian, i. 319,. 
Jewish civil, i. 319,. 
Jewish ecclesiastical, i. 319,. 
Macedonian, i, 319,. 
Olympian, 1. 319,. 
Caligula, i. 228. 
Antichrist, 1. 2353, 2399. 
Decrees of, relating to Jews, i. 997). 
References to, in Rev., 111. 445, 449,. 
Canon Muratori— 
Dependence on Acts of Peter, and 
Acts of John, ii. 62 f., 73 ff... 
on origin of John, iii. 178£., 197,. 
Canon, N.T.— 
Composition of, i. 124. 
Capitulatio Amiatina, i. 398f.,. 
Cappadocia— 
Churches in, Character of, ii. 136. 
Carpocrates— 
Teachings of, 11. 292 f.15- 
Carpoeratians, ii, 12917, 29215. 
Carpus, il. 16. 
Catholic Epistles, Canonieity, i. 123. 
Celsus— 
on angelolatry of Jews, i. 4755. 
Polemic against Christianity, ii. 
563,. 
Cephas, ii. 206. 
see also Peter. 
a, other than Peter, ii. 1555. 
Cerinthus, i. 497, 515,; ii, 116; in. 
181. 
Alleged author of Fourth Gospel, 
ii, 389 ; iii. 177. 
Alleged author of Johannine writ- 
ings, iii. 184, 200,1. 
Relations with John, iii, 2049.4. 
School of, ii. 444, 456). 


INDEX 


Cerinthus—continued. 
Teaching, i. 515, ; iil. 9740. 
Contested in 1 John, iii. 365f., 
3735. 
Chagigah, the, iii. 283, 2987. 
Christ— 
see Jesus Christ. 
Christian Address— 
Forms of, iii. 81 f.. 
Christian Church, see Church, Chris- 
tian. 
Christian Life and Worship, ii. 326 ff. 
Christian Literature, Early— 
Character of, ii. 367 f. 
Christian Literature of 60-64, ii. 278. 
Christian Preaching in Synagogues, 
i. 996. 
Christianity— 
Attempts of Roman government to 
suppress, ii. 178 f., 189,. 
Relation to the State— 
in Luke’s writings, iii. 74 ff. 
Situation of, in the world, from 
Paul’s Epistles, ii. 179 ff. 
Situation of, in the world, from 
1 Peter, li. 179 ff, 189-194;-10- 
Christians— 
Conditions under Nero and Domitian, 
ii. 177-185, 189-191 ; iii. 412, 
422... 
Frietion between Jewish and Gentile, 
i, 1472. 
Jewish, in Jerusalem— 
Attitude toward temple worship, 
ii. 333. 
Jewish, in Palestine— 
Attitude toward the law, ii. 334. 
Origin of term, i. 213; ii. 185, 
191 ff.49. 
Persecution of, under Nero, ii. 185. 
Relation of, to the State, in 1 Peter, 
ji. 181f. 
Christians, Persecutions of— 
Nature of, in first century, ii. 180f., 
189,. 
mentioned in 1 Peter, ii. 179 ff., 184 f. 
Chronological Survey, iii. 450-480. 
Chronological Table, iii. 481-485. 
Church, Christian— 
Conception of, in Matthew’s Gospel, 
ii. 550 ff. 
Condition after 60 A.D., ii. 200, 241, 
2865, 293. 
in Asia Minor before Paul, ii. 137 f. 
in Jerusalem, ii. 138. 
Relation to the Jewish People in 
Matthew, ii. 550 ff. 


491 


Church, Christian, Early— 
Deaconesses in, ii. 94 f. 
in Jerusalem and Palestine— 
Greek in, i. 43 ff., 112. 
Hellenists in, i. 43 ff. 
Membership of, i. 43-46. 
Instruction, relation of, to the words 
of Christ, ii. 370f. 
Marriage in, ii. 95. 
Patristic and modern views of, 
ii. 125 Fao: 
Offices in, ii. 32 f., 89-99. 
Bishop, ii. 32, 90 ff., 123 £.4, 124,. 
Deacon, ii. 91 f., 123 f.4. 
Elder (presbyter), ii. 
91 ff, 1248.53. 
Officers in, functions, ii. 96 ff. 
Qualifications, ii. 32 f., 90 ff. 
Oral translation in, ii, 511 ff. 
Persecution of, A.D. 35, 1. 93. 
Prophecy, ii. 97 f., 110 ff., 2305 236, ; 
iii. 16 f., 385 ff., 402 ἢ... 
Services open to outsiders, 1. 99,. 
Teaching, ii. 961. 
Compensation for, ii, 127 £.13- 
Widows, ii. 94f. 
Worship, ii. 514. 
Church, Idea of — 
in Paul’s Epistles, i. 503 f. 
Church, the Palestinian— 
Leaders in, iii. 188 f. 
Church Services— 
Gospels read in the, ii. 386. 
Churches— 
in Asia Minor, organisation of, ii. 


23, 551}, 


Cilicia— 
Churches in, ii. 134. 
Claudia, ii. 90 1... 
Claudius, Emperor, i. 228; ii. 168 f.4 ; 
iii. 469 ff. 
and the Jews, 11. 348. 
Edict of, i. 427, 433 f.,. 
Expels Jews from Rome, iii. 466 f. 
Return from Britain, iti. 456, 459 f. 
Claudius Lysias, see Lysias. 
Clement, Epistle of, to James, i. 108; ; 
ii. 1714 289s. 
Clement of Alexandria— 
on James (first Bishop of Jerusalem), 
i. 103. 
on Mark’s Gospel, ii. 432 f. 
on origin of John, iii, 178, 197;. 
Clement of Philippi, i. 530, 534,, 537,, 
559, 5615. 
Clement of Rome— 
on Hebrews, ii. 299, 309. 


492 


Clement of Rome—continued. 


First Epistle to the Corinthians, ii. 
264. 

Confirming further activity of 
Paul, ii. 60 ff., 68 ff... 

Date, ii. 60. 

on parties in Corinthian Church, 
i. 2985, 342. 

Relation to Epistle to the Hebrews, 
ii. 346, 358 fiz. 

Relation to the Epistle of James, 
i. 134 f.4. 

Testimony to martyrdom of Peter 
and Paul, ii. 61 f. 

Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 
ii. 264, 3118.12. 

Echoes of James in, i. 135¢. 


Clementine Romance (Homilies and 


Recog.). 
Ebionism of, i. 148,. 


INDEX 


Colossians and Ephesians, Epistles to 
the— 

Order of, i. 486, 490,. 

Genuineness of — 

Hilgenfeld on, i. 514 fig. 
Mayerhoff on, i. 514 ἢ... 

Theory of interdependence— 
Hitzig, i. 491, 499, 5153: 
Holtzmann, i, 491, 499, 514,. 

“Comma Joanneum,” 111. 3727. 
Corinth— 

Apollos in, 1. 262, 270 f.43- 

Church of, i. 232 f. 

Apollos and Parties in, i. 283f., 
285 ff. 

Baptism in, i. 303,,. 

Charges of fickleness against Paul, 
i. 321 ff., 343 f.,. 

Christ Party in, i. 292 ff. 

Collection in, i. 308 f., 318 f.;, 320,, 
338, 351;. 


on Barnabas, i. 433,. 
on James, i. 108,, 136,. 


on Peter, ii. 170 ff., ; ἢ. 270, 289g ; 


111. 5 f.,. 
Codex— 
Origin of, ii. 393, 398,. 


Collection, the Great, ii. 317, 3365. 


Colosse, i. 447 ff... 
Church of, ii. 138. 


False teachers i in, 1. 463 ff., 4787, g- 
False teaching concerning Christ 


in, i. 467. 


Founded by Epaphras, i. 440f., 


449 f.,, 460. 
Jewish Christians in, i. 463 ff. 
Relation to Paul, i. 460f. 


Teaching concerning asceticism in, 


i. 465 ff. 


Colossians, Epistle to the, i. 459- 


479. 
Authorship, i. 456. 
Date, i. 4525. 
Destination, i. 460. 
Genuineness, 1. 491-522. 


Hitzig’s criticism of, i. 491, 5153. 


Occasion, i. 461. 
Predominant tone, i. 501f. 


Relation of Ephesians to, 1. 499 ff., 


516 ἢν. 


Relation of teaching of Valentinus 


to, i. 498 f. 


Resemblance to Ephesians, i. 500 If., 


517 fig 


Time and place of composition, i 


439-452. 


Valentinian Gnosticism in, 1. 497 ff, 


515 fig. 


Condition at date of 1 Cor., i. 273- 
306. 

Early history, i. 256-273. 

Errors regarding resurrection in, 
1. 278 ἢ. 

False apostles in, i. 290 ff., 305 fag. 

Founded by Paul, i. 256 f., 264. 

Independent spirit of, i. 281f., 
2977. 

Intercourse with heathen, i. 274 ff., 
278 f., 296, 

Letters from, το Paul, i. 261. 

Date of, i. "262. 

Libertines in, ii. 280 ff. 

Lord’s Supper in, i. 284, 

Lost Epistle of Paul to, i. 263 f., 
307, 312 ff., 327 f., 329, 345 ff... 

Hausrath’s theory of, i. 313 f. 

Lost Epistle of, to Paul, i. 263, 
264, 27315. 

Membership, i. 278. 

Moral condition when 1 Cor. was 
written, i. 268 f., 273 f.yg. 

Origin, i. 258. 

Parties, i. 282 ff. 

Various views about, i. 298 ff. 9. 
Peter and Parties, i. 283 f. 
Question of sexual relations, i. 

276, 296s. 
Slaves in, i. 297,. 

Unrecorded visit of Paul, i. 263 f., 
271 fr9-14) 307, 316», 327 f. 
Women in public worship, i 

280f. 


History of, i. 256 f., 264). 
Paul’s first visit, i. 256 f. 


INDEX 


Corinth—continued. 
Paul’s work, i. 232 f. 
Peter in, i. 302 f.,o. 
Population, i. 273. 
Work of Paul in surrounding region, 
i. 257, 2648... 
Corinthians, First Epistle to the— 
Date, i. 259 f., 268,, 320,. 
Krenkle’s view, 1. 268;. 
Occasion, i. 260 f., 263 f., 295. 
Readers, i. 297 f.7. 
Corinthians, First and Second Epistles 
to the— 
Events intervening between, i. 321. 
Corinthians, Second Epistle to the— 
Analysis, i. 309-312. 
Date, i. 320;. 
Effect, i. 342 f. 
Integrity, i. 312, 338 ἢ, 
Occasion, i. 321-351. 
Purpose, i. 335 ff. 
Readers, i. 308. 
“ Survey, i. 307-321. 
Writers, i. 307, 316 fl.g. 
Corinthians, Third Epistle to the, i. 
160, 249, 2709 3 1]. 285 fig. 
Crescens in Gaul, ii. 11f., 265. 
Crete, iii. 13899. 
Christianity in, 11. 44. 
False teaching in, ii. 44 f. 
Jews in, ii. 52]. 
Paul in, ii. 43 f., 106. 
Crispus, 1. 258, 265,. 
Cumanus— 
Governor of Galilee, iii. 470. 
Cyprian, Latin Bible of, origin, ii. 
515. 


Cyprus under Roman rule, iii. 463 ff. 


Dalmatia, i. 186, ; ii. 26;. 
Missionary work in, ii. 11f. 
Damascus, i. 67,9; 111. 455. 
“Day of the Lord ”— 
in 2 Peter, ii. 226. 
in 2 Thess., i. 226 f., 235. 
Deacon, ii. 91 f., 123 f.4. 
Qualifications, ii. 32 f., 90 ff. 
Deaconesses— 
in the early Church, ii. 94f. 
Decapolis, i. 35, 6753. 
Dedication of Classical Writings, iii. 
42, 812. 
Demas, i. 213,, 441, 450, ; ii. 3, 21,, 87, 
129,,; iii. 1. 
Demetrius, the Silversmith, 111, 163s. 
Demetrius (3 John 12), iii. 377, 381), 3. 
Derbe, 1. 191 f. 5, 6 2095. 


493 


Diaspora, the, i. 75f., 80,, 829; i. 
140f., 153 f.s. 
Connection with Jerusalem, i. 607. 
Greek influence of, i. 39 f. 
Greek used by, i. 46-48. 
Diatessaron of Ammonius, 11. 401, 420). 
Diatessaron of Tatian, 11. 401, 421, ; 
iii. 22. 
Didache— 
Apostolic decree in, iii. 21, 3513, 15, 
1644. 
Baptismal formula in, ii. 591,. 
Date and origin, ii. 3574. 
Dependent on Jude, ii. 2595. 
Eucharistic prayers of, i. 30412. 
Lord’s Supper in, iii. 4079. 
Maranatha in, 1. 30412. 
Use of Matthew, ii. 515. 
Didascalia— 
Apostolic decree in, iii. 21, 3544. 
Witness to John vii. 53-viü. 11, ii. 
3463. 
Dio Cassius— 
on Claudius, iii. 466 f. 
Diognetus, Epistle to, ii. 819). 
Dionysius of Alexandria— 
on Revelation, 111, 428 f., 432, 433 fis, 
435, 6° 
Witness to 2 and 3 John, iii. 185 f. 
Dionysius of Corinth— 
Letter to Romans, ii. 75g. 
on Peter and Paul, i. 302 f.4. 
Dioscorides, iii. 82,, 160 f.,. 
Diotrephes, iii. 375 ff., 381 f.4.g. 
Disciples of Jesus— 
Calling of the first, in John, iii. 209. 
Choice and work, in Matt., ii. 545. 
Familiar with Greek, i, 42. 
First, iii. 189. 
Greek names, i. 41, 42 
in Asia Minor, iii. 358, 370s. 
Items about, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 
224,. 
Lists, ii. 506, 522 ff... 
Lists in Luke’s work, iii. 78. 
Order, iii. 210, 225,. 
Meaning of term, iii. 212f., 226f.,. 
Missionary activity, 11. 5877. 
Personal, distinction between, and 
other Christians, ii. 206 f. 
Relation to Jesus, ii. 463 f., 465 f. 
» Relation to Jewish law, ii. 586 f.,. 
Sketches of, in Fourth Gospel, iii 
302 f. 
the Twelve— 
training, ii. 463 ff. 
Training, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 301 ἢ 


494 


Domitian, ii. 240 ; iii. 183, 201, ,, 412, 
422, 

Doxologies in Epistles, i. 406,.. 

Drusilla, iii. 469, 474. 


Early Christian Writings— 
Date, i. 157 f. 
Literary Character, i. 158 f. 
Easter Controversy, iii. 273-283, 293- 
298} 9-17. 
Easter— 
Date, iii. 293... 
Controversies concerning, iii. ΠΌΤΝΑ 
192 f., 904... 
View of Polycarp, iii. 20455. 
Ebionism in James, i. 148,. 
in Luke, iii. 74, 92,,. 
Ebionites— 
Doctrine of poverty, iii. 91f.,,. 
Gospel of the— 
see Apocryphal Gospels. 
Gospel used by, ii. 518. 
Literature, ii. 308,. 


Edom— 
Jewish name for Rome, ii. 178, 
188 fis. 
Egypt— 


Church in, ii. 344, 357 f.,. 
Founder, ii. 159. 
Jews in, 1. 47; ii. 357 ἢ. 
Jewish Christian communities in, ii. 
357%... 
Egyptian, the, iii. 133,. 
Elder, ii, 23,, 33 ff., 91f., 1248. 5.3. 
“ Elders” of Irenzous, iii. 175, 178, 182, 
Elect, the, ii. 153, 5. 
Enoch, Book of, ii. 286 ff... 
Original, ii. 270, 287 f.,. 
Quoted in Jude, ii. 248, 269 f., 
286 ff.,. 
Epewnetus, i. 389 f., 4175, ; ii. 138. 
Epaphras, i. 450,, 495 ; ii. 16. 
Founder of Church of Colossa, i. 
440 f., 449 f., 460, 484. 
Epaphroditus, 1, 525 f., 528, 5379. 
Ephesians and Colossians, Epistles to 
the— 
order of, i. 486, 490,, 
genuineness— 
Hilgenfeld on, 1. 514 f.». 
Mayerhoff on, i. 514 ἴω. 
Theory of interdependence— 
Hitzig, i. 491, 499, 515,. 
Holtzmann, i. 491, 499, 514,. 


INDEX 


Ephesians, Epistle to the— 

Alleged motive for 

511 ff. 

Alleged new ideas in, i. 508 f, 

Baur on, i. 491, 511f. 

Christ, significance in, i. 509 ff. 

Copies, ii. 177. 

Date, i. 452,, 483, 489 f.,, 492 f. 

Dependence on Colossians — 

View of Holtzmann, i. 517 ἢ... 
Destination, i. 479-491. 

View of Church Fathers, i. 

489 f.,. 
View of Marcion, i. 480 f., 488,. 
Eneyclical character, i. 484 ff. 
Genuineness, i. 491-522. 
Holtzmann on, i. 491, 512 ff. 
Predominant tone of, i. 501 f. 
Relation to Colossians, i. 
516 f.g. 

Relation to Philemon, i. 493 ff. 

Relation to teaching of Valentinus 
i. 498 ἢ. 

Resemblance to Colossians, i. 500 ff., 
517 8.5. 

Spuriousness, lexical proof of alleged, 
i. 502 ff., 518 fl... 

Time and place of composition, i. 
439-452. 

Title, i. 481, 483, 488f.5 , ,, 499 f. 
Marcion’s criticism, i. 481, 4885. 
known by Ignatius, i. 481. 

Origin, 1. 486. 

Valentinian Gnosticism in, i. 497 ff., 

515s. 
Ephesus— 

Christians in, ii. 135 f. 

Church of, iii. 331 f.,o, 417 f. 
origin, i. 483 f. 

Paul, and the, i. 483 f., 489 f.,. 
Paul’s work in, i. 259. 

Ephrem— 
Commentary on Acts, iii. 275. 
on Colossians ii. 18, i. 476,. 
on 2 Thessalonians ii., i. 239. 
on Church of Ephesus, i. 4895. 
on Hebrews, ii. 308,. 
on Paul in Spain, ii. 74,. 
on Peter, ii. 1644. 
Text of Romans known to, i. 405,, 
Epimenedes, ii. 44, 52 f.,. 
Epiphanes— 

Teachings of, ii. 292 f.,,. 
Episcopate— 

in Asia Minor, iii. 376, 417, 
Epistles, Catholie— 

Canonicity, i. 123. 


forgery, i. 


499 ff, 


3 


INDEX 


Epistles of N.T.— 
Address and greeting, i. 73f., 77s, 
785, 1197. 
Doxologies in, 1. 40619. 
Silence of, concerning a Gospel 
literature, ii. 375 f. 
Epistles of the Apostolic and Post- 
apostolic Age, greetings of, ii. 
312 f., 335). 
Epistles of the Early Church, ii. 367 f. 
Epistolary Greeting— 
Classical form, i. 369. 
Epistolary Salutations, i, 4145. 
Equality of Jew and Gentile in— 
Epistle to the Romans, i. 372 ff.4. 
Erastus, i. 259 ; ii. 88, 
in Corinth, ii. 14f. 
Eschatology— 
Teaching of Gospels, i. 224,. 
Teaching of Jesus, i. 2244, 2631. 
Teaching of Paul, i. 221, 223f.4, 
N 25311- 
Teaching of 1 Thessalonians, i. 221, 
223 f.4. 
Essenes, i. 376 ἢ...» 471, 479; ; ii. 1261}. 
Angelolatry among, 1. 476. 
Etchmiadzin, Gospel of— 
see Apocryphal Gospels. 
Eunice, ii. 22 ἢ... 
Euodia, i. 530, 533,, 5375, 561 f.,. 
Eupolemos, i. 37, 594. : 
Eusebius of Cxsarea— 
Chronicle of, ii. 168, ; ii. 475. 
Gospel catalogues (κανόνες), Gospel 
sections (mepıroral, κεφάλαια), 
ii. 401, 420). 
on Aristion and John the presbyter, 
on earthquake in Asia Minor, i. 449,, 
452,. 
on Luke, iii. 2, 4f.,. 
on Mark and his Gospel, ii. 432f., 
448 fig 9, 4508.11. 19. 
on Matthew and his Gospel, ii. 
528,. 
on Peter and Paul in Rome, ii. 77 f.., 
800, 167 £.4, 4498.40. 
Use of term Syriac, i. 22 f.4. 
Witness to 2 and 3 John, iii. 185f., 
203, 9. 
Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum, ii. 
520 ; iii. 361. 
Evangelist— 
Meaning of term in Paul’s Epistles, 
i. 5071. 
Evangelium Veritatis, ii. 389 f. 
Eye-witnesses, iii. 46 ff., 82,, 84,. 


495 


Ezekiel— 
Tragie Jewish poet, wrote in Greek, 
i. 38, 594. 
(Fourth) Ezra, i. 142. 
on fasting, i. 3779. 


Fables, ii. 103 ff., 113, 128 f.,,. 
Fadus, iii. 460 f. 
Faith— 
Teaching concerning, in John, iii. 
305 ff. 
False Teachers— 
of Coloss&, i. 463 ff., 478,. 
of 1 John, iii. 363-368. 
of Jude, ii. 243-252, 292 f.,;. 
Character, ii. 279-283. 
of 2 Peter, ii. 224ff., 231, 2321.,, 
292 furs. 
Character, ii. 279-283. 
Origin, ii. 226 f. 
Famine in Judea, the— 
Date, Josephus on, iii. 460 f. 
Faustus, Manichean— 
on the Gospels, ii. 387, 3963. 
Felix, Procurator, iii. 76, 469-478. 
Festus, Procurator, iii. 469-478. 
First Person— 
Use of, in aneient literature, 11]. 


61). 
Flavia Domitilla, iii. 422,. 
Fortunatus, i. 260, 2695. 
Fourth Gospel— 
see John, Gospel of. 


Gabbatha, Taßßada— 
Meaning, i. 28. 
Gaius (of 3 John), iii. 374 ff., 381,-.. 
Gaius of Corinth, i. 209, 266,, 435. 
Gaius of Derbe, 1. 2095, 213,, 321;- 
Gaius of Macedonia, i. 209,, 213,. 
Galatia, 1. 173-193 5 li. 134, 151 fir: 2. 
Bibliography, i. 183). 
Churches of, i. 176 f., 191 f., ; ii. 138, 
Character, ii. 136. 
Composition, i. 166, 177, 192 f.,. 
False teachers in, i. 166 f. 
Founded by Paul, ii. 135 f. 
Origin, i. 164f. 
Jews in, i. 177, 192,. 
Judaisers in, 1. 177 f., 182 f. 
Luke’s use of term, i. 174f. 
Meaning of, in Galatians i. 2, i. 175 ff. 
Meaning of, in 1 Cor. xvi. 1,1. 175. 
Meaning of, in 1 Peter i. 1, 1. 175. 
Older(North Galatian)and modern 
(South Galatian) views, 1, 
174f., 183». 


496 


Galatia—continued. 
Meaning of, in 1 Peter i. 1—continued. 
Confirmation of South Galatian 
view, i. 178 ff. 
Messengers from, to Paul, i. 198. 
Paul’s use of term, i. 174 ff. 
Use of term by Roman writers, i. 
174, 183 ᾿ς 
Confirmed by inscriptions, i. 1841... 
Galatians, 1. 173-193. 
Nationality of, i. 183). 
Galatians, Epistle to the— 
Acquaintance of Paul with Roman 
law in, i. 201 f.,. 
Analysis, i. 167 ff. 
Baur’s view of, i. 243 f. 
Calvin’s view of date, i. 202,. 
Compared with Acts, i. 178-182. 
Date and place of composition, i. 170, 
173,, 193-202, 195, 196f., 
198 f., 200,, 202, 233. 
on North Galatian theory, i. 193 f. 
on South Galatian theory, i. 194 ff. 
False teachers of, ii. 257,. 
Genuineness, i. 242-255. 
Hist. presuppositions and occasion, 
1. 164-173. 
How written, i. 170, 1724. 
Ideas of,compared with Romans, i. 201. 
Marcion’s view of, i. 243. 
Occasion, i. 166 f, 
Peculiar words, i. 503, 521 f.4o. 
Peter, form of name, in, 11. 155g. 
Readers, i. 173-193, 175 ff., 178 ff. 
Source of information for, i. 169. 
View of Dutch School, i. 243 ἢ, 
Galen, iii. 82f.,, 160 f.,. 
Galilean Dialect, i. 9, 27133 ü. 292,4 
45545. 
Gallio, i. 258, 267, 9; iii. 149, 467 1, 
Gamaliel the elder, i. 11, 51 ; iii. 99. 
Gamaliel the younger, i. 32,» 62, ; 
iii. 99. 
Three letters of, i. 10. 
Gaul— 
Missionary Work in, ii. 111. 
Gaza, 111. 164, |- 
Genealogies, ii. 103 ff., 128 £.15- 
Genealogy, ii. 532, 562 fig. 
Gennesaret, iii. 333) 4. 
Gentile Churches— 
Paul’s care of, i. 462 f, 
View of 2 Peter, ii. 264. 
Gentiles— 
and the Gospel 
View of Matthew, 11. 587f.,. 
Relation to Synagogues, i, 212 f.,. 


INDEX 


Gischala, i. 68 ἢ... 
Glaukias, 11. 455 8.75 
Gnosticism, in Ephesians and Colos- 
sians, 1. 497 ff. 
Valentinian, in Epistle to the 
Philippians, i. 557. 
Gnosties— 
Misunderstanding of Paul, i. 125 f. 
on the Gospels, ii. 389. 
Golgotha, meaning, i. 2915. 
Gomorrah, iii. 398, 4069. 
Gospel, the— 
and the Gospels, ii. 388. 
Uniqueness, ii. 388. 
Gospel, the One, ii. 388. 
Gospel, the Original— 
View of J. G. Eichhorn, ii. 404, 
429 fag. 
View of Herder, ii. 423,. 
View of Hilgenfeld, ii. 414. 
View of H. J. Holtzmann, ii. 415, 
View of G. E. Lessing, ii. 403. 
View of B. Weiss, ii. 417. 
Gospel, the Original Unwritten— 
View of Gieseler, ii. 408 f. 
View of Herder, ii. 406. 
View of Holsten, ii. 426 f.13- 
Gospel, the Unwritten, ii. 367-386. 
Gospel History, the— 
Oral transmission of, ii. 384; ; iii. 
48, 84,. 
Variant forms of the oral, ii. 603 f. 
Gospels, the, and Acts— 
Length of, ii. 4870. 
Gospel Literature— 
Beginnings of, date, ii. 376, 
Occasion for, ii. 375 f. 
Silence of other N.T. writings con- 
cerning, 11. 375 f. 
Gospel Preaching— 
Early— 
Content, ii. 174. 
to Gentiles and O.T. Prophecy, ii. 
146. 
to Gentiles— 
Content, ii. 203. 
to Jews— 
Content, ii. 202 f., 215 fig. 
“Gospel of Christ ”— 
in Pauline writings, ii, 370 ff, 
377 8.2. 
Gospel of Jesus Christ, the— 
Meaning, ii. 459 £. 
Gospels, the— 
and the Gospel, ii. 388. 
Authorship, internal evidence con- 
cerning, ii. 391 f. 


INDEX 


Gospels, the—continued. 
Authorship, origin of tradition con- 
cerning, 11. 391 f. 
Authorship, tradition concerning, in 
Ist and 2nd century, ii. 386- 
392. 
Authorship— 
View of Clement, ii. 387. 
View of Faustus, ii. 387, 396. 
View of Gnosties, 11. 389 f. 
View of Irenzeus, 11. 387, 3974. 
View of Justin, 11. 389. 
View of Marcion, ii. 390f. 
View of Muratonian Canon, 1]. 
387. 
View of Origen, ü. 387. 
View of Papias, ii. 394. 
View of Tertullian, ii. 399 f.,. 
View of Valentinians, 11. 390. 
Differences in, early attempts to 
harmonise, ji. 402, 421,. 
Divisions (mepıromat, κεφάλαια, 
κανόνες) made by Eusebius, 
ii. 401, 4201... 
Eschatology of, i. 224,. 
Greek MSS, titles of, ü. 
396.5. 
Harmonies, ii. 421). 
Latin MSS, titles of, ii. 386 f., 396. 
Order in Egyptian Codex, ii. 393, 
398,. 
Order of Composition— 
Tradition concerning, ii. 392-396, 
397-400,-¢- 
View of Clement of Alexandria, 
ii. 394 ff., 4005. 
View of Irenzus, ii. 393 f., 398,. 
View of Muratorian Canon, ii. 393, 


386 f., 


899... 

View of Old Latin Prologues, ii. 
400.. 

View of Origen, ii. 392 f., 397). 


Origin, common tradition in the 
Church regarding, ii. 386-400. 

Origin, date of traditional, ii. 374 f. 

Read in Church services, ii. 386. 

Relation of, to the original language 
of the gospel tradition, ii. 
574 ff. 

Similarities of language in, noted by 
Augustine, ii. 402, 422,. 

Synopses of, ii. 421). 

Titles, meaning of, ii. 387 f., 396... 

Unity of, ii. 388, 397;. 

Use in religious services of Christians, 
ii. 376. 

View of Marcion, ii. 390f. 

VOL. III. 


| 
| 


xospels, Synoptic— 
see Synoptie Gospels. 
Greek, attitude of Rabbis towards, 1, 
62 f.,. 
Greek and Latin Words used by Jesus, 
i. 41. 
Greek Churches— 
Liturgical Formule, Aramaic ex- 
pressions in, i. 12, 13, 183. 
origin, i. 12 f. 
Greek cities in Palestine, i. 35 f. 
Greek coins in Palestine, i. 37. 
Greek Influence on Hasmonean High 
Priests, i. 37. 
Greek Influence on Jews, through 
diaspora, i. 35 ff., 39 f. 
Under Greek Rule, i. 35-37. 
Under Hasmoneans, i. 37. 
Under Herod the Great, i. 37 f. 
Under Roman Rule, i. 38 f. 
Greek— 
Josephus’ knowledge of, i. 639. 
Knowledge of, among higher classes 
of Palestine, 1. 41. 
Knowledge of, among middle and 
lower classes of Palestine, 1. 
40-43. 
Language among Jews, i. § 2. 
Language in Palestine, 1. 35-46. 
Official language under Roman rule 
in Palestine, i. 38 f. 
Used by Jesus and disciples, i. 42. 
View of J. Voss, i. 58). 


Harmonies of the Gospels, ii. 421). 
Hasmonean High Priests, Greek Influ- 
ence on, 1. 37. 
Hebraisms in Luke, iii. 104 f., 135,). 
Hebrew, Hebrews (Eßpatos)— 
Meaning of term, i. 48 ff, 60 ἔς ; ii. 
296, 306 f.4. 
Hebrew Language— 
Greek knowledge of, iii. 141,7. 
Modern— 
origin, 1. 6. 
Use of, in time of Christ, i. 6-9, 
2549: 
Used on Maccabean Coins, i. 25s. 
(Aramaic) words in Luke, 
135 Tey]! 
(Aramaic) words in Mark, iii. 135f.45. 
Zeal of Rabbis for, i. 40. 
Hebrews, Epistle to the— 
Author— 
= Apollos, ii. 356, 364 f.,,. 
= Aquila and Priscilla, ii. 365 f.,, 
= Aristion, ii. 366,,. 


iii. 


32 


498 INDEX 


Hebrews, Epistle to the—continued. 


Author—continued. 
= Barnabas, ii. 302f., 310, 9, 354- 
356, 3615. 
origin of tradition, ii. 303. 
Birthplace, ii. 3575. 
=Clement of Rome, ii. 300. 
Facts about, 11. 316. 
Known to the readers, 11. 304. 
= Luke, ii. 300. 
Nationality, ii. 324. 
= Paul, ii. 296, 298-302, 303, 352f., 
origin of tradition, ii. 304. 
Relation to readers, 11. 316. 
Traditions concerning, 11. 298-305. 
Authorship— 
Origin of three-fold tradition 
concerning, 11. 303 ff., 31153. 
Tradition of Alexandrian Church, 
ii. 298-301, 308,, 309,. 
Tradition of Greek Churches, 
ii. 301. 
Tradition of Western Churches, 
li. 301 £., 309 f.g. 
View of Clement of Alexandria, 
i. 296. 
View of Harnack, ü. 365 ἔν. 
View of Hippolytus, 11. 301 f., 3105. 
View of Irenzeus, 11. 301 f., 310g. 
View of Klostermann, 11. 3053. 
View of Luther, 11. 356, 364,5. 
View of Montanists, 11. 302 f. 
View of Origen, ii. 352f., 356. 
View of Pantzenus, ii. 308,. 
View of Tertullian, 11. 302, 31049. 
Canonicity, 11. 305). 
Character, ii. 313 f. 
Date, ii. 293, 320 f., 323, 343, 351 ἢ, 
Didactie writing, 11. 293. 
Epistolary character, ii. 314f. 
False (strange) teachings, warned 
against, 11. 3311. 
Greek style, ii. 299. 
Greeting, alleged lost, 11. 311), 313. 
Greeting wanting, 11. 293 f. 
Hebraisms, ii. 361... 
Historical presuppositions, ii. 312- 
341. 
in the Roman Church, ii. 346. 
Jerusalem, references to the destruc- 
tion of, in, ii. 351, 359 fi. 
Language and style, ii. 360 fy. 
Language, original, ii. 361,9. 
Literary form, ii, 312. 
Luke, the alleged translator οἵ 
Hebrews, ii. 298 f., 3085. 


Hebrews, Epistle to the—continued. 


Origin, ii. 352. 
Original language, alleged, ii. 296, 
298 fF., 308s, 309,. 
O.T.,allegorical and typological treat- 
ment of the, in, 11. 320-323. 
O.T. quotations in, ii. 320f., 8376. 
Pauline Epistles compared with, ii. 
353 f., 3608.19. 
Purpose, ii. 314, 330. 
Readers, ii. 293, 296, 297 f., 314f., 
3231., 341-351, 356-3594. 
and the Jerusalem Collection, ii. 
317. 
asceticism among the, ii. 332 ff. 
Location— 
Alexandria, ii. 344, 3575. 
Antioch, ii. 344, 356 1... 
Ephesus, 11. 344. 
Italy (Rome), ii. 345-351, 358,, 
359;. 
Jerusalem, ii. 341-343. 
Palestine (outside Jerusalem), 
ii. 343 f., 356). 
varying views, 11. 333 ff. 
Nationality of, ii. 323 ff, 328 f., 
338,. 
Not hearers of the preaching of 
Jesus, ii. 315 f., 342. 
Persecution of, ii. 317 ff., 336 f.,. 
Relation to temple cultus, ii. 34173. 
Religious life of, ii. 317f., 319f., 
328 f., 330 1., 3396.11. 
Tradition concerning, ii. 293-298. 
View of ancient scholars, ii, 297. 
Readers, date and author of, ii. 341- 
366. 
Relation to Philo, ii. 364 f.15. 
Relation to Romans, ii. 365. 
Septuagint used in, ii. 361)». 
Style, ii. 353. 
Teaching— 
Mosaic Law, ii. 3331., 340£.15, 
342, 
New covenant, li. 324, 
O.T. Cultus, ii. 326 f., 333 f., 338,, 
340 8.13. 
Temple Cultus, alleged ignorance of, 
ii, 355, 361 ἢ 14. 
Theology— 
Christology— 
High Priest, ii. 327, 330, 362 fay, 
Humiliation, ii. 330, 
Incarnation, ii, 3291. 
King, ii. 329 f. 
Redeemer, ii. 329 f,. 
Faith, ii, 325 1., 3281. 


INDEX 


Hebrews, Epistle to the—-continued. 
Title, ii. 294-298. 

Currency, ii. 294f., 304. 

Date, ii. 295. 

Meaning, ii. 296. 

Origin, ii. 295, 298 f., 305,;, 3065. 

View of Klostermann, ii. 3055. 

View of Pantienus, 11. 308;. 

View of Semla, ii. 305 f.». 
Tradition eoncerning, ii. 293-312. 
View of Clement of Alexandria, ii. 

298 f., 308,, 309¢. 
View of Origen, ii. 
309;. 
Hebrews, Gos, ‚el of the— 
see Apocry phal Gospels. 
Hegesippus— 
on Heresy in Palestinian Church, 
ii. 292,,. 
on James the Just, i. L074. 
Helena, Princess, iii. 460f. 
Hellenes, i. 585. 
Josephus on, 1. 585. 
Hellenic— 
Meaning, i. 36. 
Hellenism in Jewish Christian 
Churches in Syria, i. 44, 6613. 
Hellenistic— 
Usage and meaning of term, ii. 296, 
3096. 
Hellenistic Dialect, i. 56, 
ΙΝ Greek, i. 54-57, 71 ἴ..1. 
Bibliography, i. 57). 


299 f., 308, 


Hellenistic influence in Palestine, i. 


35 ff. 
Hellenists, i. 8, 9, 39f., 71.51. 
in Early Church, 1. 43 fl. 
in Jerusalem Church, i. 40, 43, 60g, 
6645. 


Synagogues of, in Jerusalem, i. 39 f., 


Heracleon, i. 475,. 
Commentary on John, iii. 176. 
on Author of John, iii. 1999. 
“ Heresy,” ii. 232f.,. 
Hermas, ii. 359,. 
acquainted with Hebrews, ii. 346. 
Hermas, the Shepherd of— 
Date, 1. 128. 
Relation to Hebrews, ii. 346, 359,. 
Relation to James, i. 128, 135, 
Relation of 2 Peter to, 11. 284 f.,. 
Uncanonical, ii. 302 ἢ. 
Hermas (Rom. “~ 14), 1.42054. 
Hermogenes, li. 3, 213, 12947. 
Herod the G u ii, 189... 
Greek influence of, i. 37f. 


499 


| Herodion, i. 393: 


Hierapolis, i. 185,, 448 fi». 
Hierapolis, Church of, iii. 412. 
Founded by Epaphras, i. 441, 449 1... 
Hippocrates, iii. 82 f.;, 160 f.;. 
Hymenzeus, ii. 213, 42,, 108 ff, 115, 
129,7. 


Iconium, i. 191f.,, g; 11. 6, 19. 
Ignatius— 
in Province of Asia, 1. 497. 
Epistles οἵ--- 
Influence of Fourth Gospel on, 11]. 
176, 327,. 
on Jewish Teachers in Asia Minor, 
its 716. 

on “love feasts,” ii. 2365. 

Title of Ephesians known to, 1. 481. 

Witness to Peter’s presence in Rome, 

li. 165 f.4. 
India— 

Bartholomew in, ii. 3857. 

Gospel of Matthew in, ii. 3857. 
Inscriptions, Bilingual, i. 59,. 
Trenzeus— 

on Antichrist, 1. 238 fig. 

on Cerinthus, 1. 5154. 

on Hebrews, 11. 295, 301, 3105. 

on John, iii. 20174, 20557, 954. 

on Mark, ii. 387, 393 f., 398,, 433 f. 

on Matthew, ii. 393 f., 398,. 

on Peter and Paul in Rome, ii. 76;, 

393, 398,. 

on Polycarp, iii. 20494. 

on Rev. xiil. 18 (666), iii. 445, 448,. 
Ischodad, ii. 522). 

on the list of disciples, ii. 522). 

on Matt. i. 20, ii. 5297. 

Israel, Spiritual, i. 76, 819. 
Italian Band, 1. 60,. 


| James, Brother of Jesus, i. 109,, ii. 240. 


Attitude toward Paul’s doctrine of 
Justification, 1. 124, 129ff.,, 
132,. 

Author of Epistle, i. 104, 

Brother of Jude, ii. 288 f., 2565. 

Called “the just,” i. 103, 1074, 131), 
139f. 

Death, i. 103. 

Head of Jerusalem Church, i. 103 f., 
1085. 

=James of Mark xiv. 51 f,, 

Personality, i. 101-110. 

Spurious letter of, i. 148,. 

Training and habits of ‘thought, i 
110- 123 


iis 447. 


500 


James, the Less, 1. 106. 
James, Son of Alpheus, i. 102, 106; 
ii. 507, 522). 
James, Son of Zebedee, i. 102, 106 ; iii. 
187, 20419, 0, 210ff., 216. 
Alleged author of John, 111. 22813. 
Death, iii. 188, 1945. 
Martyrdom, iii. 457. 
Notices of, in N.T,, ii. 490, 505;.- 
James, Protevangelium of— 
Date, ii. 375. 
James, Epistle of— 
Address and greeting, i. 73, 890» 
- 100,5, 113, 1197, 136, 146 f... 
Affinity with discourses of Jesus, i. 
114, 121 £.,.. 
Analysis, i. 1173. 
Author, i. 101 ἧς, 104, 106 ἢ. 
familiar with Gr. O.T., i. 113, 
120g. 
knowledge of Heb. O.T., i. 113f. 
Canonicity, i. 123 f. 
Canonicity in Alexandrian Church, 
i, 123 f. 
Christian ideas, i. 144 f. 
Date, i. 73, 77, 91f., 124, 129, 136, 
146 £.,, 1473. 
evidences of early, i. 148 f.g. 
Destination, 1. 73-83. 
Divergent views regarding, i. 136- 
151. 
Ebionism in, i. 148,. 
External evidence for, i. 123-136. 
Language, i. 112f., 117 ἢ... 
Law referred to, i. 110f., 115f.,, 
130 f.... 
Literary character, i. 139 f. 
Progress of thought, 1. 1175. 
Readers, i. 83-101. 
Jewish Christians, i. 89 ff., 1009, 10. 
Resident in Palestine, i. 91, 100, ,- 
Relation to Clement, 1 Cor., i. 128, 
134,. 
Relation to Clement, 2 Cor., i. 135, 
Relation to Pseudo - Clementine 
Literature, i. 136,. 
Relation to Gospels, i. 114, 122)). 
Relation to Hebrews, i. 123, 1- 
Relation to Hermas, i. 128, 135,. 
Relation to Revelation, i. 123; 1- 
Relation of 1 Peter to, i. 128, 133 f., ; 
ii. 175 f., 1865. 
Relation of Pauline Epistles to, i. 
132,. 
Relation of Romans to, i. 126 f., 
132). 
Style, i. 112, 118,. 


INDEX 


James, Epistle of—continued. 
Theory of Aramaic original, i. 112 ἔν, 
118,. 
Theory of Harnack, i. 147,. 
Theory of Spitta, i. 141 ff., 149 f.,. 
Theory of Weizsäcker, i. 1484. 
Tone of, 1 101, 1061, 2 
Use of Sirach, 1. 114, 12149. 
Jannes and Jambres, ii. 115. 
Jason, i. 2134, 41755 5 iil. 3). 
Jason and Papiscus, Dialogue of— 
Authorship, 111. 3.1. 
Jerome— 
Witness to 2 and 3 John, iii. 186, 
20315. 
Jerusalem — 
Christian Church in— 
Attitude toward temple worship, 
11. 333. 
Beginnings of, ii. 138. 
Church of— 
Missionary activity of, ii. 342 f. 
Poverty of, ii. 342. 
Jerusalem Collection, i. 209,, 368 f. 
Jerusalem Couneil— 
Date, i. 178, 194. 
Jerusalem— 
Destruction of, ii. 254 f. 
Prophecy of, iii. 156 ff. 
References to, in Hebrews, ii. 351, 
3591... 
Greek form of name in N.T., ii. 
592 8... 
Jewish pronunciation of, i. 391: 
Jesus, the name, ii. 555, 569,1; U1. 
576 f., 592s. 
Jesus Christ— 
Aramaic words used by, i. 3. 
List, i. 15 ff... 


Attitude toward Jewish law, ii. 
586}. 

Attitude toward Judaism, in John, 
iii. 342. 

Attitude toward Pharisees, in John, 
iii. 342. 

Attitude toward Pharisees and 


Sadducees in Matt., ii. 549. 
Baptism, in Matt., ii. 540. 
sirth— 
Date, iii. 98. 
Blasphemy of name, i. 89, 99s. 
Brothers, i. 104f., 1107; ii. 238f., 
240 f., 256. 


Brothers and Cousins, iii, 188, 
204.4. 

Crucifixion, in missionary preaching, 
ii, 369. 


INDEX 501 


Jesus Christ—continued. 


Crucifixion and death in John, ii. 


217 f. 
persons present at, 111, 217 f. 


Davidie descent, ii. 533 ff., 563,, 567;. 


Death, in John, iii. 320 f. 


Date, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 277 f., 


281, 293 ἔς 


Date, in Synopties, iii. 278, 294 f.,,. 
Teaching concerning, in Matt., ii. 


551. 
Death and resurrection— 
Date, iii. 481. 
Deeds and words— 


Committed to writing, li. 368- 


376. 


Early source of knowledge of, ii. 


374. 


in Missionary preaching, ii. 369 f., 


3778... 


Origin of Paul’s knowledge of, ii. 


373, 384,. 


References to, by Paul, ii. 370 ff., 


3795, 379 ff.4. 


References to, in N.T. writings 
(Gospels excluded) for Chris- 
tians outside of Palestine, ii. 


379 ff... 


References to, in N.T. writings 
(Gospels excluded) for Jewish 
Christians of Palestine, ii. 


383 f.,. 


Tradition of Apostolic Church con- 


cerning, li. 372. 


written records of (Gospels ex- 


cluded), ii. 372 ff. 


Disciples in Asia Minor, iii. 358 f., 


3705. 
Discourses in Matt., ii. 557 ff. 
Early history in Luke, iii. 62 ff. 


False teaching concerning, in Church 


of Colosse, i. 467. 
Familiar with Greek, i. 42. 


Feasts during ministry of, iii. 285 f.,. 


Foreign words used by, i. θά}. 


Galilean ministry, in Fourth Gospel, 


111. 260 f. 
in Luke, iii. 106. 
Healing acts, in Matt., ii. 544. 
Healing work, in Luke, iii. 146 ff. 


History οἵ, agreement with O.T. 
prophecy in Matt., ii. 537 ff., 


567,. 
in Hebrews, ii. 327, 329 f. 


Intercourse with His disciples, in 


Matt., ii. 550. 
Language of, ii. 573 f. 


Jesus Christ—continued. 


Language cf—continued. 

Aramaic, i. 2 f. 

Bibliography, i. 14. 

Last days, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 
267 ff. 

Last Passover, place of celebration, 
ii. 429, 447,. 

Last Supper— 

Persons present, iii. 214, 227 f.40. 

Matthew’s acquaintance with, ii. 
507 f., 524,. 
Name, in Pauline Epistles, ii. 353 f. 
Names in Revelation, iii. 434, ,. 
Origin, Jewish suspicion concerning, 
ii. 536, 538, 5635. 
the Paschal Lamb, iii. 276 f., 293,3. 
Passion— 
in Fourth Gospel, iii. 270 ff. 
in Synoptics, iii. 278 f. 
Passion and Resurrection— 

History in Matt., ii. 554 ff. 
Passovers in ministry of, iii. 167 f. 
Predicts destruction of Jerusalem, 

iii. 156 f. 
Public ministry, length of, iii. 167 f. 
Relation of disciples to, ii. 463 f.,465 1. 
Relation to Jewish Law, in Luke, 
iii. 9195. 
Relatives of, iii. 101, 1359. 
Resurrection— 
Date, Fourth Gospel, iii. 281. 
Synopties, iii. 278. 

in missionary preaching, ii. 369. 
Sayings, how cited, ii. 388. 
Significance in Luke, iii. 70 ff. 

in Paul’s doctrine, i. 509 ff. 
Teaching— 

Disciples and the Jewish Law, ii. 

586 f. 

Eschatology, i. 224,, 2591. 

False Christs, i. 228. 

in John— 

Significance of Miracles, iii. 
299 f., 303 ff. 
in Luke— 
Poverty, 111. 72 ff. 
Wealth, iii. 72 ff. 
in Matt. ii. 542 ff. 
the Gospel and the Gentiles, ii. 
587 f.,. 
Temptation— 
Account in Luke, iii. 111, 137,,. 
in Matt., iii. 111, 137,,. 
Title, in Luke, iii. 91,,. 
Titles, in John, iii. 308 Β΄, 316, 
3265, 5. 


502 


Jesus Christ—continued. 
Transfiguration, ii. 204, 215 f.,. 
References to, in 2 Peter, ii. 216 ff. 
Trial, 111. 270 ff., 352 f.40. 
Visits in Jerusalem, iii. 167 f. 
Words of — 
Relation of instruction in the 
Early Christian Church to, 
ii. 370f. 
see also Deeds and words. 
Work— 
According to Mark, ii. 460 f. 
in Galilee, ii. 541 f. 
in Jerusalem, ii. 553 f. 
Jesus Justus, i. 64,9, 441 f., 4504, 494 ; 
ii. 371. 
Jesus, the son of Sirach, i. 6. 
Jews— 
Usage and meaning of term, 11. 306 f.;. 
Jew and Gentile, equality of, in Epistle 
to the Romans, i. 372 ff... 
Jewish Christian Communities in 
Egypt, ii. 357 f.4. 
Jewish Christianity of Post-Apostolic 
Age, i. 138. 
Jewish Christians— 
in Church of Colossee, i. 463 ff. 
Jewish Epitaphs in Rome, 1. 67,3, 6714. 
Jewish Greek, i. 54-57. 
Jewish Law— 
Attitude of Jesus toward, ii. 586 f.,. 
Jewish Literature, foreign words in, i. 
θ4:- 
Jews— 
Expelled from Rome, iii. 466 f. 
in Asia Minor, i. 47. 
in Crete, ii. 521. 
in Egypt, i. 47; ἢ. 357 f.4. 
in Galatia, i. 177, 192,. 
in Jerusalem, Letters of, to other 
Jewish communities, i. 144, 


161. 
in Philippi, i. 522 f. 
in the Provinee of Asia, i. 449». 
in Rome, i. 47), 673. 
Language used by, in time of Christ, 
1. § 1. 
Palestinian, Greek influence on, i. 
35 ff. 
Proper names of, i. 63». 
Synagogue services, 1. 212. 
Use of Greek, i. § 2. 
Jezebel, the prea ii, 292,5; 111. 
4241. 
Johannine Writings— 
see John, Epistles of, Gospel οἵ, 
Writings of— 


INDEX 


John— 
Use of name, iii. 433,. 
Alleged meeting with Cerinthus, 111. 
192, 904... 
at trial of Jesus, 111. 271. 
Author of Johannine writings, tradi- 
tional, iii. 178 ff., 1999, 10: 
Identity, ii. 180 £., 199 8. ]0- 
Biographical notes, iii. 175, 191, 
194 ἢ... 
in Synoptics, ili. 187f. 
Clement on, 111. 2059. 
Death, iii. 194 1... 
Various accounts, iil. 
205 f.97, 28° 
Designation, in 


193 f., 
Mark, ii. 490f., 


BOB gas 

Disciples of, iii. 175 f., 191, 194 f.,. 

Exile on Patmos, 111. 201 f..4, 408 f., 
420). 

Family, references in Fourth Gospel 
to, iii. 210 ff., 222, 

in Asia Minor, iii. 358 f., 370;. 

Inferences concerning, from Johan- 
nine Epistles, iii. 190 f. 

Jesus’ prophecy concerning, li. 242- 
247 


Mother of, iii. 187 f., 190, 204.,. 

References to, in Fourth Gospel, üi. 
189 f. 

Testimony of, to Mark’s Gospel, ii. 
501. 

Various stories about, 111, 205o¢. 

Writings of— 

Tradition concerning, 11, 174-206. 

John, Acts of, ii. 4495. 
on Transfiguration, ii. 218,. 

John, Epistles of— 

Antichrist in, i. 228. 
Author, 111. 184 ff. 

John, First Epistle of, iii. 355-374. 
Antichrist in, iii. 364 f., 371,. 
Author, iii. 356 ff., 368 f. 

Character and form, 111, 355 ἢ, 

Christology, iii. 366 ἢ, 

Date, 111. 369. 

Epistolary character, 11. 313. 

Ethical admonitions in, iii. 361 ff. 

False teachers of, 111, 363-868, 

Introduction, ii, 313. 

Readers, iii. 356, 363, 369 f.,. 

Relation to Fourth Gospel, iii, 368, 
yee 

Witness of Papias to, iii, 184, 2028.15. 

Witness of Polvcarp to, 111, 184. 

John, Second and Third Epistles of, 

iii. 374-384, 


INDEX 


John, Second and Third Epistle of— 
continued. 
Author, iii. 378, 380. 
View of Dionysius, 111. 185 f. 
View of Eusebius, iii. 186, 20315. 
View of Jerome, iii. 186, 309. 
View of Origen, ili. 185, 208. 
Canon, iii. 185. 
Circulation, iii. 184 f. 
Date, iii. 380. 
Length, iii. 378, 982). 
Style, 111. 378, 382. 
John, Second Epistle of, iii. 378-380, 
382 ff.,.g. 
Readers, iii. 379. 
John, Third Epistle of, iii. 374-378, 
381 $.1-e- 
Addressee, iii. 374 ff. 
Criticism— 
Bibliography, 111. 381). 
John, Gospel of — 
Aramaic and Hebrew words in, iii. 
340, 3633. 
Author— 
An eyewitness, iii. 209, 219, 221, 
328, 4, 336 ff., 349 1... 
Relation to Jesus, iii. 343 f. 
Testimony of the Gospel to, 11]. 
207-232. 
View of Irenzus, ili. 254,. 
View of Alogi, ii. 389. 
Character, iii. 299-307. 
Chronology of Passion History in, 
iii, 273-283, 293-298 5.17. 
Date, iii. 334 f., 349;. 
Witnesses for, iii. 1985. 
Disciples, items about the, in, iii. 
224,. 
Discourses of Jesus in, compared 
with discourses in the Syn- 
opties, iii. 344, 354,7. 
Discourses of Jesus in, trustworthi- 
ness, iii. 344 f., 354 f.47 18. 
External evidence for, iii. 174, 194). 
Galilean ministry in, iii. 260 f. 


Genuineness, ili. 335-345, 349- 
3557-78. 

Arguments against, ii. 336f., 
349 f... 


Bibliography, 111. 3497. 

Geographical references in, iii. 340, 
351.4). 

Greek style, iii. 340, 353,,. 

Heb. translation of, ii. 519 f. 

Influence in Early Church literature, 
iii. 176-178. 

Integrity, iii. 333 f., 345 ff. .,- 


| 


503 


John, Gospel of—continued. 


Jesus, last days of, in, 111. 267 ff. 
Jesus, titles of, in, i. 308 ff., 316, 
3265 5. 
Narrative style of, iii. 337 ff., 350,. 
Origin— 
Canon Mur. on, iii. 178 f., 197,. 
Clem. Alex. on, iii. 178, 197,. 
Trenzeus on, iii. 179, 197,. 
Tradition of, iii. 179 f., 197 f., 
Original material in, iii. 269 f. 
O.T. citations in, iii. 340, 354, ,. 
O.T. Prophecy in, iii. 330 f.,9. 
Papias on, in Latin fragment, iii. 
196 fy. 
Papias, testimony of, to, iii. 178, 
1963. 
Peculiarity, iii. 335 f. 
Political references in, 111. 340, 352). 
Prologue, iii. 312 ff., 3274, 327 ff. ,. 
Purpose, iii. 207 f. 
Alleged, iii. 275. 
Purpose and Method, iii. 299-323. 
Readers, iii. 207 f., 299, 323 ff. 
Acquaintance with the 
history, iii. 254 ff., 280. 
Addressed, iii. 207, 223). 
Relation of 1 John to, iii. 368, 373,. 
Relation of, to Gospel of Mark, ii. 
444, 

Relation to Philo, iii. 317 f. 

Relation to the Synoptic Gospels, 
iii, 254-298, 3061. 

Bibliography, iii. 283]. 

Relation to traditions concerning 
Jesus’ deeds and words eur- 
rent in Apostolie Church, ii. 
372. 


Gospel 


Supplementary Chapter, iii. 232- 
Author, iii. 234 ff. 
Date, iii. 240. 
Early witnesses to, iii. 234, 


250 f.». 
Language, compared with chs. i.- 
XX., 111. 233, 249,. 
Origin and date, iii. 247 f. 
Relation to chs. i.-xx., iii. 233- 
236. 
Synoptic Gospels presupposed in, 
iii. 254-264, 280, 284,. 
Text— 
Changes in, iii. 333, 345,. 
Disarrangements in— 
View of Spitta, 111. 334, 347 f.,. 
Glosses, iii. 333 £., 345 f.,. 
Integrity, iii. 333 f., 345 ff...,. 


504 


John, Gospel of—continued. 
Text—continued. 
Interpolations in, iii. 334, 346 f.,. 
Later elements, iii. 334, 347,. 
Theology— 
Faith, 305 ff. 
Jesus— 
Humanity, iii. 318 ff. 
Incarnation, iii. 310 f. 
Knowledge, iii. 319. 
= Logos, 111. 312-321, 3275. 
Messiah, iii. 308 f. 
Pre-existence, iii. 311 f. 
Son of God, iii. 309 ff. 

Logos, the, iii. 312-321, 327 ff. 4.3. 
origin of term, iii. 314-318. 

“ Logos doctrine,” iii. 312 f., 3274. 
Use of Synoptic narratives, iii. 264 f. 
Use of “ we” in, iii. 208. 

View of F. Chr. Baur, ii. 412. 

View of G. E. Lessing, ii. 404, 

John, Writings of— 

Author— 

(alleged) Cerinthus, ii. 389; ii. 

177, 2003). 

(traditional), 111. 199 f.,o- 

View of Alogi, iii. 181, 1999, 200)). 

View of Can.-Mur., ii. 1999. 

View of Delff, iii. 230 ff.,7. 

View of Heracleon, iii. 1999. 

View of Irenzeus, iii. 1999. 

View of Uchtritz, 111. 230 ff.17- 
Carping criticism of, iii. 430 f., 434,. 
Date, 111. 186. 

Greek of, iii. 432 f., 435, ς. 

Logos Doctrine, iii. 312f., 327f.,, 

431, 434 f.,. 

Origin, 111. 175. 

Tradition concerning, iii. 174-206, 
“John,” Syriac “ History of, iii. 202,4. 
John the Baptist— 

Disciples, iii. 322 f., 331 f.,9, 368. 

in Fourth Gospel, iii. 255 f., 283 f.». 

Luke’s account, ili. 62 ff. 

Preaching, ii. 539 f. 

Reference to, in Mark’s Gospel, ii. 


460. 
Teaching — 
Kingdom of Heaven, ii. 539f., 
568, 10. 
Work of, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 321 f., 
331,1. 


John of Ephesus, ii. 435 ff. ; ii, 428 f. 
John Mark— 
see Mark. 
John, the Presbyter, ii. 394, 435 f., 
451 ff.45. 


INDEX 


John, the Presbyter—continued. 
Alleged author Johannine writings, 
111. 230 ff.j7. 
Identity, ii. 435 ff., 4511.43. 

View of Eusebius, ii. 436 f. 
Papias, witness of, to, ii. 437 f., 453, 4. 
Witness to Mark’s Gospel, ii. 435 ff., 

408... 
Joseph— 
Davidie descent, ii. 533 £. 
Josephus— 
Antiquities— 

Christian interpolations, i, 142. 

Dedication of, iii. 815. 

Relation of Jude and 2 Peter to, 

ii. 291,4- 
Bell. Jud.— 

Language of, i. 9f., 264). 

Title of, iii. 81,. 

Contr. Apion, dedication of, iii. 
812. 

in Rome, iii. 474 f. 

Knowledge of Greek, i. 63, ; iii. 94, 
1303. 

Knowledge of Luke’s work, iii. 1347. 

on Felix and Festus, iii. 469 ff. 

on Hellenes, i. 58,. 

on John the Baptist, iii. 1347. 

on Judas, the Galilean, ii. 97. 

on Quirinius, 111. 96f., 1347. 

on the Zealots, iii. 92o¢. 

Relation to Luke’s writings, 111, 99- 
100, 129-134, .,. 

Relation to religious life of his time, 
iii. 134,. 

Trustworthiness, iii. 451. 

Use of Hebrew and Aramaie, i. 
2611, 19: 

Use of term Hebrew, i. 26,9. 

Writings of— 

Date, iii. 94 f. 

Greek of, 1. 56. 

Judah the Nasi, i. 224, 629. 
Judaisers— 
in Galatia, i. 166 ff., 177 f., 189 1. 
Success in Galatia, i. 169. 
Judas Barsabas, i. 207 f., ; 11. 255). 
Judas, Bishop of Jerusalem, ii. 255 f.,, 
284,. 
Judas, the Galilean, iii, 96, 97 ff. 
Judas (of) James, ii. 255, ; wi. 213, 
224,. 
Judas Iscariot, ii. 255, ; iii. 213, 224,, 
801... 
Jude =Judas— 
the persons so named in the N.T., ii. 
238, 255 ἢ... 


INDEX 


Jude, i. 105. 
Biographical notes, 11. 240 ff. 
Brother of Jesus, i. 104; ii. 238f., 256,. 
Tradition concerning, ii. 268. 
Grandsons of, 11. 240, 2925. 


505 
Laodicea, i. 448 f.,, 452g. 
Church of, ii. 138. 
Founded by Kpaphras, i. 441. 


449£.,. 
Relation to Paul, i. 460 f. 


Relation to readers of his Epistle, ii. ; Laodicea, Council of, i. 477,. 


241, 242 f. 
Jude, Epistle of, ii. 238-262. 
Author, ii. 238 f., 255), 2563. 
Canonicity, ü. 263. 
Date, ii. 254 f., 286. 
False teachers, ii. 243-252, 257,, 
2928.15. 
Character, ii. 279-283. 
Genuineness, ii. 262-293. 
Proof of, ii. 268 ff. 
Suspicions concerning the, ii. 
283 f... 
Libertines of, ii. 244. 
Not pseudepigraphie, ii. 262 ἢ. 
Purpose, ii. 241 f., 256f.;. 
Relation to the Antiquities of Josephus, 
ii. 29144. 
Relation to Assumption of Moses, ii. 
269, 288,. 
Relation to Book of Enoch, ii. 269 f., 
286 ff. 7° 
Relation to literary works after 70 
A.D., ii. 279, 291 f.44. 
Relation to 2 Peter, ii. 211}, 2854. 
Various hypotheses of, ii. 264- 
268. 
Traces in literature of the early 
Church, ii. 284 f.,. 
Use of Pauline writings, ii. 278 f. 
Use of prophecy of 2 Peter, ii. 
250. 
Junius, 1. 391, 41833. 
Justification— 
by faith, i. 126 ff., 129 ff.,, 132,. 
by works, i. 126 ff., 129 ff.,. 
Justin, i. 135, ; iii. 327,. 
on the Fourth Gospel, iii. 
182. 
on Pilate, iii. 352 f.49. 
on relation of Mark to preaching of 
Peter, ii. 450,5. 
on Simon Magus, ii. 168, 172. 
on the Gospels, ii. 389. 
on the resurrection, ii. 1997. 


177, 


Kepha, ii. 219 f. 
Kingdom of heaven— 
in Matt., li. 540, 568, 10° 
Korah, ii. 281. 
in the Epistle of Jude, ii. 244f., 
257 f.;. 


Laodiceans, Epistle to the, i. 160, 249,, 
480, 488,, 499f., 503, 535, ; 
ii. 131,1, 2855, 295, 306. 

Latin and Greek words used by Jesus, 
1. 41. 

Latin technical terms— 

Used by Jews in Palestine, ii. 489, 
Laying on of hands, ii. 6, 23,, 91 f., 98f. 
Lazarus, iii. 262 f. 

Lebbeeus, ii. 255,, 522 £... 
Lectionaries, iii. 3561. 
Leontopolis— 
Jewish temple in, ii. 333, 341... 
Letter “ρον style, greeting), 
1. 117 Τῶν 
Leueius, iii. 88:7. 
Account of death of John, iii. 193 f., 
20655. 

Knowledge of Fourth Gospel, iii. 177. 
Levi, ii. 506, 5221... 

Matthew identical with, ii. 506 f. 

see also Matthew. 
Libertines— 

in Corinthian Church, ii. 280 ff. 

of Jude, ii. 244, 278, 279 ff. 

of 2 Peter, ii. 225 f., 278, 279 ff. 

of Revelation, iii. 418. 

Linus, ii. 20,. 

First Bishop of Rome, ii. 167,. 
Literature, Early Christian— 

Character of, ii. 367 f. 

Logia, the, ii. 416, 579. 

of Matthew, ii. 509 ff. 

Logos, the, iii. 223f.,; iii, 312-321, 
327 ff.4., 431, 434,. 

Origin of term, iii. 314-318. , 
Logos Doctrine— 

in Johannine writings, iii. 

434}... 
Lois and Eunice, ii. 22 f.4. 
Lord’s Prayer— 

Early use of, ii. 603. 

in Luke and Matt., ii. 559, 

Variant forms, ii. 603. 

Lord’s Supper, the— 
Heathen slanders concerning (Pliny), 
iii. 70. 

Ignatius on, and love feasts, ii. 236,. 

Institution— 

Date, view of Tiibingen School, 
111. 275, 29375: 


431, 


506 


Lord’s Supper, the—continued. 
Institution—continued. 
in Luke, iii. 69 f. 
Text of, 111. 39 ff.,y. 

Codex D, iii. 4019. 

Didache, iii. 404. 

Latin MSS, iii. 4049. 

Marcion, iil. 3949. 

Syriac versions, ili. 409. 
Persons present, iii. 214, 227 f.12- 
Place, ii. 447,, 492, 493. 

Variant forms, 11. 603. 
Meaning of the Church observance, 

iu. 276 f. 

Observance— 
Date — Anti - Quartodecimans, iii. 

274 f. 

Churches of Asia Minor, iii, 

273 f. 

John (apostle), iii. 275 ff. 

Paul, 111. 277, 279. 

Quartodecimans, iii. 273 ff. 

Western Church, iii. 277. 
Presupposed in Fourth Gospel, iii. 

268 f. 

Lucian of Samosata, use of term Syrian, 

i. 234. 

Lucius of Cyrene, ii. 505, ; iii. 15, 28 f... 
Luke identified with, iii. 5,. 

Luke (the evangelist), 1. 440, 450 f.;. 
Acquaintance with material in Acts, 

111. 148 ff. 

Author of Luke and Acts, iii. 1, 3). 
Biographical notes, iii. 51. 
Biography of, sources for, iii. 1f. 
Identified with Lucius (Rom. xvi. 21), 

111. 5y. 

Identified with Lucius of Cyrene, 

iii. 5,. 

in Philippi, iii. 56. 
in Rome, iii. 56, 102. 

‚in Rome, with Paul, 11. 2f. 
Knowledge of events recorded in 

Acts, iii. 127 ff. 

Knowledge of Mark and his Gospel, 

iii. 101 f. 

Knowledge of written Gospels, iii. 48f. 
Nationality, view of Jerome, iii. 4 1.2. 
Native of Antioch, iii. 2, 5,. 

Sources used by, iii. 94-142. 
Tradition concerning, and his work, 

iii. 1-8. 

Traditions concerning, iii. 6 f.,. 

Use of names of Roman Provinces, 

1, 174 f., 186 f.,. 

Luke, a ἃ of (see also Historical 
ork of)— 


INDEX 


Luke, Gospel of—continued. 
Authorship ascribed to Luke by 
Early Church, in. 1, 31. 
Chronological order of events lacking, 

111. 64 ff., 89 f. 49. 
Compared with Gospel of Matt., ii. 
603 f. 
Dedication, iii. 42 f. 
Dependence on Mark, iii. 49 f., 101- 
107, 135 ἘΠ εἰ 
Hebraisms in, iii. 104 f., 135). 
Israelitish tope of, iii. 9139. 
Jesus— 
Galilean ministry of, iii. 106. 
Healıng works of, iii. 146 ff. 
Joyful spirit in, iii. 76 f., 9255. 
Marcion’s edition, iii. 22. 
Parallels to Mark, iii. 102 f. 
Parallels to Matt., iii. 110. 
Pragmatism, iii. 63 f. 
Prologue, scope of, iii. 53-61, 85 f.,o- 
Proper names in, 111. 9059. 
Prophecy of destruction of Jerusalem 
in, iii. 156 ff. 
Purpose, iii. 42 ff. 
Relation to Matthew, iii. 107-112. 
Relation to oral preaching of Paul, 
ii. 299. 
Relation of, to Paul, ii. 387 f. 
Relation to Paul’s epistles, iii. 119 f. 
Sources, iii. 50 ff., 94-142. 
View of Feine, iii. 1377: 
Source of material peculiar to, iii. 
113f. 
Style, compared with Mark, iii. 104 f., 
135,0, 13635 
Text, history of, iii. 24. 
Title lacking, iii, 41f., 80f.,. 
Two-fold recension of— 
Theory of Blass, iii. 9, 22. 
Criticism of, iii. 22 ff. 
Western text, ili. 22 ff., 33-4109. 
Luke, Historical work of — 
Aramaic and Hebrew words in, iii. 
108, 136,5, 13744: 
Author, iii. 95. 
and date, iii. 142-165. 
Familiarity with Greek technical 
medical terms, iii. 146 ff, 
160 ff, 
Shronology of, iii. 97 ff. 
Date, iii. 3, 7 f.,, 95, 155 ff., 164 f.4).. 
Israelitish tone in, iii. 70, 9100. 
Jesus, Teaching concerning, 111, 70 ff. 
Language and style, iii. 79, 9295. 
Medical terms in, iii. 82 f.,, 146 f., 
160 f.,- 


INDEX 


Luke, Historical work of—continued. 
Place of composition, 111]. 7f.,, 159, 
165,5. 
Plan, iii. 59-68. 
Preface, plan and purpose, iii. 41 ff. 
Proper names in, ill. 68, 90 f.go. 
Purpose, iii. 42 ff., 61 f. 
Reference to contemporary events in, 
iii. 99. 
References to political history, iii. 68. 
Relation to Josephus, ii. 94-100, 
129-134, 7. 
Relation to Josephus— 
Krenkel on, iii. 129 f.,. 
Third Book, iii. 58 ff., 67 f., 76. 
Title lacking, iii. 41f., 80f.,. 
Unity of, iii. 77 ff., 9295. 
Lycaonia, i. 174 ff. 
Cities of, 1843. 
Lydia, i. 523, 533}. 
Lysanias of Abilene, iii. 165,,. 
Lysias, iii. 101. 
Lystra, i. 191 f., 4. 
Church organisation in, ii. 98... 


Maecabean coins, i. 25,, 37. 
Maccabean revolt, i. 36 f. 
Macedonia, 1. 186,, 211 f.,, 532). 
Magi, the— 
Date of the visit to Bethlehem, early 
discussion, ii. 527;. 
Malta, iii. 138 f.99. 
Man of Sin [Lawlessness], i. 226 f., 229, 
238 fi... 
Mandwzans, iii. 33273. 
Maranatha, i. 304,3. 
Marcion— 
Apostolicon of, i. 152, 156 f., 491. 
Date, i. 156. 
Edition of Luke, iii. 22. 
Gospel of, ii. 391, 445, ; ili. 891. 
Portions of Fourth Gospel in, iii. 
177. 
on the Gospels, ii. 390 f. 
Teachings, ii. 118, 130,5. 
Text of Romans, i. 379f., 396 ff... 
View concerning title of Epistle to 
the Ephesians, i. 480 f., 4885. 
View of Galatians, 1. 243. 
Marcionitie Gospel, ii. 3857. 
Mareosians— - 
- Field of activity, i. 135,. 
Mark, i. 441f., 450,. 
Alleged author of Revelation, iii. 
498 f., 433 fi», 
Biographical notes, ii. 427-431, 445- 
448,.,. 


507 


Mark—continued. 

Called “stump-fingered” (koAoßodar- 
rvXos), 11. 428, 445 f.4. 

Canon Muratori on, ii. 428f., 446,. 

Family, ii. 487. 

Founder of Church in Alexandria 
and Egypt, ii. 159. 

Hebrew name, ii. 4451. 

House of, ii. 427, 429, 447 f.,. 

Household of, ii. 493. 

in Antioch, ii. 429, 430 ; iii. 479. 

in Asia Minor, ii. 148 f., 431. 

in Cyprus, ii. 430. 

in Egypt, ii. 431, 448,. 

in Rome, ii. 601 f. 

in Rome, with Paul and Peter, ii. 
431. 

Knowledge of the Gospel history, ii. 
604 f. 

Knowledge of Jewish laws and cus- 
toms, 11. 488. 

Missionary activity, 11. 429 f., 434. 

Mother of, ii. 427. 

Papias on, ii. 427. 

Papias on relation of, to Peter, ii. 
438 ff. 

Peter, relation of, to Mark— 

John the Presbyter on, ii. 442 f. 
Related to Barnabas, ii. 428. 
Relation to Paul, 1). 148f. 

Relation to Paul and Barnabas, 1]. 
427, 429 ff., 434. 
Relation to Peter, ii. 148, 394, 427, 
432, 434, 445,. 
Mark and his Gospel— 
Tradition regarding, ii. 427-456. 
Mark, Gospel οἵ-- 
Agreement between Gospel of Matt. 
and, ii. 603, 608, 6191. 
Analysis, ii. 462-467. f 
Aramaic words in, ii. 487 f., 502,. 
Author, ii. 493 f. 
Relation of, to youth of xiv. 51, ii. 
491 f. 


Traditional view, ii. 487. 

Canon Muratori on, ii. 441 f. 

Chronological order lacking, ii. 498 f. 

Comparison of, with the tradition, 

11. 487-506. 

Conclusion, ii. 467 ff., 483 ἔς ¢. 
Abrupt, explanation of, ii. 479 f. 
Comparisons of the conclusions, 

11. 470 f. 
in Textus Receptus, witnesses for, 
11. 467 f., 483 f.,, Freer MS. 
Original, ii. 476 ff. 
Rohrbach on, ii. 485 f.,. 


508 


Mark, Gospel of—continued. 
Conelusion—continued. 
Shorter form, witnesses for, ii. 
468 ff., 484,. 
Witness of Gospel of Peter to, ii. 
483,5. 
Date, ii. 4791., 602. 
Dependence on Matthew, ii. 602, 
607 ff., 612 ἢ"... 
Dependence on Peter, iii. 49. 
Direct discourse in, ii. 608 f. 
Early judgment concerning, ii. 439 f 
Greek of, Hebraic colouring, ii. 488, 
502. 
Incomplete, iii. 50. 
John, the Presbyter, witness of, to, 
ii. 435. 
Known early in Asia Minor, 11. 444. 
Latin technical terms in, ii. 489, 
5031... 
Length, ii. 479, 48779. 
Literary character, ii. 606 f., 614,. 
Luke dependent on, ii. 492 ; iii. 49. 
Method in presentation of Gospel 
history, ii. 441 f. 
Narratives, character of, ii. 461 f., 
481 ff... 
Omits parts of the Gospel history, ii. 
604 ff. 
Origin— 
View of Clement of Alexandria, 
ji. 432 ἢ, 448 f.9, 449 fo. 
View of Eusebius, ii. 432 f., 449 ἴ. 10. 
View of Irenzeus, ii. 433. 
O.T. citations— 
Form, ii. 609 ff., 616 f.4. 5, ¢ 
Papias, witness of, ii. 434, 435, 438 ff., 
449 8.10, 45011, 485g. 
Parables, ii. 464 f. 
Passages, parallel with Luke, iii. 102f. 
Place of composition, 11. 450,1. 
Traditional view, ii. 434, 449 f.40, 
487. 
Plan, ii. 604 ff. 
Purpose, ii. 459, 461, 583, 604 ff. 
References to Peter in, ii. 497 f., 5065. 
Relation of Gospel of John to, ii. 444. 
Relation to Peters discourses and 
preaching, ii. 387f., 434 f., 
450 8.15, 495 ff., 501. 
Justin on, ii. 450.73. 
Papias on, ii. 438 ff. 
Relation to Luke, iii. 101 - 107, 
135 fl. 10-18- 
Relation to Matthew, ii. 601-617. 
Traditional view, ii. 601 f. 
Septuagint used in, ii. 610f. 


INDEX 


Mark, Gospel of —continued. 
Style, ii. 457, 401 f., 481 f.4. 
Compared with Luke, iii. 104f, 
135,0, 136,53. 
Title, ii. 456-460, 480,. 
Title, plan and conclusion of, ii, 456- 
487. 
Used by Cerinthus, ii. 444. 
Written for Western readers, ii. 489. 
Mark, Writings of— 
View of F. Hitzig, 11. 423;. 
Marriage in early Church, ii. 95. 
Patristic aud modern views of, ii. 
125 f.49- 
Mary (the Virgin)— 
Davidie descent, 111, 361. 
Reference to, in John, 111. 224, ena 
Mary, mother of Mark, ii. 427. 
Mary and Martha, iii. 262f. 
Matthew (Apostle), ii. 581, 584. 
Biographical notes concerning, il. 
507 f. 
Call of, ii. 507 f. ’ 
Confusion of name with Matthias, ii. 
508, 524 ἢ... 
Early acquaintance with Jesus, 1]. 
507 f., 5249. 
Identical with Levi, ii. 506 f. 
Literary activity, Papias’ witness to, 
ii. 509 fl, 525 1... 
Names of the evangelist, ii. 506f., 
522 fl... 
Position in the lists of disciples, 11. 
506, 522 ff... 
Tradition regarding, and his Gospel, 
11. 506-530. 
Matthew, Gospel of— 
Agreements between Gospel of Mark 
and, ii. 603, 608, 612). 
Analysis, ii. 533-556. 
Author, ii. 506, 508 f., 581. 
Knowledge of the Gospel history, 
ii. 585, 600 f.45. 
Nationality, ii. 561 f. 
Authorship, Apostolic— 
Objections to, ii. 590 f.g. 
Traditional view— 
Dogmatic objections to, 11, 582 Il. 
Canonical, the, ii. 403. 
Canonicity of, ii. 301. 
Carried by Bartholomew into India, 
ii. 385, 517, 528,. 
Character, ii. 556£., 570 f. 
Characterisations of, 11. 57013. 
Christian Church, eonception of, in 
the, ii. 550 ff. 
Compared with Luke, ii, 603 f. 


INDEX 


Matthew, Gospel of—continued. 
Compared with the tradition, 11. 
570-601. 


Contents, plan and purpose, ii. 531- 
570 


Date, ii. 392 ff, 522, 530,,, 571 ff, 
588,, 602. 

Witness of Irenzeus to, ii. 522. 

“ Doublets” in, 11. 581 f., 598 ff. 5. 
Gospel of the Hebrews, relation to 
the Heb. Matt., ii. 518 f. 
Gospel of the Nazarenes, relation to 
the Greek Matt., 11. 519. 

Greek Matt., origin, ii. 514f. 

Relation to Aramaic original, ii. 

576 ff., 591-597,.;. 
a translation, 11. 594.79. 
Translator of, ii. 517, 527,, 575f., 
579 f. 
Witnesses to the, ii. 515 f., 526 f.,. 
Greek Translation— 
Date and place of, ii. 516 f. 
Hebraisms in, ii. 576 ff., 591-597,.,;. 
Hebrew Matt., the, ii. 511f., 515 ff. 
Disappearance of the, ii. 520 f. 
in “ India,” ii. 517, 528,. 
Witness of Panteenus to, ii. 517. 
Hebrew names in, Transcription of, 
ii. 698... 

Hilgenfeld’s view concerning, ii. 414, 
586 f.,. 

Historical material in, ii. 559. 

in Syrian Church, ii. 529,. 

Jesus, discourses of, in, ii. 557 ff., 
584f. 

Literary character, ii. 606f. 

Narratives, Character of, ii. 583 f. 

Original language, ii. 530,, 573 f. 

Epiphanius on, ii. 519. 

Franz Delitzsch on, ii. 5305. 

Irenzeus on, ii. 518, 528,. 

Jerome on, ii. 518f., 529,. 

Origen on, ii. 517, 528,. 

Papias on, ii. 509f., 617. 

O.T. Citations— 

Form, ii. 579 f., 596£.,1, 12, 611. 

O.T. Prophecy in, ii. 537 ff. 

Parallels to Luke, iii. 110. 

Place of composition, ii. 571 ff., 590,. 

Purpose, ii. 544, 545, 560f., 570,,, 
583. * 

Readers, ii. 521 f., 528,, 561f. 

Refrain in, ii. 598 f.,5. 

Relation to Luke, iii. 107-112, 

Relation to Mark, ii. 601-617. 

Traditional view, ii. 601 f. 
Septuagint in, ii. 610 f. 


509 
Matthew, Gospel of—continued. 
Teaching— 
Kingdom of heaven, ii. 540, 
5685, 10° 


Parousia, ti. 571 £. 
Title, ü. 531 ff. 
Used by Epistle of Barnabas, ii. 515, 
526 1... 
Matthias, ii. 508, 524 ἔς. 
Medical language of Luke, iii. 82 f.,, 
146f., 1601... 
Menander, ii. 110, 129,,; iii, 349,. 
Mesopotamia— 
Early missionary work in, ii. 163 f.,. 
Miletus, ii. 265. 
Miracles, Significance in Fourth Gos- 
pel, iii. 299 f., 303 ff. 
Missionary preaching, i. 285 ff. 
Content, 11. 369-373, 377 ff.;-.. 
Crucifixion of Jesus, ii. 369. 


Resurrection of Jesus, ii. 369, 
3771. 

Words and deeds of Jesus, ii. 369 f., 
377 ff. 


Scope, ii. 587 f.4. 
to Jews and proselytes in Palestine— 
content, 11. 369, 3777. 
to Jews of the diaspora and Gen- 
tiles— 
content, ll. 369, 377 Ties, 3793. 
Mnason, i. 66,5 ; 111. 18. 
Modern Hebrew, works on, biblio- 
graphy, 1. 959. 
Montanists, 1. 405, ; ii. 302f., 310f.,, ; 
ili. 177. 
Moses, Assumption of— 
Quoted in Jude, ii. 269, 288,. 
Muratorian Canon, see Canon Mura- 


tori. 

Muratorian Fragment, see Canon 
Muratori. 

Mystery of Lawlessness, i. 229, 236,, 
251;. 


Naassenes, ii. 116, 126,,, 129,7. 

Names in Philemon, Discussion of, i. 
458,. 

Narcissus, i. 392, 419,,. 

Nathanael, i. 31,6; ii. 517, 524,, 528, ; 
111. 210, 225,, 302. 

Navigation, Regulations in 1st century, 
111, 454. 

Nazarenes, ii. 74, 403, 518. 

Nazarenes (4th century), ii. 264. 

Nazarenes, Aramaic Gospel of the-- 

see Apocryphal Gospels. 
Nazareth, ii. 539. 


510 


Nazarites— 

Gospel used by, i. 13. 

Jewish zeal, i. 44 f. 

Language, i. 13. 

Vow of abstinence from wine, i. 4734. 
Neapolis (in Macedonia), 1. 533. 
Nereus, 1, 42054. 

Nero, ili. 410, 422,, 469 ff. 
Legend concerning (and Rey.), 11]. 
436, 443 fl, 4475. 
Legend concerning (and 2 Thess.), 
i. 246 f., 250;, 2529, 10- 
Marriages, iii. 477. 
Persecution of Christians, ii. 57 f., 
61f., 68,, 71, 76£., 160,.170, 
185, 3471. 
New Testament Canon, composition of, 
A245 
New Testament Canon of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, 1. 123. 
New Testament Times, Chronology, 
ii. 481 ff. 
New Testament Writings— 

Chronology, iii. 481 ff. 

Synchronisms with general history, 
Bibliography, 111. 450 f. 

Jewish origin, 1. 57, 

Literary dependence in, 11. 603 ff, 

Names in, i. 29 ff. 4. 

Text of, iii. 12 ἢ. 

History, ili. 22 f. 
N.T. Writings (Gospels excluded)— 

to Christians outside of Palestine, 

reference in, to the Gospel 
story, ii. 379 f.,. 
to Jewish Christians in Palestine, 
references in, to the Gospel 
story, 11. 383 ff. ,. 
Nicodemus, ili. 302 f., 35513: 
Nicolaiis, Nicolaitans, i. 497, 515, ; 1]. 
110, 129,,, 283 ; iii. 179, 197,, 
417 ff., 426) 45 42715: 
Teaching of, in the Churches of Asia 
Minor, 11. 292,5 
Nicopolis, ii. 48 f., 53 fig. 
Novatian, 11, 303, 310 £.11- 
Officers of the Early Church— 
Functions, ii. 96 ff. 
Qualifications, ii. 32 f., 90 ff. 
Old Latin Translation— 
Relation to original language of 
Gospel tradition, ii, 575. 
Old Testament Citations— 

in Fourth Gospel, iii. 340, 35445. 

in Mark, ii. 609 fF., 616, 5, 9: 

in Matthew, ii. 579 f., 5961.,,, 19 GLOF. 

in Pauline epistles, ii. 52. 


INDEX 


O.T. oral translation of, i. 12, 23,4, 33,9. 
O.T. Propheey— 
Fulfilled in Gospel history, 11]. 
330 £.40. 
Onesimus, i. 439 f., 444, 446), 451 f.., 
453 f., 456, 458,, 494. 
Onesiphorus, ii. 2f., 19, 20}, 68;, 86. 
Oral translation— 
in the Early Christian Church, ii. 
511 ff. 
of O.T., i. 12, 234, 3390. 
Origen, i. 6944. 
Eusebius on, 11. 397;. 
Latin sermons attributed to, ii. 303, 
310 ἔν. 
on angelolatry of Jews, i. 475,. 
on “ Angels of the seven Churches,” 
ill, 423,. 
on chronological order of Gospels, 
li. 392 f., 398 ἔς, 7. 
on Ephesians, i. 482, 488 f.,. 
on Hebrews, ii. 299 ff., 309. 
author, ii. 308,. 
on inscription of Acts xvii. 23, iil. 
163,. 
on Paul’s missionary activity, ii. 74. 
on Peter’s missionary activity, ii. 
1525. 
Text of Acts, iii. 10, 9319. 
Text of 1 John iv. 3, iii. 3715. 
Text of Rom., i. 379, 395, 406)). 
Witness to 2 and 3 John, iii. 185, 


Palestine—- 
Christianising of, i, 93. 
Greek Cities in, i. 35 f. 
Greek language in, i. 35-46, 
Land of Israel, i. 75, 807. 
Ptolemy’s division of, ii. 5894. 
Pallas, iii. 470 ff. 
Panteenus— 
in India, ii. 517 f., 527,. 
on authorship of Heb., ii. 298, 
Teacher of Clement, ii. 308;. 
Papias— 
Biographical notes, 11, 526,. 
Date, ii. 436, 515. 
Designation of Christ, iii, 203,5 
Disciple of Aristion, 11. 473. 
Disciple of John, iii. 175, 
Fragment (Latin) on Fourth Gospel, 
iii. 196 ἢν. 
Fraginents of, in Eusebius, ii. 435 ff, 
451 fl, 453 8.14 
Interpretation of Babylon (1 Pet. v. 
13), ii. 163;. 


INDEX 


Papias— continued. 
Interpretation of John’s testimony to 
Mark’s Gospel, ii. 501 f., 510f. 
on Mark, ii. 394, 427, 434 ff., 449 f.,,, 
450; 1, 45314, 4854, 499. 
Witness to 1 Peter, ii. 173, 186). 
Witness to Gospels— 

View of Griesbach, ii. 405. 

View of Schleiermacher, ii. 411 f. 
Witness to John, iii. 178, 1965. 
Witness to John vii. 53-viii. 11, iii. 

346,. 
Witness to Matthew, ii. 509 ff., 511 f., 
525 ἢ... 
Witness to Revelation, iii. 182. 
Work of, the, ii. 436. 
Parousia, ii. 222, 237 f. 
in Gospels, i. 224,. 
in Matthew, ii. 571 f. 
in 2 Pet., ii. 273. 
in 1 Thess., i. 291 ἢ. 
in Rev., iii. 396 f., 4371. 
‚Reference to, in John xxi., iii. 243- 
247. 
Time of, ii. 230. 
Parthia— 
Early missionary work in, ii. 163 f.,. 
Participial construction in N.T., ii. 
9545. 
Passion History— 
in Fourth Gospel, iii. 270 ff. 
in Synoptics, iii. 2781. 
Passion and Resurrection of Jesus— 
History in Matthew, ii. 554 ff. 
Passover— 
Celebration of, iii. 
296 FF. 7. 
Last, of Jesus— 

Place of celebration, ii. 429, 447,, 

492, 493. 
Pastoral Epistles, ii. 1-133. 

Alleged interest in the organisation 
of the Church, ii. 93 f. 

Alleged late date, ii. 99-118. 

Baptismal formula in, ii. 119, 13150- 

Comparison with pseudepigraphical 
literature, ii. 123,. 

Date, ii. 118 f. 

ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι in, ii, 126,1. 

False teachers in, ii. 99 ff. 

Linguistic ‘character, ii. 
1318... 

Similarity of Romans to, i. 413,,. 

Term, meaning, ii. 55, 67). 

Unity of Christian doctrine and 
confession demanded 
119 ff, 


282 f., 294,,, 


121 f., 


i, ii. 


511 


Pastoral Epistles, ii. 1-133—continued. 
Not inconsistent with Paul’s teach- 
ing, found elsewhere, ii. 119 ff. 
Patmos, iii. 408 f., 420,. 
Patrobas, i. 420,,. 
Paul— 
of Acts, iii. 152 f. 
Address of, in Acts xxi. 37 ff., i. 42 Fy 
Age, i, 457,. 
Alleged author of Hebrews, ii. 296, 
298 ff., 302. 
Antioch, work in, date, iii. 458 ἡ, 
462 ἢ. 
(“ Apology ἢ πρώτη ἀπολογία, ii. 7 f., 
125. 


Apostle to the Gentiles, i, 353 f., 
370 fo. 

Apostolic calling of, i. 353 f. 

Apostolic dignity, defence of, i. 
289. 


Aramaic, language of, i. 48 ff., 57. 
Asia— 
Danger in, i. 309, 318,, 321f. 
Extent of work in, i. 449f.,. 
Asia, Churches of, intercourse with, 
during Roman imprisonment, 
li. 16. 
Asia Minor, ii. 148 ἢ, 
Athens, i. 205. 

Journey from Bercea to, i. 214,. 
Biographical notes, i. 48-54, 67153 
ii. 370f. ; iii. 455-480, 
Cxsarea, i. 443, 444f,, 451, ; ii. 16; 

ili. 473 f. 
Trial before Felix, date, iii. 476. 
Chronology of life and writings, 
iii. 481 ff. 
Churches founded by— 
Character of, ii. 136. 
in the provinces of Asia and 
Galatia, ii. 135 f. 
Churches of Colosse and Laodicea 
relation to, i. 460 f. 
Churches under Pauls jurisdiction, 
ii. 11. 
Care of, i. 206, 4621. 
Citizenship, i. 69,4; iii. 75f. 
Close of career, ii. 54-84, 
Bibliography, ii. 67 f.,. 
Collection journey (Acts xi. 30)— 
Date, iii. 456 ff. 
Conversion, in Acts compared with 
Epistles, iii. 121. 
Corinth, first visit, i. 256 f. 
Second visit, i. 263, 271), 271f 
272 


Krenkel’s view of, i. 272,,. 
> 14 


"135 


512 


Paul—continued. 


Corinth—continued. 
Unrecorded visit, i. 
327 f. 
Work in, i. 232 f., 256 f., 259. 
Corinth, Church of— 
Charges Paul with 
i, 391 ff., 343 fio. 
Lost correspondence with, i. 261, 
2705. 
Date, 1. 262. 
Lost epistle of Paul to, i. 263 f., 
307, 312 ff.,, 3271. 
Identified with 1 Cor., i. 330 ff. 
Lost letter of, to Paul, i. 325. 
Crete, 11. 43 f., 106. 
Death of, iii. 479 f. 
Date, ii. 58. 
see also Martyrdom. 
Doctrine— 
Antichrist, i. 226 ff. 
Sources of, 1. 227 ff., 236 ἢν μὲ 
Asceticism, ii. 332. 
Church, i. 508 f. 
ἐκκλησία in epistles, i. 504 ἢ, 
Eschatology, 1. 2534. 
in 1 Thess., i. 221, 223 f... 
Justification, i. 124, 129 ff.,, 1323. 
Misinterpretations of, ii. 275, 290, o- 
Misunderstood by Gnostics, i. 
125 f. 
Significance of Christ in, i. 509 ff. 
Ephesus, i. 194, 199, ; iii. 33143. 
Church of, and Paul, i. 483f., 
489 1... 
Epistles of— 
Agreement of Acts with, iii. 150 f. 
Circulation, ii. 275 f. 
in the first century, ii. 125, 
14094. 
Criticism of, Review, i. 152-164. 
Date, 1. 156 ff. 
Development of thought in, i. 
200 f. 
Genuineness, i. 156-162. 
Genuineness, Views regarding— 
Bauer, i. 155, 168;. 
Baur, i. 154f., 163). 
Dutch School, i. 155 f., 163,, 4. 
Evanson, i. 154, 1635. 
Hitzig, i. 156, 163,. 
Marcion, i. 152, 155, 156f. 
Schleiermacher, i. 154, 163,. 
Semler, i. 156. 
Tradition of Chureh, i. 
154. 
Weisse, i. 156, 163,. 


307, 316,, 


fickleness, 


152, 


INDEX 


Paul—continued. 


Epistles of—continued. 

How written, i. 234,, 249f.,. 

Influence of, in Apostolic Church, 
i. 161f. 

Jesus, name for, in, 11. 353 ἢ, 

Jesus’ words and deeds, reference 
to, ii. 370 ff., 379 ffs. 4. 

Lost Epistle to readers of 2 Peter, 
li. 198 f., 209, 227, 274 f., 277. 

Places where written, ii. 162). 

Preliminary critical remarks, i. 
152-164. 

Readers, ii. 227 ff. 

Relation of Acts to, iii. 118-126, 
139 ων, 93° 

Relation to James, i. 1323. 

Relation to 1 Peter, i. 161. 

Spurious, i. 160f., 164,. 

Style and thought of, 11. 353. 

the First Roman imprisonment, i. 
439-563. 

Thought, form, and language of, 
compared with that of He- 
brews, 11. 353 f. 

Three oldest, i. 152-255. 

Titles, i. 486. 

“We? in, i. 203, 209 f.;. 

Writing of the, 1. 172 f.,. 

Epistolary style, characteristics, i. 
500, 516 £.,. 
Family of, i. 68f.,.- 
Flight from Damascus— 
Date, iii. 455. 
Galatia, i. 165 ff., 1719. 

Illness, i. 181. 

Ramsey’s theory, i. 1715. 

Visits to the churches of, i. 165, 
1715. 

Gospel, i. 353f., 357f., 412f.47; ii. 
385;. 

Origin, ii. 352. 

Preached, ii. 370 ff., 379s. 

Greek language and literature— 
Knowledge of, i. 51 f., 70,5, 7119. 
Heb. O.T., knowledge of, i. 51, 52, 

7017: 
History of — 

Data in, iii. 452 f. 

Synchronisms with general history, 
iii. 455-480. 

James’ doctrine, attitude to, i. 124, 
129 ff.,, 1325. 

Jerusalem Collection, i. 200,. 

Jesus’ life, knowledge of facts of— 

Source, ii. 370 f., 373, 384,. 

Luke’s Gospel, relation to, ii. 387 f. 


INDEX 


Paul—continued. ΄ 
Mark, relation to, ii. 148-f., 427, 429 f., 
445,. 


Martyrdom, ii. 165 ff... 
Date, ii. 66. 
Early tradition concerning, ii. 62, 
78 fl... 
Not a vietim of Nero’s persecution, 
ii. 57 f., 685. 
Patristic testimony to, ii. 75 ff... 
Testimony of Clement to, ii. 
61f. 
see Martyrdom of Peter and 
Paul. 
Missionary Career— 
Journeys in Asia Minor, Ramsay’s 
view, i. 188 f.,. 
First journey, i. 176 f. 
Churches founded during, i. 
176£., 191 fig. 
in Acts compared with Epistles, 
iii. 122. 
Second journey in Galatia— 
in Acts compared with Epistles, 
iii. 122 f. 
Method of work 
265 8... 
Work in Asia Minor, ii. 137 f. 
Missionary preaching, i. 237,, 462, 
471}. 
Content, ii. 370 ff., 3795, 379 ff.4. 
“Gospel of Christ” in, ii. 370 ff. 
Jesus’ words and deeds in, refer- 
ence to, ii. 370 ff., 379 ffs 4. 
Principles, 1. 285 ff. 
Names, iii. 127, 140,5. 
Origin, i. 70:6. 
Nephew of, i. 50. 
Peter, parallelisms with, in Acts, iii. 
151 f., 163,. 
Pharisaism, i. 50, 68), ; iii. 14033. 
Philippi, i. 522 ff. 
Church of, communications with, 
i. 524 ff. 
Lost correspondence with, i. 
526 ff., 535 ἔς. 
Relation to, i. 212,. 
Philippians, Epistle to the— 
Condition when writing, i. 527 ff., 
539-556 ; ii. 18. 
Roman law, acquaintance with, in 
Galatians, i. 201 1.1. 
Rome— 
Arrival in, iii. 478. 
Imprisonment, First, ii. 1 f. 


in cities, i. 


Coptic fragments of the Acts of | 


Paul on, ii. 831. 
VOL. 11]. 


513 


Paul—continued. 
Rome—continued. 
Imprisonment—continued. 
Evidences for activity after, ii, 
59 f. 
Tradition concerning, in Cle- 
ment of Rome, ii. 60ff., 
68 FR... 
Release from, ii. 55 f. 
Expectation of, in Philippians, 
li. 55 f. 
Probable order of events suc- 
ceeding, ii. 14 ff., 66 f. 
Testimony to, ii. 63 ff. 
Imprisonment, Second, ii. 67. 
Intended visit to, i. 367 ff., 377... 
Purpose of, i. 355 ff., 371 f... 
Renewal of charges against Paul 
in, 11. 57, 68,4. 
Residence in, i. 444 f., 451,, 539 ff. ; 
11. 2ff. ; iii. 57 f. 
Trial, i. 540 ff., 542 ff. ; ii. 4 ff., 131. 
Date, ii. 57 f. 
Voyage to, iii. 454. 
Rome, Church of— 

Acquaintance with, i. 352, 428. 
Sanhedrin letter to, language, i. 10. 
Septuagint, Quotations from, i. 52. 
Sister of, i. 50. 

Spain, ii. 161 f. 
Journey to, ii. 10, 12, 61 ff. 

Testimony of Acts of Paul to, ii. 
63. 

Testimony of Acts of Peter to, 
li. 63. 

Testimony of Canon Muratori 
to, ii. 62 ff., 73 ff... 

Proposed visit to, i. 367 ff., 577. 
Supernatural leadings of, i. 555, ; iii. 

16 f. 
Thessalonica, i. 203. 
Timothy, relation to, ii. 34 f. 
Titus, communication of, to Paul, ii. 
46 f. 
Training, i. 53 f., 67.15; ii. 22 f.4. 
Troas, ii. 16 f. 
Use of names of Roman Provinces, 
i. 175, 185 ff... 
Use of plural by, i. 354, 369). 
Use of terms apostles and prophets, 
1. 505 f. 
Use of term Evangelist, i. 507 f. 
Paul and the Jewish law, iii. 152 f. 
and the Jewish Synagogues, ii. 137 f. 
and the Roman government, iii. 75 ἢ, 
and the readers of 2 Peter, ii. 203. 
Paul, Acts of, i. 69,6; ii. 1704. 


33 


514 


Pella, Flight of Jews to, ii. 572, 588 f.; ; 
iii. 159. 

Pentecost, Place of, ii. 429, 447,. 

Pergamum, iii. 411, 420 f.,. 

Church of, iii. 410f., 417 1. 
Pericopes, the Church, iii. 361. 
Persecutions of Christians— 

in Asiatic churches, 90-100 A.D., iii. 

409 ff. 
Mentioned in 1 Peter, ii. 179 ff., 184 f. 
Nature of, in Ist century, ii. 180f., 
189,. 
Under Nero, ii. 185. 
Peter, iii. 213, 224,. 

Alleged daughter of, ii. 1643. 

at trial of Jesus, iii. 271. 

Attitude toward Jewish and Gentile 

Christians, ii. 276. 

Confession of, 11. 550 f. 

Death, ii. 160, 165 ff.,, 214; iii. 479. 
Date, ii. 160, 1704, 255. 
in Acts of Paul, ii. 214, 
in Acts of Peter, ii. 214. 

Prophecy concerning, iii. 241 f. 

Discourses of, in Acts, compared with 

1 Peter, ii. 173 f., 186. 

Epistles of— 
Canonicity, ii. 2845. 
Comparison of, 1]. 

289 fig. 
Genuineness, 11. 262-293. 
Resemblances between the, ii. 271, 

289 8.9. 

First Epistle of, ii. 134-194. 
Alleged purpose, ii. 174. 
Author, an eyewitness, ii. 

155 fig. 

Author, relation to readers, ii. 

145 f., 148, 154f.,. 

Author’s description of himself, ii. 

146 ff. 

Canonicity, ii. 263 f. 
Character, ii. 173 ff. 
Compared with discourses of Peter 

in Acts, ii. 173 f., 1869. 

Date, i. 128, 161; ii, 148f., 161), 

160 ff., 177. 

Genuineness, ii. 173-194. 


197, 271 ff, 


147, 


External evidence, ii, 178, 185f.,. | 


Greetings of, ii. 148, 
Persecutions of Christians men- 
tioned in, ii. 179 ff. 

Ramsey’s view of, ii. 190 ἔκ. 
Persons addressed in, ii. 134, 
Place of writing, i. 161; ii. 158f,, 

162-173... 
Purpose, ii. 1451. 


INDEX 


Peter—continued.. 
First Epistle of—continued. 
Readers and author— 
Internal evidence, ii. 134-158. 
Readers, not Jewish Christians, ii 
136-142. 
Gentile Christian Churches in 
Asia Minor, ii. 142-145. 
View of Kühl, ii. 1525. 
View of Origen and Greek 
Church, ii. 136 f., 1525. 
View of B. Weiss, ii. 152s. 
Relation to Ephesians, ii. 176 ff., 
186 f.,, 275 f. 
Relation to James, i. 128, 133 f.,; 
ii. 175 f., 1865. 
Relation to Pauline Epistles, i. 
161; ii. 176 ff, 185 ff... 
Relation to Romans, ii. 
187 f.4, 275 £. 
Silvanus, writer, not author of, ii. 
148 ff., 157 £.]2, 174, 176. 
Time and place, ii. 158-173. 
Title, ii. 297. 
Second Epistle of— 
Apologetic tone of, ii. 223, 
Apostleship of Peter in, ii. 273 f. 
Author and readers of, ii. 194-221. 
Author, ii. 232. 
An eyewitness, ii. 203 f., 215 f.,. 
Relation toreaders, ii. 201ff.,208 f. 
Self-designation, ii. 271. 
Canonicity, ii. 263 f. 
Cireulation, ii. 264, 
Date, ii. 209f., 237, 255, 278, 286,. 
False teachers of, ii. 224 ff, 231, 
232 f., 292 fir. 
Character, ii. 279-283. 
Origin, ii. 226 f. 
Genuineness, ii. 262 f., 271-283. 
Suspicions concerning, ii. 283 f.,. 
Occasion, ii. 221-238, 231 f. 
Parousia in, ii. 273. 
Expectation of, ii. 222, 230 f. 
Pauline epistles, reference to, ii. 
274 f., 2900. 
Polemical note, ii. 222. 
Purpose, ii. 195. 
Readers, ii, 202, 205 f.,. 207 ff, 
226 ff, 264. 
Missionaries to the, ii. 208 ff., 208. 
Relation to Paul, ii. 203. 
Relation to the Antiquities of 
Josephus, ii. 29144. 
Relation to the extra Biblical 
writings of the Karly Church, 
ii, 264, 


176 ff., 


INDEX 


Peter—continued. 
Second Epistle of—continwed. 
Relation to Jude, ii. 211, 250, 285,. 
Various hypotheses of, ii. 264— 
268. 
Relation to Jude 4, 17 f.; ii. 285 f.,. 
Relation to literary works after 70 
A.D., 1.279, 291.14. 
Relation to the “Shepherd of 
Hermas,” ii. 284 f.,. 
Spirit, ii. 274. 
Style, ii. 271. 
Title, ii. 297. 
Traces in literature of the Early 
Church, ii. 284,. 
Transfiguration, ii. 274, 
Father’s name, i. 179. 
Flight from Jerusalem, iii. 457. 
Galilean origin, i. 27,3. 
in Corinth, 1. 302 ἢ 10. 
in Pontus, ii. 154 f.,. 
in Rome, ii. 159 ff., 163 f.,, 166 ff.,, 
; 210. 
Alleged Roman episcopate of, ii. 
160, 167 £.,. 
Witnesses for, ii. 165 ff... 
Acts of Peter, ii. 166 f.,. - 
Clement of Rome, ii. 165,. 
Eusebius, 11, 167 f.,. 
Ignatius, ii. 165 f.,. 
Marcion, ii. 1664. 
Papias, ii. 166,. 
Knowledge of Greek, ii. 443. 
Lost Epistle of, to readers of 2 Peter, 
ii. 195, 197 f., 231, 236,, 271 1. 
Martyrdom— 
Karly tradition concerning, ii. 62, 
78 ff... 
Manner, ii. 169 f.,. 
Patristic testimony, ii. 75 ff... 
Testimony of Clement, ii. 61 ἢ. 
Missionary activity, ii. 159 f., 163 f.,, 
443 f., 587). 
Name, i. 165. 
Aramaic form, 1. 17g; ii. 146, 155g. 
Greek, i. 64:0. 
in Galatians, ii. 155,. 
Names used in 2 Peter, ii. 206, 219 f.,. 
Parallelisms with Paul in Acts, iii. 
151£., 163,. 
Parousia, expectation of, ii. 230 f. 
Party of, i. 289 ff. 
Preaching, relation to Mark’s Gospel, 
ii. 387 f., 434 f., 4508.15, 495 ff. 
References to, in “ Acts of Philip,” 
ii. 1635. 
References to, in Mark, ii. 497, 506,. 


515 


Peter—continued. 
Relation to Churches addressed in 
1 Peter, ii. 145 f., 148, 154 f.,. 
Relation to Mark, ii. 148, 394, 427, 
432, 434, 4455. 
Wife, views about, ii. 157). 
Writings ascribed to, ii. 270. 
Peter and Corinthian Parties, i. 283 f., 
287 ff. 
Peter and Paul— 
Martyrdom, ii. 62 ff., 78 ff.9. 
Work and martyrdom of, in Rome, 
ii. 165 ff... 
Peter and Paul’s Day, ii. 78 ff... 

Commemoration of, ii. 62, 78 ff.,. 
Peter, Acts of— 

Author, ii. 449,. 

Gmostie teaching, ii. 270. 

on the Gospels, ii. 390. 

on Peter in Rome, ii. 166 f. 

on Simon Magus, ii. 168 f. 

on Transfiguration, ii. 218,. 

Peter, Apocalypse of, ii. 270, 273. 
Peter, Epistle of, to James, ii. 289,. 

Author and date, ii. 289,. 

Peter, Gospel according to, ii. 270. 
Peter, Preaching (κήρυγμα) of, ii. 1674. 

Author, ii. 270, 273. 

Logos doctrine in, iii. 327,. 

on Colossians ii. 8, i. 475,. 

Pharisees, i. 50; ii. 258,. 
Attitude toward Christianity, iii. 
149. 
in Fourth Gospel, iii. 338 f., 350, . 
Name, i. 327. 
Pharisees and Sadducees— 
Attitude of Jesus to, in Matt., ii. 
549. 

Opposed to each other, i. 50. 
Philadelphia, Church of, iii. 410 f. 
Philaster— 

on author of Hebrews, ii. 308,. 

on Cerinthus, i. 5154. 

Philemon, i. 446f., 452 f., 458,. 
Philemon, Epistle to, i. 452-459. 

Authorship, i. 4565. 

Date, i. 452,. 

Genuineness, i. 457 f.,, 8. 

Various views concerning, i. 458f.¢. 

Names in, i. 458,. 

telation to Ephesians, i. 493 ff. 
Time and place of composition, i. 
439-452. 
Philetus, 11. 21,,:109 f., 129, ,. 
Philip, the Apostle, i, 46 ; iii, 210, 218, 
294. 302, 350,. 
Greek name, i. 63). 


516 


Philip, the Evangelist, i. 45, 443 ; ii. 
92.7, 412. 
in Asia Minor, i. 448 ; iii. 927, 3505, 
358, 3705. 
Daughters of, iii. 17. 
Philip, Acts of, ii. 163. 
Philippi, i. 522, 532 1... 
Jews in, i. 522 f. 
Philippi, Church of— 

Care of Paul, i. 212,. 

Communications with Paul, 1, 524 ff. 

Composition, i. 523. 

Condition at writing of Epistle to 

the Philippians, i. 529 f. 
Jewish Christian preachers in, i. 
530 ff. 

Lost correspondence with, 1. 526 f., 
535 1.,. 

Philippians, Epistle to the— 

Alleged composite character of, i. 560, 
562 ff.;. 

Alleged motive for forgery of, i. 

558 ἢ, 

Date, i. 548 f., 555 f.;. 

Epistolary style, i. 560). 

Genuineness, 1. 556-564. 

View of Baur, i. 556 ff., 561;. 
View of Hitzig, i. 556 ff., 5615. 
View of Tiibingen School, i. 556- 
559, 560 fio 5. 4 
Hist. presuppositions and occasion, i. 
522-539. 

Occasion and purpose, i. 532. 

Paul’s condition at writing, i. 527 ff. 

Valentinian Gnosticism in, i. 557. 

View of Völter, i. 560, 561 f.,, 562 ff.,. 
Philo— 

Hebrews, relation to, 11. 364 f.,5. 

Logos speculation of, iii. 317 f. 

Use of Greek, i. 56, 59s. 

Use of Hebrew, i. 6773. 
Phlegon, i. 420.4; 11. 169. 
Phrygia, 1. 1845. 

Phygelus, ii. 3, 213. 

Pilate, ii. 488, 502f.,; iii. 71, 
352 f.19- 

Pilate, Acts of, iii. 35273. 

Pilate, Apocalyptic literature of, ii. 
375. 

Pisidia, i. 184 ffs, 4. 

Pliny, the Elder— 

on Galatia, i. 184f. 
Pliny, the Younger— 

Correspondence with 

178 f., 189,. 

Epistles of, ii. 178, 180. 

on Christians in Pontus, ii. 152). 


~I 
or 


Trajan, 1), 


INDEX 


Plural, used by author to designate 
himself, i. 171,, 209f.,, 307. 
3163, 456, ; ii. 354, 365 ; ΠῚ 
357. 
Poetry in N. TS 1: 52, 71 199 118,. 
Politarch, i. 211,. 
Polycarp— 
Bishop of Smyrna, iii. 412 f. 
Disciple of John, ii. 435 f.; ii. 175, 
191 f., 20495, 94. 
in Rome, 111. 192. 
Martyrdom, iii. 416 f., 426,. 
on Pauline Epistles to the Philip- 
pians, 1. 5353. 
Witness to 1 Peter, ii. 173, 185 f.,. 
Polyerates of Ephesus— 
on John of Ephesus, iii. 20557, 231f. 
Use of μάρτυς, 111. 20557. 
Pontus, ii. 151 f.,. 
Christians in, 11. 151 f.,. 
Churches in, character of, ii. 136 f. 
Peter in, li. 154f.,. 
Porphyry, ii. 611. 
Pretorium, i. 541 f., 551 ff. 
Preaching, Christian— 
Source of, ii. 379. 
Preaching, Missionary— 
see Missionary Preaching. 
Presbyter, ii. 23,, 33 ff., 91f., 124 f.,... 
Priests— 
Abstinence from wine, i. 4734. 
Priscilla— 
see also Aquila. 
in Corinth, i. 257, 2653. 
in Ephesus, i. 262. 
Priscilla and Aquila, ii. 19. 
in Romans, i. 389 ff., 4179). 
Prochorus, iii. 8817. 
Author of Acta Jo., iii. 197,. 
on John, iii. 198, 202,4. 
Proclus (Proeulus), ii. 5111}. 
Prologues, Old Latin— 
on order of Gospels, ii. 4003. 
to Acts, iii. 7,. 
to John, 111. 196,. 
to Mark, ii. 400,, 445,. 
Prophecy, Prophet, i. 116,, 207,, 227 f., 
237 505 f.; iii. 385 ff., 402f., 
in the Christian Church, ii. 97 f., 
110ff., 230, 236,; ii. 16, 
385 ff., 4028... 
in Jude, ii. 248 f. 
in Revelation, iii. 437 ff. 
Prophecy, N.T., iii. 437. 
Prophecy, O.T.— 
Agreement of history of Jesus with, 
in Matt., ii. 537 ff., 567,. 


INDEX 


Prophecy, O.T.— continued. 
Fulfilment in Fourth Gospel, iii. 
330 ἤν 0. 
Fulfilled in Gospel history, iii. 
380 7.10. 
and the preaching of the Gospel 
among Gentiles, ii. 146. 
Prophet— 
Use of term by Paul, i. 505 f. 
Proselytes— 
Jewish, i. 61s. 
of the gate, i. 213,. . 
Protevangelium of James— 
Date of, ii. 375. 
Pseudepigraphic writings, i. 140, 144, 
158 ff., 1645. 
Character of, ii. 123,. 
Pseudo-Clementine Literature— 
Relation to James, i. 136,. 
Pseudo - Petrine writings, üi. 
289s. 
Publius, iii. 139,0. 
Pudens, ii. 21,. 
Punic language, iii. 139,0. 


270, 


Quartodecimans, iii. 193, 273 ff. 
Quirinius— 
Governor of Syria, iii, 96 ff., 130 f.,, 
134,. 


Rabbis— 
Attitude towards Greek, i. 62 f.,. 
Zeal for Hebrew, i. 40. 
Reading of books in antiquity, ii. 373f., 
3855. 
Resurrection— 
see Passion and R. 
Revelation of John, the— 
Analysis, iii. 392-401. 
Antichrist, iii. 399f., 438f., 441 f., 
446,. 
Number of, i. 238 f.9; iii. 444 ff, 
ML. 5. 
Author, iii. 387 f., 428-435. 
Name and nationality, iii. 428, 
433, 433,. 
References to himself, iii. 391, 
403 fis. 

Tradition on, iii. 180. 

View of Justin, 111. 182, 20173. 
Beasts in, iii: 439 ff., 446. 
Circulation of, iii. 182 f. 

Date, iii. 183, 201 f.,4, 412, 413, 417, 
420, 433, 438 f., 444. 

View of Irenzus, iii. 183, 201 f.,,. 

False teaching and practice, iii. 417 ff., 


517 


Revelation of John, the —continued. 

Greek style of, compared with other 

Johannine Literature, iii. 
432 f., 435, 7. 

Hebrew words in, iii. 444, 

Interpretation— 
Contemporary 

Historical, 
Futurist, 

Nature of, iii. 384-389, 

Parousia in, iii. 437 f. 

Propheeies in, iii. 437 ff. 

Purpose, iii. 384, 390. 

Readers, ini. 390, 

Condition, iii. 408-427. 

Reference to Caligula, iii. 

449,. 
References to Nero, iii. 436, 443 ff. 
Reference to Roman Empire, iii. 
441f., 447,. 

Relation of 2 Thess. to, i. 250,. 

Seals, the Seven, iii. 394 ff., 406,. 

Sources— 

Critical discussions, iii. 407 f.,). 

Structure, iii. 389-401. 

Teaching, iii. 431f., 434 f.,. 

Title, iii. 391, 403 f.,. 

Unity, iii. 401, 407 f.,,. 

Visions in— 

Materials of, iii. 436 f. 
Nature, iii. 385 f. 
Origin, iii. 384 f., 392, 402,. 

Witness of Epistle of Barnabas to, 

111, 183. 
Witness of Papias to, iii. 182. 
Rolls, Scripture, ii. 392 f., 398,. 
Roman citizenship, i. 69;,. 
Roman Emperors, mention of, in N.T., 
i. 24149. 
Roman Empire, in 2 Thess., i, 229 f., 
2385. 
Roman Officials, Titles of, iii. 815. 
Romans, Epistle to the— 
Benedictions in, i. 408 ff. 13. 
Contents and progress of thought, i. 
352-378. 

Date, i. 377,1, 434 f. 

Doxology in, i. 379 ff., 396,—412,,. 
Evidence (external) for, i. 380 ff. 
Evidence (internal) for, i. 382 ff. 
Genuineness, i. 385 ff. 

Hypotheses regarding, i. 385. 

Origen’s testimony regarding, i. 
379 f., 396 ff.z. 

Position, explanation of, i. 384f., 
4.115: 

Position in Liturgies, i. 410,4. 


iii. 436-449. 


445, 


518 


Romans, Epistle to the—continued. 
Doxology in—continued. 
Position in MSS and versions, i. 
BEAT, 410. 
Position with Patristie writers, 1. 
405g, 9 
Hebrews, ralation of, to, ii. 365. 
Integrity, 1. 378-421. 
Marcion’s text, i. 379 f., 396 ff.;. 
Occasion, i. 434-438. 
Readers, 1. 375g. 
Nationality, 1. 372s. 
Relation of 1 Peter to, ΤΙ 
187 f.4, 2751. 
Relation to James, 1. 126 ff., 1325. 
Salutation, i. 352 f. 
Salutations in, 1. 387 ff. 
Schott’s view, 1. 438. 
Similarity to Pastoral Epistles, i. 
413, 7. 
Text known to Ephrem, i. 405g, 4723. 
Vulgate MSS— 
Capitula in, i. 398 ff... 
Rome— 
Bishops of, 11. 1674. 
Burning of, ii. 68;. 
Church of — 
Absence of Judaisers in, i. 425 ἢ, 
Asceticism in, ii. 346. 
Ascetic party. in, i. 366, 376 f.4o. 
Character of, in 58 A. D:, 11. 345 f. 
Conditions, ii, 350, 359,. 
Constitueney of, i. 421-427, 429, 
429. 
Views regarding, i. 431 f.4. 
Grouping in membership of, i. 
430). 
Jewish, predominantly, 1. 
421 f. 
Missionary activity of, ii. 349. 
Nationality of members, 1, 375g. 
Origin, i. 129, 352, 427-429, 
432 f.,. 
Parties in, i. 
406 f.49. 
Paul’s acquaintance with, i. 352, 
428, 
Paul’s intended visit to, i. 367 ff, 
377. 
Purpöse of,i. 355 ff.) 371 8.5. 
Relation to churches in 
Minor, ii. 148 f. 
Relation to the Jewish Synagogues, 
ii, 3593, 
Government of — 
Attempts to suppress Christianity, 
ii. 178 f., 1895. 


176 ff, 


365 ff., 376 fio, 


Asia 


INDEX 


Rome—continued. 
Jewish epitaphs in, i. 67,3, 6714. 
Jews expelled from, iii. 466 f. 
Jews in, 1. 47, 67,5. 
Peter in, ii. 159 ff., 163 f.,, 165 fl,. 
Date, ii. 160 f., 166, 170. 
Synagogues in, 1. 47f.; 11. 359. 
Variant preachers in, 1. 542 ff., 557 £ 
Rome ἘΠ daughter of Peter, i. 
164,. 
Rufus, 1. 392, 42004 5 ; li. 489 f., 504,. 


Sabians, iii. 33,5. 
Sadducees, i. 50. 

Attitude toward Christianity, iii. 149. 

see also Pharisees. 
Saints— 

Meaning of term, 11. 2573. 

Salome, mother of John, iii, 187, 190, 
904... 
Samaria— 
Greeks in, i. 35. 
Jesus in, ili. 33213. 
Samaritans, ill. 3263. 

Language of, i. 5. 
Sanhedrin, the, iti. 339, 5500. 
Sardis, Bishop of, iii. 416, 425 f.g. 
Satan, Synagogue of, iii. 410f., 421. 
Saul = Hebrew name of Paul, i. 50. 
Saul = Paul, ii. 127, 140,,. 
Scripture rolls, ii. 392 f., 398,. 
Scriptures— 

Form in which written, it. 392 f. 
Scythian Christians, ii. 152, 
Secundus, i. 209, 213;. 

Semitie idioms in Hebrews, ii. 961... 
Septuagint, i. 46, 56. 

Paul familiar with, i. 52. 

Quoted in Gospels, ii. 610. 

» », Hebrews, ii. 3611. 

» 9, John, iii. 354,,. 

2) ” Matt., 11. 579 i 596 f.44, 12° 
Serapion of Antioch, ii. 1645. 
Sergius Paulus, iii. 149. 

Proconsul of Cyprus, iii. 463 ff. 
Sermon on the Mount— 

in Luke, iii. 112. 

‘in Matt., ii. 542 ff, 544, 558f.; iii 
| 12. 

Position in Matt., ii. 557. 

The two rece nsions, ii. 605. 

“ Seventy,” the, iti. 78, 927. 
Seventy Disciples, the, ii. 1645, 4455. 
Shepherd of Herd ἡ the— 

Authorship of, E usebius on, Ui. 4,. 

Relation of 2 Peter to, ii. 284 fig. 
Sibyllines, i, 2525. 


INDEX 


203 f., 207 fu, 


Silas = Silvanus, i. 
17, 8i%,, 1491. 


209 f.3; iii. 

160). 
Accompanying Paul on second mis- 

sionary journey, 1. 176 f., 178 f. 

Character, ii. 151. 

in Asia Minor, ü. 149. 

Name, i. 81 1.16- 

Preaching of, 1. 237;. 

Prophet, 1. 237.;. 

Relation to churches in Asia Minor, 

ii. 149 ff. 
Work of, in vieinity of Corinth, i. 
265,. 
Writer of 1 Peter, ii. 149 ff., 157 £. >, 
174, 176. 
Simeon (eousin of Jesus), ii. 240 f. 
Simeon = Peter, 11. 206, 218f.;,. 
Simeon, Rabbi, i. 62.9. 
Simon Magus— 
in Clementine Romance, ii. 170 f.,. 
_in Rome, ii. 839, 168 ff. 
Contest with Peter, ii. 63, 74. 
Simon Niger, ii. 505,. 
Simon of Cyrene, i. 392; ii. 489f., 
5055. 

and his sons, i. 665. 

Sinope, Episcopates of, ii. 162. 
Sirach— 

Greek trans. of, i. 46. 

Language of, i. 6. 

Use of, in James, i. 12145. 

Smyrna, Church of, iii. 410 f., 416£. 

Angel of, iii. 416. 

Origin, iii. 412 f. 

Sodom, iii. 398, 406,. 

“Son of God,” 11. 309 f. 

Sopater, Sosipater, 1. 2095, 2134, 41755 ; 
iii. 31 fy. 

Sosthenes, i. 258, 267 f.¢. 

Soter, Bishop of Rome, ii. 753. 

Spain— 

Journey of Paul to, i. 367 ff.; ii. 61. 
Evidence of Acts of Peter, ii. 63. 
Evidence of Canon Muratori, ii. 

62 ff., 73 ff.,. 
Paul in, ii. 161 f., 1664. 
Spirit— 
Work of, in early Church, iii. 385, 
4025. 
Spiritual gifts, 1. 279 ff., 297,. 
Stephanas, 1. 260, 266,, 269;. 
Sychar, iii. 351). 
Symmachus, ii. 563. 
Synagogue, i. 94 f.). 
Christian preaching permitted in, 
1. 99. 


519 


Synagogue--continued. 
Gentiles in, 1. 212 f.,. 
Language used in, i. 33a. 
Services, i. 212,. 
Synagogues in Rome, i. 47 f.; ii. 359,. 
Relation of Roman Church to, ii 
359s. 
Synagogue in Thessalonica— 
Paul began work in, i. 204, 212,. 
Synoptic Gospels, the— 
Choice of material in, iii. 165-171,171,. 
Interrelation of— 
View of Augustine, ii. 402, 422,. 
Views of early Church writers, ii. 


AQ1 figs 4. 
View of G. E. Lessing, ii. 403 f., 
422... 
see Synoptic Problem. 
Jesus— 
Discourses compared with dis- 


courses in Fourth Gospel, iii. 
344, 3647. 
Jerusalem visits of, in, iii. 167 f. 

Purpose, iii. 1661. 

Relation of Fourth Gospel to, iii. 
254-298, 306 f. 

Relation to the traditions concerning 
Jesus’ deeds and words current 
in Apostolic Church, ii. 372. 

Synoptic Problem— 

Facts to be used in a solution of the, 
11, 401 f. 

History of, ii. 400-427. 

Hypothesis of Bruno Bauer, 1]. 
407, 4245. 

Hypothesis of F. Chr. Baur, ii. 
412 ff., 425 f.45. 

Hypothesis of J. G. Eichhorn, ii. 404, 
422 8... 

Hypothesis of J. C. L. Gieseler, ii. 
408 ff., 424 f.,,. 


Hypothesis of J. J. Griesbach, ii. 


405, 423,. 

Hypothesis of G. Herder, ii. 405 ff., 
4238... 

Hypothesis of Hilgenfeld, ii. 414, 
42515. 

Hypothesis of Holsten, ii. 414, 


425 f.43. 

Hypothesis of J. Holtzmann, ii. 
415 ff., 426,4. 

Hypothesis of J. L. Hug, ii. 408, 
4340. 

Hypothesis of G. E. Lessing, ii. 
403 f., 422,. 

Hypothesis of A. Ritschl, ii. 414, 
42614. 


520 


Synoptie Problem—continued,. 
Hypothesis of Schleiermacher, 11. 
411 f., 420... 
Hypothesis of G. Chr. Storr, ii. 407, 
423s. 


8 

Hypothesis of K. Veit, ü. 410 f., 
42511. 

Hypothesis of G. Volkmar, ii. 407, 
494.. 

Hypothesis οἵ B. Weiss, ii. 417 f., 
427, 5. 


Hypothesis of Chr. H. Weisse, ii. 
414, 42614. 
Hypothesis of C. Weizsäcker, ii. 417, 
42714 
Hypothesis of Wendling, ii. 426f.,,. 
Hypothesis of G. Wetzel, ii. 410, 
42511. 
Hypothesis of Chr. G. Wilke, ii. 407, 
4244, 
Origin, ii. 401 f. 
Results of the investigation of the, 
11. 418. 
Syntyche, i. 530, 533,, 561 f.4. 
Syriac or Aramaic, 1. 22 f.4, 36. 
Syriac translations— 
Relation to the original language of 
the Gospel tradition, 11. 575. 
Syrian Church, Canon of, ii. 263. 


Tabitha, iti. 137... 
Tacitus— : 
on Christians, ii. 185, 191 £.74, 617. 
on earthquake in Laodicea, 1. 449,. 
on Neronian perseeution of Chris- 
tians, ii. 57, 62. 
on Roman officials in Palestine, iii. 
470. 
Trustworthiness, iii. 451. 
Targums— 
Origin of the, ii. 515. 
Tarsus, i. 49. 
Centre of Gr. culture, i. 53f., 7120. 
Tatian— 
Diatessaron of, ii. 401, 421). 
Order of twelve disciples in, ii. 
522). 
Witness for John xxi. 24f., ili, 2505. 
Witness for Mark xvi. 9-20, ii. 468. 
Witness for text of Lucan writings, 
iii. 22. 
Teaching in the early Church, ii. 96f. 
Compensation for, ii. 127 f.13: 
“Teaching of Addai,” ii. 164,;, 167, ; iii. 
467. 
“Teaching of the Apostles” Syriac, ii. 
164 f.,. 


INDEX 


Temple, Bilingual inscriptions in, i 


δ" 
Temple Cultus— 
Alleged ignerance of, in Hebrews, ii. 
361 fa. 
Tertullian— 
Contra Marcion, li. 48771. 
on Apostolic letters, i. 213. 
on Hebrews, ii. 295, 301 f. 
on Marcion’s text of Romans, i. 397. 
on Martyrdom of Peter and Paul, ii. 
76f. 
Translation of 2 Thess. ii. 6f. i. 
2385. 
Witness to text of Eph. i. 1, i. 481, 
488,. 
Textual Critieism, Canon of, ii. 477, 
4865. 
Thaddeus, Missionary activity of, ii. 
164,. 
Thecle, Acta, i. 181. 
Theodore of Mopsuestia— 
Com. on Philemon, i. 446). 
on Angelolatry, 1. 476. 
on Authorship of Heb., 11. 3095. 
on John xxi. 24f., 111. 250 fy. 
on John’s residence in Ephesus, i. 
4905. 
N.T. Canon adopted by, i. 123. 
Theodotians, ii. 302, 5109. 
Theophilus of Ceesarea, 111. 65. 
Theophilus of Luke i. 3, iii. 2, 5f.,, 
42f., 58. 
Thessalonians, Epistles to the— 
Authorship of, i. 203, 209 f.3. 
Resemblances between, i. 
253 f.17. 
Thessalonians, First Epistle to the— 
Analysis, 1. 215-224, 
Apologetic purpose, 1. 216 ff. 
Baur’s view, 1. 248 f.,. 
Date, i. 206 f., 215, 233. 
Eschatology, i. 221, 223 f.4. 
Genuineness, i, 242—255. 
Proof of, i, 2494. 
Occasion and purpose, i. 215 f. 
Place of composition, i. 205 f., 233. 
Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the— 
Analysis, 1. 224-242, 
Antichrist in, 1 227 De 236 ff. 4-9. 
Authorship, i. 224f., 233 f.,. 
Spitta’s ee en i, 234, 237,. 
Date and place, various views on, 
i. 231 ff, 9411. 
Dependence on Rev., 1, 2507. 
Eschatology, i. 226-231. 
Source of, i. 227 f., 236 f.4, 2375. 


244 ff, 


INDEX 521 


Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the— 
continued. 

Genuineness, 1. 242-255, 247). 

Nero legend in, i. 250,, 2529, ı0- 

Occasion, i. 234,. 

Place of composition, i. 233. 

Purpose, 1. 226. 

Thessalonica, i. 208 f., 211 f.4, 213,. 

Church of— 

Membership, i. 204, 212 f.,. 
Moral condition of, i. 220 f., 223;. 
Origin and history, i. 203-215. 
Persecution of, i. 204f., 215 f., 222,, 
225. 
Jews in, i. 204. 
Theudas, iii. 132 f.,. 
Third person, use of, in ancient litera- 
ture, iii. 8611. 
Thomas, iii. 213, 224,, 302. 

Missionary activity of, 11. 16433. 
Thomas of Heraclea— 

Gr. MS. of N.T. used by, iii. 273. 
~ Text of Luke used by, iii. 10. 
Thyatira, Angel of, iii. 416. 

Church of, iii. 417f., 419, 496. 
Tiberias, Lake, iii. 324, 339... 
Tiberius Alexander, iii. 460 f. 
Tiberius— 

Death, date, iii. 481. 

Timothy, i. 440; ii. 2ff.; iii. 87,5, 
142 f., 1591... 

Age of, ii. 38. 

Circumcision of, i. 182; iii. 152. 

Conversion, ü. 6. 

Episcopate of, in Ephesus, ii. 41,. 

Eusebius on, ili. 4,. 


Timothy—continued. 


Relation to Church of Antioch, ii. 357, 

Relation to Paul, ii. 6 f., 23, 34 f. 

Reports Macedonian work to Galatia, 
i. 198. 

Training of, ii. 6, 22f.,. 

Work of, mentioned in 1 Timothy, 
ü.29 ff. 

in 2 Timothy, ii. 29£. 


Timothy, First Epistle to— 


Date, ii. 35 ff. 

Facts attested by the, ii. 27-42, 
Lack of personal greetings in, ii. 42,. 
Occasion, ii. 28 f. 

Personal notices in, ii. 35. 

Place of composition, ii. 27 ff. 
Relation to Epistle to Titus, ii. 52. 


Timothy, Second Epistle to— 


Date, ii. 37, 66. 
Facts presupposed by the, ii. 1-27. 


Timothy and Titus, Epistles to— 


Alleged forgery of, motives for the, 
11. 89-118. 
a. Regulation of the life of the 
Church, ü. 89-99. 
ὃ. Opposition to certain doctrinal 
errors, 11, 99-118. 
Alleged interest in the organisation 
of the Church, ii. 93 f. 
Date, ii. 118 f. 
Alleged late, ii. 99-118. 
False teachers of, 11. 99 ff. 
Genuineness, ji. 85-133. 
Argument for, 11. 85 ff. 
Denial of, ii. 85, 122 f.,. 
see also Pastoral Epistles. 


Eschatological views of, i. 2375. 
Home of, i. 209. 
in Corinth— 
Work in vicinity, i. 2653. 
in Ephesus— 
Work in city, ii, 29ff, 34f., 
44. 
Work outside city, 11, 33 f. 
in Macedonia, i. 203 f., 209 1... 
in Philippi, i. 523 f., 547. 
Joint author of Epistle to Colos- 
sians, 1. 456;. 
Joint author of Epistle to Philemon, 
i. 4565. 
Location of, at writing of 1 Timothy, 
ii. 27 ff. 
Location of, when 2 Timothy was 
written, 11, 18f., 26 f.4. 
Pastoral office in Asia, ii. 89 f. 
Picture of, in 1 and 2 Timothy, ii. 
88 f. 


Title of a book, Ancient usage, iii. 81,. 
Titles of books, ii. 458 f. 
Titles of Roman officials, 111. 81,. 
Titus, 1. 208 f., ; iii. 28,, 142 f., 160). 
Circumcision of, iii. 124 f. 
Communication to Paul, ii. 46 f. 
in Corinth, 1. 308 f. 
in Crete, Episcopate, Eusebius on, 
iil, 44. 
Pastoral office, ii. 48, 535, 89 f. 
Work, 11. 45 ff. 
in Dalmatia, 11. 11 f. 
Journey to Dalmatia, ii. 48. 
Location of, when Epistle to, was 
written, ii. 43, 
Titus, Epistle to— 
Date, 11. 50 ff. 
Facts presupposed by the, ii. 43-54. 
Genuineness— 
see Timothy and Titus, Epistles to. 
Relation to 1 Timothy, ii. 52. 


522 


Titus Justus, 1. 266,. 
“ Tractatus Origines de libris ss. scrip- 
turarum,” ii. 303, 310f.,). 
Trajan’s correspondence with Pliny, ii. 
178, 189,. 
Transfiguration, the— 
in “ Acts of John,” ii. 218,. 
in “ Acts of Peter,” ii. 2186. 
in 2 Peter, 11. 216 ff.,, 274. 
Synoptic account of, ii. 274. 
Witnesses of, ii. 204, 215 f.,, 495. 
Trophimus, ii. 88. 
in Miletus, ii. 14f., 265. 
Tryphzna, 1. 393, 41994. 
“Twelve,” the, iii. 78f., 213, 2279. 
Training, ii. 463 f. 
Twelve tribes, i. 74 ff. 784. 
Tychicus, i. 439f., 441 ; ii. 48, 87. 


Urbanus, i. 393, 41994. 


Valentinus, Valentinians— 
Doctrine of αἰῶνες and πλήρωμα, 1. 
515f., ; 1. 128,4 Ἢ ΤῊ. 176. 
Relation to Eph. and Col., i. 498 f. 
Doctrine of σοφία, i. 557. 


INDEX 


Valentinus, Valentinians—continued. 
Estimate of Fourth Gospel, ii. 176, 
3274, 349,. 
“ Evangelium veritatis” of, ii. 389. 
Gospel used by, ii. 4565. 
on the Gospels, ii. 389 f. 
Versions— 
Relation to the original language of 
the Gospel tradition, 11. 574 ff. 


“We? 
Use of, in Paul’s Epistles, i. 203, 
209 8.5. 
Widows in the early Chureh, ii, 33, 
941. 


Worship, Christian, ii. 326 f., 514. 
Year, the calendar, i. 319,. 


Zaccheeus, iii. 138... 
Zachariah, son of Jehoiada, ii. 589 f.,. 
Zealots— 
Greek term used by Luke, iii. 92,.. 
Party of the, iii. 77, 78, 923- 
Zebedee, iii. 187. 
Sons of, iti. 187 f., 204,9, 21, 22813- 
Zenas, 11. 49, 54,. 
Zotikos iii. 416, 425 ἔς. 


PATRISTIC AND OTHER EXTRA-BIBLICAL WRITINGS, 


(Only the passages which are cited in full or discussed in the text or notes 
are here indexed.) 


Acta SS. Jun. v. 411 ff., 423 e., i. 764. 
Acta Thecle xiv., 11. 129,7. 
Ambrosiaster in Gal. ii. 1 ff., iii. 27f.;. 
Augustine de consensu Hv. i. 2, 4, 5, 11, 
422. 

Can. Mur., lines 1, 6, ii. 446,. 

lines 9-16, ili. 197,. 
Clement of Alex., Eclog. Proph. 27, iii. 


855. 
Hypotyp. (in Eus. H. E. vi. 14. 5), ii. 
400,. 
Hypotyp. on 1 Pet. ν. 13, ii. 448,. 
in Eus. H. E. vi. 14. 7, 111. 197,. 
Peed. ii. 16, ii. 524 f. 
Quis Dives xlii., ii. 41, ; 111. 906. 
Strom. vii. 106, ii. 45515. 
Vlement of Rome— 
1 Cor. v. 1, ii. 68 f.g. 
x. 1, i. 134,. 
xxxviüi. 2 ff., i, 135,. 
xlvii., i. 2985, 342. 
lxv., 1. 2694. 


Clementine Literature— 
Recoqn. x. 71, 111. 55. 
Didache 1. 2, 111. 35,5. 
xi, 3-6, iii. 3814. 
Dio Cassius Ix. 6. 6, iii. 466 f. 
Dionysius of Corinth— 
in Eus. ἢ. E. ii. 26. 8, ii. 75. 
in Eus. A. E. vii. 25. 6-13, iii. 434,. 
in Eus. H. E. vii. 25. 15, iii. 433 f... 
Epiphan. Her. li. 4, ii. 399g. 
li. 12, iti. 197 £.,. 
Eusebius, H. E. 1]. 15, il. 449,0 4534. 
ii, 22, 2, ii. 775. 
ii. 26. 7, ii. 825. 
ii. 25. 8, ii. 755. 
iii. 24. 6, ii. 403, 5285. 
iii. 39. 4, 7, ii. 452 1.1}. 
ili. 39. 14 f., ii. 453 8.14. 
iii. 39. 16, ii. 509-515, 525 f.,. 
iv. 14. 6, iii, 204,4. 
v. 8. 2, ii. 398,. 
v. 8. 6, iii. 201,,. 


INDEX 


Eusebius, H. E.—continued. 
vi. 14. 2 ff, ii. 3085. 
vi. 14. 5 ἢ, ii. 4005, 4489. 
vi. 14. 7, iii. 197,. 
vi. 25. 3, ii. 3975. 
vi. 25. 11-14, ii. 309,. 
vil. 25. 6-13, iii. 434,. 
viii. 25. 15, iii. 433 f.». 
in Ps. lxavitit., ii. 528,. 
Quest. ad Marinum, ü. 528,. 
Theoph. (Syr.) iv. 7, ii. 80,. 
Es, 71% 
Hippolytus, Refut. vii. 30, ii. 445,. 
Ignatius, Magn. viii. 2, iii. 327,. 
Rom. x. 1, ii. 15740. 
Smyrn. vi. 1, 1. 6291. 
Treneus iii. 1. 1, ii. 215,, 398,, 528, ; 
ii. 7,7. 
iii. 3. 4 (Eus. iv. 14. 6), iii. 204,,. 
ii. 11.1, iii. 197,. 
iii. 11. 7, ji. 456,,, 528,. 
v. 30. 1, iii, 448 1... 
v. 30. 3, iii. 201,,. 
Jerome, contra Pelag. ii. 15, ii. 484 f.,. 
Ep. ad Philem. 23, i. 68... 
in Eph. iti. 5, i. 4055. 
Var. IU. ix.; tit. 903). 


523 


Josephus, Ant. xviii. 5. 2, iii. 1345. 
xix. 5. 2-3, iii. 4661. 
xix. 12, iii. 133,. 
xx. 2. 1 ff., ili. 460 f. 
xx. 5. 1, iii. 132 fig. 
xx. 5. 2, 111. 460 f. 
xx. 8.6, ill. 183,. 
Bell. ii. 13. 5, iii. 133,. 
iii. 10. 1, iii. 33344. 
Justin, Dial. xxiii. ii. 5635. 
Ixxxi., iii. 201). 
evi., ii. 450 f.45. 
Mart. Polye. xix. 1, 111. 426,. 
Papais (in Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 16), ii. 
509-515, 525 ἢ... 
Plutarch, Vita Oi. xxix., ii. 5044. 
Polycarp, ad Phil. iii. 2, 1. 5855. 
Polycrates (Eus. iii. 31. 3, v. 24. 3), 11]. 
20855. 
Suetonius, Claudius xxv., i. 433 fine 
Symeon Metaphrastes in Acta SS. Jun. 
v. 411 ff, 423 c., ii. 76,. 
Tacitus, Ann. xii. 54, iii. 470. 
Tertullian, contra Mare. i. 1, ii. 487. 
iv. 5, 11. 451,5. 
v. 17, 1. 488,. 


INDEXES. 


A—NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES. 


MATTHEW. MATTHEW—continued. 
en ἘΠ ΣΙ ΤΙ cope. ΠΟ aoe „Ars ΒΒΘΙΣ 
lan SIE AA ΟΡ ir DER, viii. 18-ix. 34 . ii. 545, 583 f., 600,4 
RN δὰ rao vii.22...0.7. 0: 31.224, 
LOH, gece cl DEE Hedy viii. 27 . ii. 6131... 
I RT bs POG th: ἴχ. 1-8 ii. 613. 
I ai Ge ix. 2,5. ii. 612). 
ἘΠ nto ΡΟΝ ix. 10 . ii. 524.. 
iF Blain at TRUG 2 DDR, ix. 14-17 ii. 586). 
je N TO be: ix. 32 ff. ii. 599,2. 
1: 2Batatios το We) Ube eb 9 Se. sgh dE ii. 545, 558, 
Dds ee ἋΣ: BAe 3 2. 578. 
GIES Se MDT E: ieh. ii. 558. 

ii. 60073: 


DaB eo τς ΈΒΩΣ 
EL: 


792. 2 | 5 800, 


X 

D.C 

X 
ΠΣ 083. x. 17-22 

X 

193. ΠΣ Rb Ga oe 

X 


τ 2; PATRIATIGiABD) 5685 OSIBLICAL Williaa 
HG 2) ch beso Onin Lie Xi. ΟἿ ὡς itr. op pebee oe 
i 97-127 48% ΤΡ mL ME Xia Gy τς τὴ ΠΟΘ 
1, 15... . « 1.540, 586,, 9910. 21.10 +. 107. ἀπ ΘΙ ΝΟ 
Di EU AL ER el 11.} |CRindOtine Liam Ma 
137, χίλι δας. 21.6. ΔΗ ET 
iv.12-25 . . . ii 541f., 545. ZU 4.2, ili. Bhp. BOO 
imghiine Vo eeu. 54: xu. 48, iii, 967,. 1. 548; 
iv. 18-22, ~ ii. 613». xull. 146-15 δ) il. 59719. 
iv, Bir. lance ). 0.40, SVG, 689,. εἰ γϑδις of Corin δεῖν. 696 ΙΕ ΘΟ 
y.3ß 3-19, ik 197.1..6142. xiv. 1-13 . . . ü.614f.. 
eilt οἵ Alox.» Kilo, DIA, 25681, | ve. . ii. 590,. 
605 ; iii, 112. xiv. 13-21. . . ii. 286,. 
γεν» Gn Han, ΑἹ; Babyy: xv.1-20 . . ὦ ii. 615». 
v.16... . . ii 5428, 568). xy, Ba itt. 1512, Gu ole 
v.17. . ὧν 1 « ii. 543, 568,585 ἢ... | xv. 12-14. . . ii. 548f, 
Vak HN ee xv. 22. . . . ii. 549, 578. 
Wierd, τα ἢ, Got 1. 694, 4. xvi. 1-4 . . . 11. 5995. 
WTB ii), MILD, xvi. 6, 11,12. . ii. 549. 
WB, vil..109- 49221003: xvi. 16-20. . . ii, 550, 569,0. 
μὰ 101 οὐ Bume Au 501, χυ 3.160): 4, . 76 18; 
vi. «ὦ ia 5: zvi. 188. 1.1 /. i. ἢ 06055 
Villy 13-4), 13.4, ὦ 618.. XVLiQLs9. 15, ἢ CORSE 
viii, 1-17 ὦ . „ i. 544f. χυ τ δὲ i, 24. 216m 
viii. 5-10 τ δ, 291,0. xviis, 94 ff, ii. 30% 1/590. 
viii. 5-18 . . . iii. 110f. xvii. 24-27 . . 11. 552. 


524 


INDEX 


MATTHEW — continued, 


XVili. 15-20 
ἘΠῚ BB} 

ob ae . 

EK 27 oe 
RAD. 
xx. 29-34 . 
xxi. 1-xxv. 46 
1,12-16% 


Th Os} a 
RR! .s 
EM Sohne « 
1 —14. 7 
EX11ln/ ἃ 
xxi. 14. 
ΧΙ Ὡς 
ex 54 Α΄. 
ἜΣΤΙ! 35 
xxii, 37 
xxiv. 6ff. . 
xxiv. 9-13. 
xxiv. 20 
XXVL—XXVil. . 
xxvi. 6-13. 


xxvi. 15, 25, , 50 8 


xxVi. 18 

xxvi. 31 

xxvi. 57 

XXvil. 2. 
XXVil. 6. 
xxvil 9 

xxvil. 
xxvii. 46 
xxvi.Ö5 
xxvii. 51-53 . 
xxvil. 6 
Xxvili. 1 
xxvii. 
Kev . 
xxvii, 


1423 Χ ΧΗ 60. : 


li. 5501. 

11. 591,. 

li. 572, 5894. 
2.15 

317. 1% 
11.552. 

li. 553 £. 

111. 291, - 

τ. 608, 6165. 
ll. 553. 

. 59310- 

. 608. 

Ὁ 5877. 

li. 553. 

li. 515, 526 f:.. 
ii. 569 £.49. 
SZ 

11. 573, 589f.,. 
ill. 1732. 

ji. 588,. 

li. 60073. 

ii. 586). 

li. 554 ff. 

ii. 286 f.,. 

li. 554. 

ii. 494. 

ii. 616,. 

iii. 999. 

ii. 502s. 

11. D’ul. 

li. 596115 8972. 
ΤΙΣ 56941. 

1. 15,5 11.,578. 
11. 591g. 
117999: 
11,559. 

ii. 5960. 

11. DDD. 

1% 661. 


= =H =P 


ji. 382,, 557 £., 5914. 


ii. 373, 3775, 456 ff, 


480). 
ii. 617,. 
ji..617,. 


ii, 460, 609, 611, 


612 ἔ,,. 

ii. 460f. 

ii. 613». 

ii. 496 £., 5065. 
ii. 497. 

ii. 613,. 

ii. 613,. 

ii. 6191. 


525 


MARK—continued. 


vi. 34-44 . 
Viis- 1-23 
vii. 3 


| Vit, 11V: 


Vii. 26-25% 
Vili. 35, 38 
roc Il. 


Htb-< 2-13 
| ix. 14 ff. 


IxsAl 1 Δ τυ, 
ix. 48 
> ae Le 
39950: 
Χ Ὁ. ae 

x. 35-40 


| = 12-14, 20-95. 


xv. 16, Blass on . 


>All 


ZV.28 « 


ii. 507, 522 1... 

i. 524,. 

11. 500, 6135. 

111. 13715. 

li. 497, 506;,. 

li. 490, 523 f.; 5 11], 
188. 

li. 490. 

ii. 501. 

li. 614 fig. 

li. 503,, 590,. 

11. 6145. 

111. 286,. 

li. 490, 6159. 

ii. 561. 

i. 577. 

ii. 578. 

11. 499. 

11. 499 f. 

li. 216 fff. 

11. 494. 

ii. 500. 

li. 616,. 

li. 589,. 

11. 499. 

111. 204.1. 

111..194 f.,. 

li. 495 f. 

11. 5032. 

i. 29149. 

li. 6164. 

11. 608, 616g. 

ii. 608. 

11. 616,. 

li, 495. 

li. 5885. 

i. 2374, 11. 500. 

111. 286 ἔς. 

li. 447,. 

ii. 429, 447, 493 f. 

11. 505;. 

ii. 492 f. 

il. 611, 616,. 

li. 609. 

li. 4281., 446f., 
491 £., 505, 

li. 493, 505, 

11. 500. 

ii. 489, 502 f., ; iii. 
271. 


li. 504,. 
1. 392; ii. 489f., 
505,. 


ii, 616,. 
i. 15, ; ii. 6165. 


526 


INDEX 


MarK—continued. 


xv. 38 : 
xvi. 8, Conclusion 


11. 555. 


of Mark’s Gospel ii. 467, 469. 


xvi. 9-13 
xvi. 9-20 


τι. 607. 
Al. - A6TE., 
11119. 


483 fx: 


Relation to Mark ii. 4751. 


xvi. 14-18, Origin 
of. . ΟΣ 


ii. 471-475, 484,; 
485 1.2. 


LuKE—continued. 


vii. 2-10 
vil. 27 5 
vii. 36-50 . 
vil. Im: 


χα 18-198 
xii. 16-21 . 
ΧΙ. 38 

xiii. 6 fh 
ἘΠῚ 4 Ὁ: 
xiv. 13-16% 
xvi. OF 11 
VAN . 
erate Ge 
xviii. 25 
xix. 45 f. 
xx. 201. .. 
xx1. 20-36. 
XI. 12. 


ii. 9910. 


8: 
iii. 169,171 ἢ. 
iii. 169, 1724. 
ii. 5245. 
iii. 73. 


li. 586). 


111. 
lil 


111. 
il. 


111. 


9019. 
162;. 
29149. 
158 f. 
156 ff. 


li. 492. 


LUKE. 

i-ii., Source of 

traditions in iii. 112 f. 
i-ii. . ili. 265 f. 
i. Ἢ ii. 278, 3765) ili. 

45 f., 82 f.5. 

i. 1-2 iii, 44, 821.5 @ 
yy 1 A: a ta lil. 41-56. 

Scope of iii. 53-61, 85 1.10. 
1 PR iii. 48, 78, 84g. 
LE Ὁ χα £81550, 85. 
Lit Le Bre {π|’ 44 
iM... ,« 88 Binde E09, 
LB5-I.. .. «0. (il152,. 
126...) BOG 7116 35.1.7¢. 
1,635 . ct bOl- (E57 
41 51 iii. 70. 
31.58 . 111. 68, 77. 
138... pe. ΠΗ 17. 9641808, 
WALL 5. .. OL she 
i, 71 111. 37, 
Mi. 1114.47. 
iii. 4. ii. 617, 
ii.4-6. .. .30» 81170. 
11.17-98. .. ‚ara $e IE £. 
iii. 16 ii. 612. 
111. 22 li. 486, ; ili, 38 f.45. 


i203” τιν ΜΠ BBiy- 
iug@3r BU, vo» 10 78, 101. 
ins id. ana ti. lak 


iv. af. . τρῶν +2i1u65,.BAR..5 2005, 


τ διὸ ata HISAR, 
ivi@Si.. . ‚oo 115 147], 
ivwhds » Ὑρωι... 10 84,188. 25) 


ν.] . « . οἵ tie 111, 333} 4. 

v. 20, 23 δόλον 612), 

©. 27.5 2 1) 008 115583, 

9:29. % 0% Gabe P21 5245. 

ΔΕ 5 le ana ΜΠ 1.480 fay. 
vwial0 .. .. pe BULGE. 

a RE he 111. 78. 

δι. LEYS, 191.775 92, 26° 

vi. 20-49 li, 605 ; iii. 112. 


vii. I-10 .. 81 LO. 


xxii. 16-20 ᾿ . iil. 69£. 
xx217- 90°C tix) Ser 


OO beta . ii. 146. 

xxi: ASE) 48°, Sin Sia 

xxiv. 44-49%', 111.58. 

xxiv. 44-53 °. . ii. 58, 87. 

xiv; 61 «= ‘hoa sll OwaE 

JOHN. 

Il to.) τς ς gl Bull aOR, 
327 ff.4.3, 328,. 

TBA oA TE fro sly ole 

1, 182... 4°. οὐδ. αὐ nah τ 88, 
310f. 

i, 14,16 ...10.1116 2088, 29825 


RE 00) cud „il 2917 Ὁ, 31@F- 320; 
3264, 328,, 435, 

518; . .tQ0)..iimi, 812, Seoul 

‚19... ..500.1 did, 255, 2845)°350, οἱ 

2112506 „1 AO.. tills, OP Ly 38 1 γι, 

νος RGD. 18g ; ti GOB. 

har 5 1618. BOS tame 

y Was τ᾿ 50. Sale 


en 
to 
τὰ 


INDEX 527 
JoHn—-continued. Joun—continued. 
BB. iti ..; i . «T8544, Sil ἘΣ ΤΕΣ ΜῊ fil. 208,, 28108 
i. 331. iii. 284,. 288 ff... 
i. 35-41 iii. 209-212, 214, | xiii. 14 iii. 268, 288 ff... 
226,. xiii. 1-20 iii. 293,4. 
DAL. iii, 209 f., 224 f.,, | xiii. 16, 18 iii. 226 ἔν. 
308, 3263. xiii. 18 . ili. 354,,. 
i 44. iii. 3505. xiii, 23 ff. iii. 214 f. 
18. ii. 345). xiii. 23: iii. 213£., 22749 433 
te 6...) & ili. 325. ἘΠῚ. 33 . iii. 342. 
ii, 13-22. ii. 9910. xiv.6 . iii. 315. 
iii. 16, 18 Ὁ. iii. 3265. xiv. 16 iii. 373,. 
iii. 19-21 . iii. 35512. xiv. 31 iii, 337. 
iii. 22-iv. 2 iii. 33149. Xvi. 27£ li. 311. 
111. 24f.. iii, 2571. ΧΙ: 2f. δ iii. 309. 
ii. 34 . iii. 8481. xviii. 12-28 iii, 347 f.,. 
ἘΠῚ ο΄. iii. 996. xviii. 13 iii, 352,5. 
ar iii. 324, 332,5,351,,. | xviii. 13-28 iii. 270, 291 f.1). 
iv. 7-26 iii, 35515. xviii. 16 ἢ, iii. 215,228, 5,231, 7. 
mo. . iii, 325, 339). | xviii. 20, 36 iii. 342, 354, . 
3455. xviii. 28 ii. 274, 282, 293,4. 
iv.25 . 11, 3264. xix. 2-5 ill. 35345. 
iv. 43 ff. iii, 258 ff. xix. 13 . iii, 352 f. .. 
iv.44 . 111, 284 fg. mix. 14, ili. 295 f.,¢. 
iv. 46-54 iii. 29140. xix. 14 ff iii. 309. 
Vad ili, 260, 285 f.4. Ka 0 lil. 333. 
Vea . 1.28), ; 111.335,349,, | xix. 25 . iii. 187. 
35313, 35513. rab. ee Σ iii. 215. 
v.3ff. iii. 3451... ἘΠῚ Ὡς iii. 231,,. 
v. 36 ili. 345). xix. 35 11. 207, 217-223, 
=. iii. 324, 333,4, 351). 223,228F.15 15.19: 
vi. 3 ff. iii. 260 £., 286,. xix, 36 f. iii. 217. 
vi. 5ff. ὃ 11, 301. xix. 37 ill. 35415. 
vi. 26-65 ili, 269. AH) c ili. 1963. 
vi. 45 ill. 35415 OR iii. 302. 
vi. 47 ii. 4865. xx. 1-8. iii. 343, 
Vi. G6, ii. 4455. Xx. 2 iii. 272 f. 
vi. 68f. . 111, 343. zes] - iii. 310. 
vii. 8,10 . ill. 3305. xx, 19297. 111. 233. 
vil. 15-24 . 111, 348,. xx. 80f. ill. 232, 301, 303 f. 
vii. 39 ii. 486,. xx.31 . . . . iii 207, 223, 223, 
vii, 42 ii. 539. 308 ff. 
vii. 49 iii. 338, 3504p, xx. ı iii. 232-254. 
ρ΄ ΤῈ .e ii. 539. ΣΙ Se. iii. 333,4. 
vii. 53-vii. 11 . iii. 334, 346,. xxi. 6 ff, iii. 407,9. 
x. 33 ff. . iii, 3265. xxi, 11. iii, 2524. 
x. 35 iii, 327 f.,. xxi, 15-17. iii. 240 f., 252,. 
xa 1. li. 358,. xxi. 18f. |, u. QS 
xi lf. . iii. 261 ff. xxi. 18, 19. iii. 241 ff., 253,. 
xi. 49f. . ill. 352,9. xxi. 20-23 . ili, 240-247, 252 f.,. 
mL 1 iii. 281, 294 ff.4,. xxi. 24f. iii 235 — 240, 
xii, 2. ii. 524,. 250 δὲ, 9. 
xii. 2-8. lil. 263, 286 ff... Acts of John and 
xii. 12 iii. 295... Peter on. - Lis 9508 
ἘΠ 15. . iii. 354,,. Data mel jit Gea τ 
xii. 20-36 . ill. 338, 3505. Theodore of aH 
xii. 35 f. 111, 267. xxiv. 34 ili. 333. 


Wig Qi Sh, Gol 
i. 5 ff., 9 f 
1 ee 

AVG 7% ΤΟΒΣ 
ἵν. 36: τ ΝΣ 
v. 36. 3 
WOOT . 

a er 
vi. 5. 
vi. 7: 
vi. 9. 
viii. 1-3 
viii. 10 . 
vill. 26 . 


cism of the ß 
text of 

ZI IT: : 

xi. 27-30 

xi. 28 


INDEX 


ii. 460; iii. 43, 54, 
59, 61, 8540, 8816. 

li. 429 ἢ 111. 77, 9256, 
210. 

ii. 4488... 

ii, 429, 447,; iii. 


le 60 f.g, 71}. 
iii, 29,, 419. 
i. 66 8.33. 

i. 39, 60g. 
iii, 302. 

τ 187,6: 
iii. 1641. 

i. 53, 60 1... 
i. 605. 

ii. 460. 

i. 60.. 

iii. 55. 

iii. 478, 

i 191 ἢ 0: 
iii. 2, 14, 28,, 143. 
iii, Ay. 


111. 15, 29,. 

ii. 429, 445,, 447 ἴ.7. 

ii. 493. 

111. 133,. 

ii. 445, ; iii. 1405, 
456. 

ili. 463 ff. 

1.157. 

11, 3772. 

i. 180. 

iii. 478 f. 

iii. 153 ff. 

iii. 18, 3251. 

ili. 124 £. 

iii. 149. 

iii. 18 f., 3335; 3515: 

i, 131,. 


Acts—continued. 
xv. 23-29 ., 


xv. 28 f. 


xv. 30-34. . 


XVi. 


XV1. 


1 
1-6 


xvi. 4 


XVl. 


6 


xvi. 6, 7 


xVi. 
XVl. 
xVi. 
XVi. 
Xvi. 
XVl. 
XVil. 
XVll. 
XVli. 
xvil. 
XVii. 
XVli. 
XVli. 


xix. 
>. ab. 


xvill. 
XVill. 
XViii. 
xvill. 
xvil. 
XViil. 
xvil. 
XViil. 
xvill. 
XVill. 
xvill. 
XVili. 
xvill. 


πὸ ἀξ» 
10-18% 
12. 
eB 
14 
ἡ. 

1 

2 

IR 
14f. 
15. 
23.1 
Θ ΒΕ. οι 
Bo. 4 
12-17 
12 

13 
OR 
DREI 
22 

23 
94. 
24-28 
25 
26. 
27, 28 
1 

17 


iii, 198, 3384, 
3513, 14, 15: 16410. 

i. 207£.,. 

i, 209,. 

i, 188 ἢ. 

1.17% 

i. 176f., 1881... 

i. 207,. 

iii, 55, 86,2. 

111. 142 ff, 

i. 532). 

i. 534). 

i. 5881. 

iii, 866.4. 

i. 2124. 

i. 212, 

i, 2125. 

i. 9147. 

iii, 14099: 

iii. 162 fr. 

i, 265, ; iii, 4664, 

111, 467 f. 

111, 68. 

i. 267,. 

i, 267, 

iii, 15, 16, 306.4. 

111, 452. 

i. 177, 190, 

i. 262, 2701». 

iii. 123. 

iii, 82,, 33149. 

iii, BB, 

i. 270,1. 

iii, 16, 80 fig. 

iii, 381 fire: 

i. 199). 

iii. 150, 168. 

111. 15. 

iii, 15, 1%. 

iii, 66, 87,5. 

i. 209, ; iil, 81 ἔν. 

ili. 142 ff. 

iii, 32,9. 

iii, 17 ἔν Bon 

ii. 56, 685, 

li. 372. 

111. 368. 

ii. 381,, 

iii, 874. 

ii. 17. 

ills 127, 

111. 18, 

iii, 87.0 

iii. 89, 


Acts- 


ΧΕΙ, 95, 
xx]. 3/-xxll; 2 
X21.88. 5 


16- 22 
Xxilil. 24-xxyi 32 
Xxiil. 26-30 
χχὶν.ὅ. 

xxiv. 25. 

RX VIA, 

XXV1L ily. 
xxvil.-xxvill.. 


xxii. 


xxvii. 12 
XXvili. 11 
xxvil. 16 . 
xxviil..16-31 | 


INDEX 


continued. 


iii. 18 f., 34 f.49. 
1. 42. 


ili. i. 100 r 


ἘΠ ul Se 

138 1.00, 149 ff. 
iii. 454. 
111. 454. 
1. 552, ; 
i. 451,. 


111. 477. 


xxviii. 21 i. 57, 68,. 

xxviii. 30f. li. 58 f. ; 111, 57%) 
ΒΟΜΑΝΒ. 

LITE: 1. 352f. 

us. ii. 379,. 

Ie 1. 354. 

17 i, 378f., 394ff.,, 2, 


i.15. 

i. 16f. : 
11. 16, Marcionitic 
interpretation 

ο 


411 f.r6. 


i. 394 ff... 

1. 4305. 

i. 356 f., 
415 yy. 

1, 378, 396,, 419). 

L 357, 3721... 


ΦΧ εν 


li. 385,. 

i. 432,. 

i. 126 £., 131... 
i 3745. 

1. 374. 

1. 359 f. 

ii. 188,. 

1. 361, 374, g. 
i. 361f., 375s. 
i, 421 f. 

li. 346. 

1. 363 ff. 

ii. 188,. 

i. 375 f.,. 

li. 36515. 

li. 187,. 

i. 366, 376 £.19- 
1. 379 ff. 


1318, 


529 


Romans—continued. 


xv. 1-13, Baur’s 
view . 


arten. 
gre Let a ae 
τὺ δ΄... κ« 
xv 19 τ΄. "ἢ 
ἘΝῚ ΟΖ. 


xv.-xvi., Genuine- 


ness of Hak 
xv.-xvl., Litur- 
gical use of 


xv.-xvi., Patristic 
citation of . . 

xvi., Genuineness 
of. 

xvi. 1- 16 : 

XVi., Hy potheses 
of Volter and 
Spitta 

xvi. 3 ff. 


ΣΥῚ. 5.- Ὁ 

Kyle δ... - 
xvi. 6 

Xvi 7 age . 
χυ ΒΖ see 
ΧΡ". 


Xvi. 
XVi. 
XVl. 
XV. 
XVi. ¢ 


Relation of Jude 
24 f. to 
xvi. 27, Text of . 


i. 414 f.y9. 

ii. 587. 
Beil 

i, 435, 437 £... 

i, 1864, 415 fuyg ; 
74,. 
Se, 
4169. 


378 £., 


i. 389 ἢ, 
i. 410,4. 


i. 400 ἢ... 


_ 


. 416 fn. 
i. 393 f. 


ἧς 490 E95 

is. 3807, 
429). 

ii, 860 1, 

ii. δ0ῦ,. 

i. 430, ; ii. 504,. 


1 
i. 4185, ; iii. 453, 
i. 4191 

1 


41751, 


Br 
8925 i. 
504;. 

i. 480, ; ii. 351. 
i, 425, 430,. 
N. 409, 

i. 370, 3775. 
1. 379 ff, 
41246. 


489 f., 


396,- 


ii. 291,5. 
i. 406,1. 


1 CoRINTHIANS, 


i, 282, 297 f.g. 
11. ii. 377,. 
1. 298,. 
i. 8081. 
ii. 382,. 
1. 288. 
i, 296,. 
1.332 ff. 
1.1276. 
Thre 285;- 
i. 261, "270, 322; 
Ι. 976, 
1: 2709 3-11. 285;- 


34 


530 INDEX 


1 CORINTHIANS--continned. 2 CoRINTHIANS—continued, 

ne sie i. 296,. χὶ οι τὸ ΒΘ ΟΣ WT. LAO ss. 

Vil. 10°. or, Ὶ » oii, 382,. ΧΙ, 14. . 4“) -ll-46F £ 
viL1-3 . οὁδᾷ τ 296). xi:2; . . 8: .11j11.-462,7478; 
1X0 . . ".mel& 31,208. xm. 7 if... .. ΠΣ: 

ix, 14 «jf ΟΣ „41. 382,. Xi kf, , +2 411.151. 

Ὁ 10 ῳ - . » δ il. 2575. xl. 16 ff. 4 . A i. 314 £46 

x. 14, ΚΟ ἸΌΝ xii. 18. OV2Q0! δ ΠΟΥ, 
x.115-22 opp.) τοῦ, -1. 296,. ΧΙ. 19... ZW Athi. 260,1. 

> 32 . 5 Ρ ὑ Ὁ 1: 2977. ΧΙ]. 1 i Ξ 5 N A i. 27143. 


C19. OO", eae 
xi, 93 ff. . -| G48 di. 380,, 389; 5848 ; 


iii, 3919) 120 GALATIANS, 
ΧΙ alt 4 297;: La (Of . VT) i. 175 ff 
ZIV. δι „SAD: 1. 6 BEL 1.1785. 
xiv. 23-25... 1. 99,. 1. 6- 8, Mareionitie 
av. 13. .°.° 31.8848 interpretation 
KV. Off. .. ov hOI} WM, SSE, ;- iii. 120) of) iii, 7 e865 aL 3857. 
xv. 7 §. . +685 να 110. 1.81. . . “οἰῶν n.,171,16102, see; 
a 06 4: 5. BO) 180. 
By Be es a eras i, 1970 ii 1.88 1. 109,. 
ΧΙ. 1 '. ‘ag-hOSS «ἃ, 175. 1..1-10.. τς .. 12.1247, bee 
xvi. 3-7 „|. «ἢ, 2687. lan: i. 202, ; lil. 28g. 
xvi. 5-7 ἡ. ἰδ ἼΘΙ) τὸ: 325. ii. 1ff,, Ambrosi- 
xvi6 ©, . Τῆς „iiL-454, aster on... IT Bid dees 
zyL7 '. *..480G.0 271... Th, 10, a8 oe ng LAN 
ΧΙ Πρ ii ; OEP 1 269,. αν τον eee 
xvi. 17 {{ : 81} ἢ 260, 269;. ΠΡΟΣ ΠΟ ΤῚΣ 


xvi.22 . ool) 4,13, 288, 808 fyg* || ME 7-9 ee 2,208. 
1:9 „Ne. cite ὉΠ} 


1. 10 i. 2007. 
9 CORINTHIANS. TVs loa i. 165, 1715, 181. 

Na. i. 1725, 180. 
1, 3-12 i. 316 ἔκ. ΟΝ =, foment: 2 pc ee 
1. SH awe Mere 72.309, 318,. er ee en 
1. 128. 2 ope - 9: 321, 34365; vy. ll. i, 181% 
Bug; ‚Sid Ὁ 548 1... vi. 11 i. 170, 172,. 
1. 17-20. . .. 4.5910 vi. 17 i. 195, 199. 
1.19. ~ -. 108 :311.'8930,. 
ii. 3 ff. i. 330 ff, 345 ff.;. 
ii. 5ff i. 347 ff... EPHESIANS. 
HD ov Δ Ve +; SRE Ba FE; 11 PET, 10S! ih, 4g MB 
ἢ 22-16 he: 5175. 
v. 16. ν᾿ . 1. 8005. i. 1, TextofJerome 1. 482, 488 f.,. 
vi. 14-vii. 1 i. 349 f.,. i. 1, Text of Mar- 
vi. 16 oad tk, fh 2965. cion date i. 481. 
vii.7-12 . «Ὁ Ἢ, 3361. i. 1, Text of Origen i. 482, 488 f.,. 
vii. 11 f. i. 336, 348,. i. 1, Text of Ter- 
viii. 1-5 1. 320,. tullian . . i. 481 f., 488,. 
viii. 6 i. 345,. i. 1, Witness of 
viii. 10 . i. 318 ἔς. MSS. . 1.00} 4, 482, 
viii. 18 . ii. 385, ; iii. 6f.g. Ὧν ig RRM ac Pee 5!) 
X.—xiil. . i, 8191...) 338 ff. ii. 11-22 ow 11. 186j. 
x.1-11. i, 3801. 111. 8-8΄. al ἀπ ΟΝ 
x. Pi i, 294, 301 f.o. εἰν, BD Seats 
xi. 4. i, 30: Bf. 13° iv. 110. 74%) Ce AY BOO, 
xi. Sf, i, 257, vi GF. ‘Pr A 0 Ge 


INDEX 


PHITIPPIANS. 
I. i. 526, 534 fis. 
i. 12 ff. . i. 537, 54Lf. 
1188 ἘΠ 41, 551 ff... 
1% LA, 1. 542 ἣν 
2,14-18 1. 543 f., 548. 
i. 15-18 1. 557 £. 
17198 i. 554,. 
i. 19-26 1. 5444, 
i. 20 . i. 546, 5554. 
1. 25 1. 1. 545f., 554 f.,. 
DR. 308, 118. 6565). 
ü. 65.11..... 1098 τὰς 557. 
ii. 14-18 i. 536,, 546. 
11. 19-24 1. 546 1. 
li. 19-23 11. 66. 
ul, . . 2.1. 525, 530, 5353. 
113. 3 ths i. 538%... 
iii. 18£.. 1. 5395. 
iv. 2. i. 529, 537,, 559, 
561 f.,. 
iv. 15 i. 257, 534,. 
τίν», ΟΣ N. 584. 
iv 16... : MEiE 19. 
iv. 22. „DE da, δρΌ: 1. 
COLOSSIANS. 
i 0% 1. 449 f.,. 
1. 14-23 1. 467. 
1.95. i. 461, 471} 
ii. 1-5 i. 462, 472,. 
ii. 10-15 1: datt. 
ii. 11 ii. 382, 
ii. 16 ᾿ς AND. 
ii. 18 ff. i. 468 f 
ii. 18. 1. 475¢. 
ii. 20. i. 418. 
ii. 28. i. 468 f., 478, 
BL 1-17 1. 469 £. 
ὅτι 11 11.1152, 
iii. 16 ii. 371, 378,. 
maB=iv: 6°. 570. 
moe λον AN ἃ. 439, 446.. 
iv. 10 li. 428, 431, 601 ἢ. 
Ivo FL. . L 45, ; 10.374. 
iv. 10-14 nisi A. 
iv. 14 ii. 1f. 
iv. 15 i. 455). 
wald-1I7 . „BI 2. 499; 
ived6 . . ..,80 479,486, AUT; ; 
li. 985 D5: 
iv. 17 1. 446 f.,. 
1 THESSALONIANS, 
were. i, 197-8, 205 f. 
ἘΠΊ. i. 248 f.,. 


531 


1 THESSALONTANS—continued. 


oie 1 ie 
108: 
IVO. 
ΠΕ. 
15 


i. 205, 210,. 

i. 218, 2221... 

in 388, 

i. 221, 2235. 

i. 221, 223,5 ii, 
382,. 

ii. 382 ἢ. 


2 THESSALONIANS. 


rie: a 
1.5-10 . 
ie octane 


li. 3-12, Relation 


Mer 


. 24154. 

1. 253 f.43. 
i. 226 ff, 
242 f. 


234, 


to Nero Legend 1. 246f., 250 f.,. 
iit, 1. 226, 235s. 
i. 6f. 1. 229f., 238 ἢ. 
epee i. 229, 2365. 
ii. 14 f, . i. 232, 242,19. 
iii, 17 i, 231, 241,,, 242 f,, 
245, 
1 Tımoray. 
Mar. i. 27. £., 38. 
i. 3, Hug on 1]. 801. 425. 
i. SR ll. 395. 
1. 8-11 11. 105. 
i. 20 ii. 22,, 42,, 108. 
τι 1 ii. 32, 39 11... 
Te 13. is | nears 
u. 8 ff. ii. 404. 
Lutte Lig. ii. 1246. 
ii. 1-13 ii. 32f., 91. 
TURM ei ii. 95 
ri 21192. Patristie 
and modern i in- 
terpretations of 11. 125 f.,.- 
ii. 11 li. 94. 
egy Fie ii. 39,. 
iii. 16 Li. 131). 
iv. 1. ii. 260,0. 
ιν. 1 {ἢ ΠΣ ΠΣ 
iv. 13 ii. 385,. 
rin lb 11. 98. 
v. 3-16. li. 94. 
v. 18, ii. 119, 382,. 
SH, ii. 39,, 371, 378). 
vi. 3-10, ii. 101, 107 £. 
vi. 20 li. 130),. 
vi. 21 li. 42,, 107 f. 
2 TIMOTHY. 
1.45 il. 224. 
i. 6 ii. 98, 


532 
2 TrmotHy—continued. 
ἘΠῚ. ii. 1f., 19 f.,. 
ii. 17 ii. 215, 108f., 117, 
129,,. 
ine —5 11. 1191. 
iii. 6-19 é li. 114f. 
iv. 3. a8. im LIZ, lief. 
iv. 4. τ τ Se 
iv.7. " li. OF. 
iv. 10 3 i. 186,, .41619; il. 
11f, 25f.g, 48. 
iv. EDI. ii. 430, 431. 
iv. 1-13 11.2371. 
iv. 12 ff. nu. 15 ff. 
iv. 14f. . ii. 16f., 21 Ἐς, 42,. 
iv. 16f.. ii. 6-14, 18 f., 23 ἔς. 
iv. 17 ii. 11 f. 
iv. 20 ii. 14f., 969. 
iv. 21 ii. 20 fig. 
iv. 22 11. 42,. 
Tıros. 
15,5 ii. 46f., 124f.,. 
1. 5-9 li. 67}. 
Ta) sc. owe a ODE 
i. 6, Patristie and 
modern inter- 
pretations of li. 125£.10. 
1, 91% 11. 100. 
1. 10-16 li. 44 ff. 
i.12. i. 52 ; ji. 44, 52). 
1. 14-16 li. 1051. 
τς 8. Ὁ 11. 45. 
111. 191 i. 48 I, 53 f.g,4- 
iii. 12 11. 454. 
111. 15 li. 45. 
PHILEMON. 
lf. i. 452, 455. 
2. i. 4551. 
5-7 i. 454, 455,. 
ee i. 4555. 
9. i. 4675. 
11 i. 456, 
18. i. 456,. 
20 i. 456,. 
Qi. i. 442, 444, 550. 
23 ἢ, . i. 440 f., 450 ἢ, 
24 ) i. 442, 451,; ii. 
601 ; iii. If. 
Hrprews. 
lal. 4 ii. 324, 338,. 
ii. 83, ii. 315. 


HEBREWS—continnued. 


rhb 33 Py ii. 347, 352, 364,5. 

TR ii. 320 ff., 3375: 

lui. 9 li, 320f.,. 328if,, 
351. 

Wi. 15-iv. 11 li. 322 £. 

Van ἢ 11. 362,4, 380% 

v.12. ii. 319, 339,0, 350. 

vi. 1 i. 325f, 1.338, 
9990. 

vi. 4-8 li. 302, 303. 

vi. 10 i. 317, 3365. 

vil. 27 11. 361 fi. 

1x. a 1. 363 Te 

7X AGitte ii. 340 f.;5. 

IX, 14 il. 326 i; 339.10 

x. UT li. 362. 

X. 25 ii. 339 f.,,, 348 f. 

830%: ii. 36515. 

χρ 99 ff. li. 347. 

χ. 99... 94 ii. 317 ff, 336 f.,. 

σι, li. 304, 312,4. 

xe 14-16: u. 140. 

ΧΗ τς : li. 318. 

xii. 13 ii. 86145. 

ΧΙ]. 22 u. 33910- 

ΧΙ]. 4 1. 333. 

ΧΙ]. 7 ii. 316, 319, 320, 
347. 

x. 1-25 li. 297. 

xili. 8 li. 3365. 

xa, I § il. 331, 340,». 

xiii. 10-16 . ii. 324 f., 331, 3389. 

ἘΠῚ. Ὁ Le 11. 359 ἢ. 

ΧΙ 17 Τὶ ii. 316, 335 fig. 

x15 18-94 . li. 304, 

ΣΧ Ὁ 5 Ὁ ‘Weer “Lolo. 

xiii. 23, Interpre- 

tation of Baur 1]. 360; . 
ΧΙ. 24. 11. 345, 350, 358g. 
JAMES. 

al i, 74£, 78 £4, 795 
79,, 98, 100, 
150;. 

i. 9 ff. i. 86, 98;. 

12). 7. 129. 

1, Wit i. 118,. 

2.18,. i. 149 

i. 20 f. i. 962. 

i. 261. i. 975. 

li. 1 ff. 1. 87 f. 

i 3; i. 151). 

15 0, i. 83, 94,. 

ii 5 . i. 99,, 116). 

aay ἃ] i. 995. 


il. 


wa 


14-26 


INDEX 


James—continued. 
1.199, 124, 130}, 


1491... 


i, 97. 
i. 190. 

i. 91. 

i. 95 fig. 
i. 87. 

i. 1209. 


11. 


48δρ. 


TR 


i. 122. 


1 PETER. 


i. 


il. 
il. 


ii, 134, 
151 ΠΣ 


1853 H 
146, 
154 f.,. 
147 ἢ 156,0. 
186,. 


i. 1335. 


11. 
li. 
. 144, 187,. 
. 186,. 

. 139 ff. 


147, 156,.- 
146. 


188,. 
186 ἢ... 


i. 1884. 

. 142 f. 

. 139 ff. 

. 181, 189. 
sl 


187,. 
144, 154,. 
187,. 


. 184, 191,. 
. 2895. 

i. 9899. 

i. 188,. 

i. 186,. 

. 179 ff. 


180 ff, 189 - 
1945.19, 190 fig. 
1468. 


.141. 
ii. 146 f. 
ii. 158 f., 179 ff. 


145, 149, 
157 της, 174 £. 


ii. 148. 
i. 148, 1571, 158 ff, 


162,-1734, | 427, 
431, 445,, 450,0 
601. 


533 
1 PRTER—continued. 
v. 13, Clement of 
Alex. on. 11. 4485. 
ve 14 li. 135. 
2 PETER. 
ΤΊ Se SEE ails py, 19% . one; 
EL, 9: 
sr ii. 207, 220 8.10. 
To bay rhe, ΟΝ 
i one ii. 222 f., 232. 
i. 12 f. ii, 199%, 211 ffs, 
221. 
i. 14. ii. 169, 212 ff... 
£15’. ü. 200, 215,, 272 f., 
2865. 
1, 16-18. li. 200 ff... 204 if. 
215 ff.,, 223, 274. 
li. 1-111. 4. 10250: 
li. 1 f., interpreta- 
tion of Spitta . ii. 233 f.,. 
1. .„ Brass 991. 
ii, 1-3 ii, 224, 232 f.,. 
HOA li, 229 f. 
4 : ii. 225, 288 f... 
105. 11. 289,. 
ii. 10 f. li. 225. 
li. 10-22 li. 229. 
13. ii, 211,, 229, 235 f.,, 
299. 
ii. 13 f. ii, 225, 235 1... 
ii. 15. ii, 225, 291,4 
1. 16. ii. 29134. 
ii. 18. ii. 225, 229, 
li. 20-22 ii. 232,. 
111: Is. 11. 195 Tes 199, 202, 
210f.,,211,,271f. 
iii. 2 ii, 204 f., 218,. 
li. 3. 11. 251 f, 
iii. 3 f. li. 196, 226, 230, 
236.4 
iis At, DU, S08 flit) er, 238, 
iii. 4, view of Spitta ii. 236 ff.,. 
ii. 15 120% OPS, ΠῚ .909. 
iii. 16 £. ii, 198f, 211, 
274 ff., 990,0. 
ii. 16 . 1.977,90 
11.10.17 li. 227 ff. 
1 JoHn. 
i.1 i iii, 314f, 329, 
373,. 
1. 1-3 ili. 344. 
i. 14 111. 356-361, 3709, 5. 
119 14 5 iii, 3739. 


534 
1 Jonn—continued. 

ii. 1 iii. 3735. 

ii. 14. ili. 360, 370 fg 

ii. 18 ff. iii. 363, 371,. 

IMD. 5 ἘΠῚ ΡΣ. 2. 

iii. 12-15 li, 257,. 

iv. 3 lil. 365, 371 f.,. 

iv. 5 111. 3735. 

iv. 6 ili. 377. 

iv. 9.. iii. 590. 

iv. 14-16 iii. 3703. 

v. δ ff iii. 365 f., 3727. 

v. 6 ff. I. ir i380, 

vite Uy 111. 3727. 

v.21... iii. 356, 363. 

2 JOHN. 

Lx N iiso148, 157.15. in 
379 f., 383;. 

Bre ili. 379.£., 3833. 

7 ff. ili. 364 £., 372,- 

Si; iii. 3845. 

11. ii. 373s. 

19: iii. 370,, 378. 

B.. 238 ii. 148, 1671. 

3 JOHN. 

9 ff. Lily 970 tint) pelo, 
at eee 

12. 131 347% 

JUDE. 

gi ii. 238 f., 256,, 268. 

ah ii, 241f., 256 ἢ; 
269, 286, ς. 

3, Spitta’s inter- 

pretation of li. 286,. 

| et re ey, ii. 241 f., 247, 248 ff., 
257 ,,259f.4,26041, 
265 f., 285 f.,. 

5 x ii. 252 ff., 260 Πα: 


δ, text of 4 ake. 
Sate ee ee 
8-16, varying in- 
terpretations of 
9, relation to the 
“ Assumption 
of Moses” . 


ll. 
12. 
14 f., text of 


14f., relation to 
Book of Enoch 


ii. 260 f.,0. 
ii. 246, 292, 5. 


11, 292] 5- 


ii, 288,. 
ii, 244f, 2468, 
257 f.5, 291,4- 

ii. 211,, 235,, 243, 

245f., 257,, 258,. 
ii. 286 fy. 


ii, 286 fy. 


JupE—continued. 


161 li. 246. 

17. ii. 239, 250 f., 265 f, 
285 fs. 

18. . ἢ, 251, 26019. 

Ike)E, E58 li. 244, 258,, 279. 

21-23 ii. 248, 258 fig. 

ZS. = say lope Ms BAG? 

24f., relation to 

Rom. xvi. 25-27 ii. 2915. 
REVELATION. 

ie kts li. 378,; iii. 384, 
391, 402,, 403 f.,. 

1. Sli, 22. . rw peli. (434. 

148 =. « (lig SBB,. 

eg. 11. 4857. 

i. dh. iii. 391 f., 403 8.5. 

iad fe. iii: 354,,, 389, 444. 

i. 9 οι iii. 408 f,, 420). 

ry LOE 11. 402). 

i. ls iii. 391, 404,. 

U. iii. 430, 434,. 

i: 19); iii. 392, 404,, 422,. 

1.90. iii. 413 f., 422 fig. 

ΠΝ ς iii. 423,. 

ii. 2-6 ii. 292 5. 

ii. 2, 6 iii, 419, 42719. 

li. 8 ff. li, 416 f., 4265. 

ii. 12-17 iii. 410, 4205. 

ii. 131. iii, 491.. 

i. 14. li. 2355, 2916,45 
iii, 163,0, 417 f. 

li. 20 ii. 292,5 ; ii. 168,4, 
416, 418, 423 fi, 

ii. 23 111. 424,. 

11. 24. ii, :163; AUTE, 
426 ἢ 11. 

iii, 1. iii. 416, 425 f.g. 

iii. 14 iii. 316, 329 f.g. 

iv. ΠῚ, 111. 392 f., 402), 404,. 

v. 1 iii, 393, 405 fy. 

vi. 1-17 111. 395. 

vi. 9 ff. 111. 409, 

vii. 1-17 111. 396 f. 

viii. 1 „IQ iii. 395 fl. 

Vili, 2-ix. 21-4 iii. 397 ἢ, 

zui4. , iii. 398, 405g. 

x. LE iii. 20214 

xi. 1 ff ili. 398 f. 

ΧΙ. 1-18 111. 438 f. 

xi.8. . . 881 iii, 398, 4065. 

xi. 19-xiv. 20. 111. 399 ἢ, 

xiii. 1 fF iii. 439 ff., 446,. 


iii. 182, 436, 444, 
447. 


INDEX 


REVELATION—continued. 
xiv. 6 li. 373. 
παρ Ξἥτειν, δὺς, TOIT: 
Ὧν 1: νυν, 17..... ἡ 400 
xvii. 1-xvii. 24 . ii. 400. 
Ἐν]. θ᾽ ὦ we ἢ απ" 410: 


xvü. ΒΝ I a. “1 436, 9 441i, 
446... 

xviii. 20.10 457,8 in: 16545 1012403, 
410, 

IV am, oO: 


535 


REVELATION—continued. 
IR 10. πο ar S76! 
zix. 1116.40... ὙΠῸ 31029. 
xix. 1]—xxi. 18 ©. ° 111.400. 
BA. BAHT 
xxl. 2 τ = 5 . il. 406 {τ 
xxi. 8xxi.5. . im. 400f. 
xxi. 103 oh oe . iil. 406 f.10- 


απ 14 Se Sain ASO, 
xxil. 12-16. . . 1. 408,. 
XxiL 21 . 111. 4034. 


B.—OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES. 


GENESIS. 
iv. 7 Ä > ΝΜ x li. 2575. 
Vv. 1 = . > > A il. 5689. 
LEVITICUS. 
x1%.%12; 36. 11659575. 
PSALMS. 


xev. 7b-11. li. 320 f., 337,. 


ISAIAH. 
vii. 14 11. 537. 
Vill. 23-1. 11. 541. 

HosEA. 


Le |. ehr Jin: Ga dual, 


BARNABAS. 


iv. 14 ii. 526 f.,. 


C.—GREEK WORDS. 


(The words found in this Index unaccented follow the form of the words adopted 
by Dr. Zahn in the text of his book, and represent simple transliterations 


from the Hebrew and Aramaic.) 


aßßa, i. 165, 48 f. 

ἀγαπᾶν, 111. 2279, 249,, 289s. 

ἀγάπη, ii. 211,, 229, 235, ; iti. 289g. 
ἀγαπητός, 111. 3263, 356. 

ἀγγαρεύειν, 1. 66,1: 

ἄγγελος, iii. 1334, 402,, 413-417, 4228... 
ἅγιοι, οἱ, i. 455,, 506f. ; ii. 2575, 3363. 
ayipas, 1. 2612. 

ἀδικεῖν, i. 349,. 

"Aöpias, iii. 13859. 

ἄζυμα, ii. 296 8.17. 

ἄθεσμος, li. 228, 

αἵρεσις, ii. 232 fo. 

αἱρετικοί, ii. 100, 

αἰῶνες, i. 498, 516 f.,. 

Ακελδαμα, i. 28,5. 

ἀληθινός, 111. 218. 

αλληλουΐα, 1. 12. 


ἄλλος, 11. 277, 2902. 
ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος, li. 1909. 
ἀμαθής, li. 228 f. 

ἀμαθία, i. 229. 

αμην, i. 13, 18, ; iii. 13615, 316, 329 £.g. 
avaßaiveıv, 111. 302. 

ἀνάγνωσις, li. 3855. 
ἀναγράφειν, ill. 31. 
ἀνθρώπινος, li. 188,. 
ἄνθρωποι, 11. 613 f.,. 

Avvas, 1. 173. 

ἀνομία, 1. 229, 240,, 251. 

avds (adj. ending), ii. 193. 
ἀντίδικος, 1. 64,1. 

ἀντίθεος, i. 226, 228, 2525. 
avrixpıoros,, i. 227 ff., 2409. 
ἄνωθεν, ji. 170, 214, ; iii. 52f. 
ἅπαξ, li. 256s, 260; 2- 


536 


ἀπεκδύεσθαι, i. 474,, 5215. 
ἀπό, 1.605 ; 11.358, 3844; iii, 29,, 4355. 
with gen,, ii, 578. 

ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, iil. 46 f,, 84,. 

ἀποδιορίζειν, ii, 258,. 

᾿Απολλῶς, i. 270} o. 

ἀπολογία, i. 540. 

ἀπόστολος, ἀποστολή, i. 210ς;: 384, 
3701.,, 505f., 507 ; ii. 206f,, 290,,, 
386 1. ; iii, 78 f., 226 fo. 

ἀρετή, li. 2899. 

ἀρχή, ἀρχαί, i. 457 ff. ; iii. 162,. 

acapda, 1. 264. 

ἀσσάριον, i. 41, 6643. 

dornpırros, ii. 228. 

ἄτοπος, iii. 161,. 

αὐλή, ΠΕ δ04,. 

αὐτήκοος, ii. 439. 

αὐτόπτης, li. 439; iii. 46 f., 82,, 84,, 
180. 

ἀφέωνται, ii. 612). 

ἀφωρισμένος, i. 6815; ii. 258... 


Βαραββας, i. 30 f.¢. 

βάρβαρος, 1. 2615, 59; ; iii. 139,0. 
Βαρθολομαῖος, i. 31jg- 

Bapıwva, 1. 17. 

βάρος, i. 5167. 

Bapvaßas, i. 315. 

Βαρσαβας, 1. 314. 

βασανίζεσθαι, iii. 1605. 

βασιλεία τ. οὐρανῶν, ἡ, 11. 539 f., 568, 10. 
βασιλεῖς, ii. 130 8.19. 

βάτος (Badovs), 111. 136. 
Βεελζεβουλ, 1. 195. 

βελόνη, Ui. 162. 

Βηθεσδα, 1. 2815; iii. 3568. 
Bn@dbayn, 1. 29,5. 

βιβλίον, 111. 393 f., 405 ἔν, g. 
Boavnpyes, i. 163. 

Βοσορ, il. 2924 4. 


Γαββαθα, re 28) 5. 

Γαλατία, TaAXia, i. 174 ff., 188f.; 11. 251.;. 
Γαλατικὴ χώρα, ἡ, i. 187 ff... 

yeevva, 1. 19, ; ii. 488, 

Γεθσημανει, i. 29,5. 

γειώρας, i. 30, 67,3 ; 11, 163... 
γενεαλογία, ii. 103 ff., 128 ἢν,» 562... 
γένεσις, γέννησις, li. 531 f., 562). 
Γεννησάρ, ἡ, ii. 333,,. 

γνωστός, lil. 951 7. 

Γολγοθα, i. 391. 

γράμματα, γραφή, ii. 277, 2390... 
γράφειν διά τινος, il. 15712. 


γράφω, ἔγραψα, 1..172f.,, 345f.,; ii. 


39, ; 111, 238 f., 8701... 


INDEX 


Δαλματία, i. 186,. 

δέειν, 11. 569,0, 578. 

δεικνύναι, iii. 402). 

Δεκάπολις, ἡ, 1. 88. 

δεσπότης, li. 234 f.,. 

δηνάριον, i. 41, 65,1 ; 11. 503,. 

διά, with ace., i. 437, ; iii. 420. 
with gen., iii. 372,. 

διὰ μέσον, 111, 900, 

διάβολος, ὁ, i. 195, 520 ; iii. 196. 

διαθήκη, i. 41, 6511. 

διακονεῖν, ii. 6135. 

διάκονος, 11. 91 f., 128 f.,. 

διάλεκτος, 1. 2713, 54 1. 

διασπορά, i. 807, 82, ; ii. 140f., 153 f.,. 

διδασκαλία, 11. 133, 

διδάσκαλος, i. 116,. 

διδαχή, 1. 116, ; ii. 138. 

δικαιοσύνη, ii. 699 0. 

δοκίμιος, τὸ δοκίμιον, i. 1335 ; li. 1865. 

δύναμις, ii. 21ὅς. 

δυσεντέριον, iii. 161. 


Ἑβραῖος, i. 48 ff., 595, 608.9, 67143 il 
296 f., 3074, 359;. 

ἑβραΐζειν, ἑβραϊστί, ἑβραῖς διάλεκτος, i. 
ἘΠ if. 26 ἔπ ἢ ll. 5254. 

ἐγκαταλείπειν, il. 339,1. 

ἐθελοθρησκεία, i. 478,. 

ἔθνος, τ 6815; 354 f;, 370 be 

ei (oath), ii. 502,. 

ex, gen. partitive, iii. 284,, 353,4, 435,. 

ὼ ἐκεῖνος," ill. 219 Te 228 fis. 16° 

ἐκκλησία, 1. 297, ; 11. 550; iii. 30,; in 
Paul’s Epistles, i. 504 f. 

ἐκλεκτή, li. 15744. 

ἐκλεκτός, ἐκλέγεσθαι, ii. 1534 5, 1573) 3 
iii, 227, 284y. 

Ἕλλην, ἕλληνίς, ἑλληνικός, i. 24,, 36, 
58,, 373 f.4. 

ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος, ἡ, 1. 54-57. 

Ἑλληνιστής, i. 60 f.g, 71 fg). 

ἐνέστηκεν, 1. 2352. 

ἔξοδος, li. 2155, 398 f.7. 

ἑορτή, ἡ, 111. 285 f.4, 476. 

ἐπιδημεῖν, 1. 61g. 

ἐπιούσιος, li. 594. 

ἐπίσκοπος, ii. 32, 9OfE., 123 f.4, 124, ; 
111, 416 f., 422 f.,. 

ἐπιστάτης, ili. 38,9, 69, 1369. 

ἐπιστρέφειν, ii. 154g. 


emiovvayoyn, i. 2364, 255; ii. 840}; 
347, 350. 

ἐπιφάνεια, i. 255 ; 11. 133, 215,. 

ἐπιχειρεῖν, lil, 297, 44, 82 ἔν, 4 " 

ἔργα, interchanging with τέκνα, ü 


10° 


INDEX 


ἔργα νεκρά, li. 326, 3390. 

ἑρμηνεύειν, 11.511] ff. 

ἑρμηνευτής, ii. 394, 442 f., 45115, 454 ἴ.1.- 
ἔρχεσθαι, li. 505, 589, ; ill. 372 
ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν (meaning), 11. 1961. .12» 
ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι--- 

in Pastoral Epistles, ii. 126,,. 

Origin, ii. 117. 

Patristic application of references in 

Pauline Epistles, ii. 128) ,. 

Relation to Judaisers, 11. 116. 

Relation to Ebionism, 11. 116. 

Relation to Petrine Party, ii. 116. 

Relation to Jewish teachers in Col- 

ossee, li. 116. 
Relation to Mareion’s teaching, ii. 
118. 
Relation to Jewish teachers in Igna- 
tius, 11. 116. 
ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες, 11. 96 f., 101 ff. 
ἕτερος, 11. 277, 29019. 
εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, i. 165, 1715, 3723 ; 1]. 
οὐ σῆμα 
εὐαγγέλιον, i. 507; ii. 373, 538ῦ;, 
386 ff., 457, 461, 481, 5; iii. 166, 
3735. 

N.T. usage of term, ii. 4815. 
εὐαγγέλιον κατά τινα, li. 386 ff., 396 £.1-3. 
εὐαγγέλιον τ. Χριστοῦ, 11. 370 f., 377 1... 

456 ff. 
εὐαγγελιστής, 1. 507 £. ; ii. 30 ; 111. 20049. 
εὐθύς, li. 482, ; 111. 135y0. 
εὐλαβής, 1. 613. 
eppada, 1. 15s. 


ζηλωτής, 11. 578 ; iil. 77, 92og. 
Ζωτικός, 111. 426,. 


ἡγούμενος, Ul. 70, 316, 347, 350. 
nrer= doi, 1. 15. 


θάλασσα-ε:λίμνη, 111. 136,5, 249), 333... 

θέλειν ἔν τινι, 1. 4177. 

θηρίον, iii. 161. 

θρησκεία, θρησκός, 1. 973,4, 1311, 468 f., 
477 1.1. 

θυμιατήριον, 11. 363. 

θυρεός, 1. 519. 


ιᾶνός, adj. ending, ii. 193 f. 
ἴδιος, iii. 2255. 
ἰδιώτης, 1. 259. 


Ἱερουσαλήμ (Ἱεροσόλυμα), i. 2955 11. 


Ἢ 
Ἰησοῦς, 75 451,; li. 260 f. 12> DDD, 56944, 
576 f., 592, ; tik. Ylgı, 371g, 4345. 
Ἰουδαία, i. 1864. 


537 


*Tovdatos, i. 60f., ; 11. 561. 
in Fourth Gospel, iii. 340 f., 354; 2. 
usage and meaning, ii. 306 f.,. 
Ἰσκαριώτης (Ἰσκαριώθ), 111. 35144. 
’Ioav(v)ns, 1. 175; iii. 227,1, 2505, 433; 
Ιωσηφ, loons, Ivonx, i. 2815, 296. 


καθαρισμύς, ii. 232). 
καθίζειν, 111. 3528.13. 
καθιστορεῖν, 1 lil. Te: 
kai, li. 5025, 576, 591 f.,, (ΘΙ 5"; 111; 
959... 
κακοποιύς, li. 181 f., 189 f.g. 
καλός, li. 132. 
Kavavatos, 1. 3217 ; ii. 578. 
Kavavirns, 11. 578. 
καταβραβεύειν, 1. 472,, 5189. 
καταλείπειν, 11. 340 
κατέχον, κατέχων, 
250 f.,. 
κατήγωρ, 1. 64,1. 
Karnyeiv, 111. 42f., 82,. 
κατοικεῖν, κατοικία, 1. ΟἿς ; 11. 1534. 
κεντυρίων, li. 5034; 111. 136. 
κῆνσος, 1. 66), ; U. 5034. 
Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, 1. 475¢. 
Κηφας, 1. 16, ; ii. 155g. 
κλῆσις, 1. 2641). 
κοδράντης, 1. 41, 6611; ii. 5603, ; iii, 
1361. 
κοινή, 1), 1. 84. 
κολοβοδάκτυλος, U. 4454. 
κορβαν, kopßaväs, i. 163; 11. 577. 
κράββατος, li. 5034. 
κράτιστος, li. 6;,. 42, 81. 
κυρία, di. 379, 382 fi. 
κυριακὴ ἡμέρα, ἡ, 111. 426,0. 
κύριε, 1. 41, 651- 
κύριος, 002121508 
in 1 and 2 Thess. „1. 25444 
in John, iii. 91,1, 249). 
in Jude, ii. 253, 260 f.49. 
in Mark, 11. 476, 4865. 
in Rev., iii. 4343. 


is 
i. 229 £., 2365, 238 fig, 


Aa¢apos, 1. 30, ¢. 

λαλιά, 1. 2745. 

λαμπρότατος, 111. 6;. 

λαός, 6= Israel, ii. 143, 253 f., 545. 
λατρεία, λατρεύειν, ii. 326, 339. 
λεγεών, 1. 41, 66). 

λεγιών, 11. 508,. 

λεπτόν, re 66,1. 

Außeprivon, 1. 60%. 

λόγια, 11. 525,, 579. 

λόγια ra, 11. 509 ff 

λογίζομαι, i. 5167. 


538 


Aoyırös, li. 1874. 

λόγος, ke 234, ; iti, 312-321, 327 ἢ ες. 
431, 4345. 

λόγος τοῦ κυρίου, li. 378 1.3. 

λοιπός, li. 277, 29073. 

λουσαμένη, 11. ᾿282.. 

λύειν, 11. 569,0, 578. 


μαθηταί, iii. 2969. 

μαμωνας, i. 18; ; iii. 135 £.11, 12- 

μαραναθα, i. 13, 303 ff.1>- 

Mapa, 1. 3016. 

Μαριαμ, i. 901. 

μαρτυρεῖν, papmipia, μάρτυς, li. 70, 1559 ; 
li. 20507, 22814, 239f., 435;- 

μαρτύριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 11. 5711. 2- 

Mardavos, ii. 5241, 3- 

Ματθιας, ii. 524 f.;. 

Μεσσιας, i, 205 ; lili. 3265. 

μονογενής, iii. 5101. , 3265. 

μῦθοι, ii. 103 ff., 1281. “15° 

μυστήριον, 1. 229, 2365, 413,7 ; iii. 4225, 
4474. 


μωρός, i. 17f. 


Ναθαναηλ, i. 314g 5 ii. 524, ; iil. 225¢. 
vai, 111. 330g. 

νεκρός, 11. 326, 33949. 

νομικός, U. 544, 103. 

νομοδιδάσκαλοι, li. 103, 130. 


ξένος, ll. 139. 
ξέστης, li. 5034. 


οἰκονομία, οἰκονόμος (θεοῦ), 1. 471, 5 ii 


3 
οἰκουμένη, ὃ, iii, 130 f.5. 
ὀνειδίζεσθαι, ii. 190,. 
ὄνομα, iii. 381... 426;. 
οὖν, in John, iii. 2855. 
ὄχλος, 111, 3öljo- 
ὀψώνια, i. 375s. 


παῖδες, li. 594,9. 
πάλαι, li. 252, 260, ,- 
πανδοκεῖον, πανδοκεύς, i. 41, 654). 
as μιν ii. 40. ID II 
ἄν" ἐν τ παράδοσις, 1. 384,5; Mi. 
4g. 
ΠΤ μων 41, 64,1; iil. 3735. 
παρακολουθεῖν, ii. 455 ; iii. 64, 854. 
παραλυτικύς, ili. 161,. 
παραμένειν, i. 555,. 
παρασκευή, 11, 488 ; 
παραχρῆμα, iil. 161,. 
παρεπίδημος, ll. 130 ΠῚ, 
πάροικος, EL, 1, Ol, 


ili. 295 f. 


152... 152%... 
82; ii. 


139 Mf, 


INDEX 


παρουσία, li. 2155. 

πασχα, i, 193; iii. 282 f. » 296 ff. 
πάσχειν, li. 190,. 

Παῦλος, ii. 140... 

πέραν τ. Ἰορδάνου, ii. 572 £., 577, 5894. 
περιπατεῖν, ii. 332, 340,5; 11]. 32 χὰ: 


περιτομῆς, οἱ ἐκ, usage Of term, ii, 3074. 

Πέτρος, ii. 219 f. 

πλάνη, ii. 247, 258,. 

πλήν, iil. 164} . 

πληροφορεῖν, ili. 45, 50, 83 f.,. 

πλήρωμα, i. 4971. διδ fig. 

πνεῦμα, 1. 207, 234, ; 3) δ΄. “110: m 
402, 


ποιμήν, 1. 520; 11. 1245. 

πολιτεία, an, 1. 520. 

πολιτάρχης, 1. 2114. «- 

πορθεῖν, 111. 14053. 

πραιτώριον, 1. 541 f., 551 ff, ; 11. 503f.,. 

πρᾶξις, πράξεις, 11. 526, ; ii. 3), 8715. 

πρεσβύτερος, li. 235, 33, 91f., 124 fige ; 
ii. 146f., 436 ff, 452,5 ; iii. 380. 

πρεσβύτερο:, 6, in 1 "John, ili. 184, 185. 

πρεσβύτεροι, ol, in Clement of Alex., 
iii. 178, 197,. 

in Irenzus, iii. 175, 178. 

πρεσβύτης, 1. 457¢. 

προπέμπειν, 1. 488ς ; li. 54,. 

προσδοκᾶν, iii. 161. 

προσευχή, 1. 523, 534). 

πρόσκλισις, 1. 298,. 

προφήτης, niet toe: 1. 116,, 207,, 505f. ; 
iii. 385 ff., 402 

πρῶτος, -ov, πρότερος, i. 372f,,, 582; ; 
li. 22, ; 111, 61, 88,6, 13955, 224 ἔς. 

πτωχός, 1. 1484. 


mveunarikds, i 297, ; ; ἢ, 258,, 279. | 
| 
| 


ραββι, ραββουνι, 1. 205 ; ἢ, 155g. 
ρακα, 1. 173. 
paxa, il. 577. 


σάββατον, -Ta, L 193, 3116: 
=week, i 1. 212; ; iii. 1360. 
pia and πρώτη σ΄; ii. AT5E. 

a. Bevrepenpieroy, iii. 168, 

σαίνειν, 1, 2229, 

σαμβαθεῖον, i iii. 425,. 

oaravas, 1. 183, 520, 

Σαῦλος, ill. 14035. 

σεβόμενος, i. 61x, 213,. 

σημαίνειν, 111. 4g, 402). 

σημεῖον, lil, 233, 804 ff, 325 f.,. 

σίκερα, ili. 136... 

Σικιμα, Συχεμ, 1. 30,5; ili. 35144. 

Σίλας (Σιλονανός), 1. 31 10. 907. 

i, 99. 


ε , 
Σιλωάμ, 


Σίμων, Συμεών, i. 29 ἢ )ς ; ii. 219,. 
σινδών, li. 491. 

σκηνοῦν, ill. 298... 

σπεῖρα ᾿Ιταλική, Σεβαστή, i. 605. 
σπεκουλάτωρ, li. 803... 

σπιλάς (σπῖλος), ii. 258,. 
στοιχεῖα, τὰ, i. 473f.,. 
στρατοπεδάρχης, i. 552. 
συγγενής, rf 417 figs; 111]. 231. 
συκάμινος, συκομορέα, iii. 1625. 
συλλαμβάνεσθαί τινι, i. 5375. 
συμβιβάζειν, i. 4725. 

Συμεών, 11. 2195. 

Συμεὼν Πέτρος, ii. 271. 
συμπληροῦσθαι, iii. 141 fig. 
συμπρεσβύτερος, ii. 146 f. 
συναγωγή, i. 94 1.1 ; ii. 3840. 
συναιχμάλωτος, i. 418,5, 440, 451, 
συνέδριον, 1. 41, 64:1. 

Σύρος, i. 23,. 

Συροφοινίκισσα, i. 247. 
σύσσωμος, i. 520. 
συστρατιώτης, 1. 440, 4477. 
συστρέφειν, συστροφή, iil. 28,. 


ταβιθα, 1 2611 ; lil. 137... 
ταλιθα κουμ, 1. 153. 

τάξις, ii. 400,, 439, 606. 
ταπεινοφροσύνη, 1. 468 f., 477 £.. 
raxıvos, 11. 212. 

τέκνα, 11. 59445. 

τέρμα τῆς δύσεως, li. 72, 
Τιβεριάς, Ui. 324, 339... 
Fére, ii. 5918.,. 

τρῆμα, iii. 162,. 
τρόπαιον, li. 82. 

O 
AS 


INDEX 539 


ὑγιαίνειν, ὑγιής, i. 78, ; 11. 199. 
| ip ΤΣ Δ ae 
vids τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ, 111. 309 f. 


φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, iii. 282 f., 296 ff, 

Φαρισαῖος, i. 3217, 6815; 11, 258,. 

φιλεῖν, 11]. 22719, 249), 289;. 

Se hea aa 3 982. 
OPOUMEVOS, 1. Ol; 6 

φραγελλοῦν, i. 503,. 

φρονεῖν τὸ αὐτό, i. 5375. 

φωτίζεσθαι, li. 3375. 


Xaavaia= priests, i. 26)». 

χαίρειν, 1. 85, 119, ; iii. 1844. 

Xavavaia, il. 578. 

χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη, i. 1197. 

χάρισμα, i. 2975, 3752. 

χαρίσματα, i. 279 ff. 

Χερουβειν, 11. 361... 

Xpnoros, 1. 438... 

Χριστιανός, χρηστιανός, i. 21., 433,5; iu 
185, 191£.,., 617. 

Χριστός, rh 20 fg, 433, ; lil. 4345. 

χρώς, 111. 161, 

χωρεῖν, ill. 2505. 


ψευδοδιδάσκαλος, ii. 232 f.,. 
ψευδοπροφήτης, li. 232, ; iii. 403. 
ψευδόχριστος, i. 228, 238,, 2399. 
ψύχαι, ii. 2895. 

Ψυχικός, 1. 498 ; ii, 258,, 279. 


ὡς, 1. 214,; ὡς καί, ii. 234, 
oravva, 1. 9, 12, 21,, 304. 


END 


μαθηταί, Di. ZY 6: - 
wlan, ἢ Te tg 
papaonda, ἢ, TH; Bt 
MapBu, 1.0, 


Sanu. i, 30, 
aS, Noe Age wann 
τὰς τὴ . Jit Br τη κε ταν = 
Sift ‘givin 


ere. Jf era { Ina anghy 

2 dar & aves οἷ PADAGHY, 

ais Dita GFE „I wrmyvigny 

pare Hot. 52.188 fl ee 

Γ΄ SBE I „adrong 

CHA ab Ἤτον οἶνον smh 
Pe S10 ΘΙ er 

i Dp. 108 .i “abrnigh 

" AOL ‚ii POX 


ἢ 
Nabari, Ί. 8 
va ΤῊ 330, 


νεκρὴ uy I i 
one δῇ dene WERE IE agripoq nobus 
4 νομοδιδάμ m. Heäe: Jr nanrwaybbun] 


NR) and 
ξέν έν 1 139,072 „BAR it; ὅθ. Ji ἀδχίχι 
Berne Ἧ; τ ταν 


εὖ τον 
a δν TOTER ER 
A ν 
οὖν En ΜΠ ὌΝ = 
radleröcı, 11.190 
oma, τ, 38] HU. 
αὖν, in δόμα, Bi. Qty. Ν᾿ 
SyAot, Τὰ, Βδ1γ.... " 
ori, i, 3705 J N 
“αλεὲ ib DMs 
fe vor te ti ῳ sy 20%), ~ 
pomedon ὧι tu 1, ah 
Tay ry yen! a, th, 40, 
rape) ws, 


grating σι di; 


Tape, 


i, dete) ti | 


44, 84. 7 
race, i. 41, Bd, FR 
hapa © ai mdi, εἶ, 46 ἯΙ θὲ Al, 


ποραλυνις Oy, ti ΤῊΝ 
wurden, de Bin 
παρὸν noah, li, ABS iM. φῦ} ἢ, 
"op Ve = 
wipeerlänguengän, R01.) WM, ei 
. wu, [7 An. i N, Th, 4h 1801 
m 


Ὺ 


pr Ama 


Ann pi may 


=, QRSSS „ii penis 


7} uit, 033: ae 


ν diy Buren, i Tan 4 


πε τομῆς, |e 
tir por, Le | 
der ’ 


be 


| re OEE eh 


“1d ob : 


+ Ὁ 
ee page 
NEL, 


Ἷ ‘waar 
Mee My ts 
eg herd 74 ij, 75 
Tr lit ταν, ili, iM 


i [ 2. Be - 
in my iti, ἐβόγι > ΟὟ 
u, de 18 ω am, > 7 
τ Diy 


ue, i, din 413, δὲ 
ων, ih ἕω ig 4.42 , 


188... 


44, ἐξ, 


Date Due 


ren - 


w Testament 


Seminary-Speer Library 


p eton Theologica ; 
| "}}}} WARY OU) MO TT 
| III I IN . Pe 
| III EIN | IN || IH || | I} ri 
| | | IH || | - > 
Il HE IH II} ne 


1 1012 00063 9718 Era 


LES Zu 22 24 23 32 25 AU 22 12 12 22 22 20 200 ὝΨΎΥΎΨΨΨ ee tet uh ee hee bi ths | an di 


el ett ee we  ε; 
? 


" ἀνὰ il el 
% 


WETTEETERT 
. 


‘ 
a le 
Ah . ..n..r 
en ar em er 


ar # 


